User talk:Sayerslle: Difference between revisions

User talk:Sayerslle/Archive#1

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sayerslle. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links on the page), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swallingwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i've just read a discussion you had with a user of the view that 'imperialism, slavery and semitism' are White Christian discoveries. I mentioned on the Dickens talk page that there was an excessive non white emphasis by the user which is way out of proportion than what you would find in a book on him (for example the 'Franklin incident' section is longer tnan 'Later Years', and has a lot content that has nothing to do with Dickens). Another editor posited that the article was being used as a soapbox to advance a personally held political position. Are you aware of any other literary article on wikipedia where politicizing to this extent has occured? Harrison 1979 (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC

Hi. When you recently edited Foreign involvement in the Spanish Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PCE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this message that you left on my talk page: You should do a bit of reading in the article loaded language. Just because the BBC uses a word doesn't mean it isn't a loaded term. And we can't use loaded terms here because of WP:NPOV. Furthermore, I would like to point out that using ad hominems is a sign of weakness. Accusing me of "loving Assad and Gaddafi" only shows that you've got no substantive arguments to dispute my edits. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wp uses the language that is widely/commonly used in the real world press/media - not scum language. the BBC has more kudos than scum . all your edits are scum edits imo. not very eloquent but there you are.Sayerslle (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Foreign involvement in the Spanish Civil War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Partido Comunista de España

Red Terror (Spain) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Basque Country

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Three users reported by User:Izidorscats (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for Personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Per "all your edits are scum edits imo. not very eloquent but there you are" on this talk page. You also called another editor a 'fucking moron vandal.' EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

who is igorfrom. i dunno. i still feel, and i wasn't going to keep on , it is best as far as posible , (and i like this quote from dante ) to ' go your way, and let the people speak' ..Sayerslle (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re the comment you made in your recent change on the Jean Simmons page, Pascal was a director, Rank was the production company. Pascal spotted Jean and probably organised the contract but the contract would have been with Rank -- SteveCrook (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sayerslle. You have new messages at Haruth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Sayerslle. You have new messages at Haruth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I did not intend to offend you with my opinion about a particular paper or UK papers in general. I read many UK papers each day online including the BBC and The Daily Telegraph. My intent was to be objective as possible about the article and sources and to steer clear of subjective sources. I have thought more about my stance on the email situation and have started a new section to discuss a new approach to them so that we can include more content that you would like to see added. I invite you to participate. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fast work! This is why I love Wikipedia. Thank you. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's listening to Radio 5 live too much really while sitting at my desk. Sayerslle (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I accidentally deleted that part! I meant only to remove the analysis. Sorry for that! Gaijin42 (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Glued to the Box (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mantegna, Peter Marshall, Andrew Gardner, The Bell, Flamingo Road and The Borgias (TV series)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily have a problem with inclusion of your recent edit in the article. I don't think it belongs in the lede, though. If you want to keep it POV neutral and place it in an appropriate part of the article, I think we'd have agreement regarding the contribution. Otherwise, it is still contested. If you want to push it, I feel pretty confident it won't remain in the lede, it doesn't meet the standards for inclusion there. Mamalujo (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qu'est ce que c'est? a message - oh no - no agreement ever - "its Dog Eat Dog - - I'm just waking up/The dove is in the dungeon/ and the white-washed hawks/ pedal hate and call it love/Dog eat dog/ Holy hope in the hands of/snakebite evangelists and racketeers -It's dog eat dog, ain't it Flim-Flam man?Dog eat dog, you can lie,/cheat,skim,scam/beat 'em any way you can/" -Joni Mitchell dontcha know - no agreement avec vous, ever - Sayerslle (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how they think they are serving the interests of peace, the Catholic Church, by what they do. Anyone who is genuinely seeking spiritual nourishment are put off by any hint of lying. Why should they believe in things that cannot be seen when the "evangelists" lie about things that can be be verified? Yt95 (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I agree - and I keep thinking of more Joni Mitchell lyrics I'm listening to at the moment , when thinking about certain figures in history -'We're no flaming angels/And he's not heaven sent/How can he speak for the Prince of Peace/ When he's hawk-right-militant ...'Sayerslle (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that, I've been thinking about buying a Joni Mitchell cd this past while. The last album I have of her is "The Hissing of the Summer Lawns" on vinyl from the 70's so I was thinking of getting a sort of greatest hits type collection. Any recommendations? Yt95 (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know i was looking on Amazon yesterday because listening to Dog eat Dog - which has several tracks i think are brilliant (Good Friends with Michael McDonald especilly) and I thought I'd like to get the next two of her Geffen albums Chalk Mark in a Rain Storm and Night Ride Home because I don't know those- What sparked my listening to Dog Eat Dog again was Whitney Houstons untimely death and the 1985/86 era came back to me when I listened to 3 records over and over -Whitneys debut album, Dog Eat Dog by Joni Mitchell,and Pat Benatar's Tropico album -all summer, must have been 1986, - so I'm not up on the arc of Joni Mitchells entire career really I'm afraid- I Love Hejira too though, and Coyote which just evokes Canada for me for some reason though I was only there for two weeks a long time ago - I'd look for a greatest hits album that had 'Woodstock', 'Good Friends', and 'Coyote', on it - or get Dog eat Dog and Hejira... ! Sayerslle (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I especially like late sixties West Coast music which I also associate Joni with - an old hippy who thinks still thinks there is something in the peace and love ethos so maybe I will start there and work forward. I used to have a rare single of her singing "Circle Game" with James Taylor which I really liked as a kid, though maybe one circle is enough if there is something better. Imagine stuck in wikipedia purgatory for ever! Yt95 (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC) But I just looked up the lyrics "There'll be new dreams maybe better dreams and plenty Before the last revolving year is through" so it's not on continuous repeat mode, whew. p.s I see you were born in Headingly. I lived for two years just outside Headingly and really liked the area, great people. Yt95 (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know 'circle game' - i like the look of some of her album covers, Clouds for example, and vinyl records do sound better really dont they - i'm glad you liked Headingley - again, like with Joni, my knowledge is very circumscribed - my family left Yorkshire when i was 2 - mum and I were both born in Leeds by chance, her dad was a gardener working at Harewood House for a bit and my dad worked for the Post office there for a few years only - i've looked at the place using google street view out of curiosity - what a thing for nostalgia google street view is -ive checked out nearly all the places i once knew - have you seen theres a new book out in June 'Eugenio pacelli in the view of scholarship' by peter pfister - could be interesting - i followed a link you gave elsewhere to Paul o'Shea's site and he said he'd changed his mind about Cornwell's work - i wonder why thats come about? - i'd like to get o'shea's book too but i still havent finished Cornwell and Gerard Noels books about pius. so many books!Sayerslle (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was listening in the library today to Circle Game on Youtube[ and it still touches my heart. Digital music players are really great for the convenience but when I was a teenager I liked setting up the turntable to get the most out the vinyl and of course there was really great artwork to complement the music which was lost with the intro of the small cd case. The artwork was such a big part of the San Francisco bands albums of the late 60's. It was the company I worked for that took me to Leeds but I never met more friendly people in my life when I arrived. I stayed on the other side of the ring road from Headingly so used to go through it every day getting to work. I had avoided reading John Cornwells book until last year because I never liked the polemical title but it wasn't anything like I expected based on the vitriol poured out by the snake-oil merchants. There were mistakes in it but the next history book published without an error will be first one. When he defined what he meant by "Hitler's Pope", i.e the Popes failure to make an explicit public denunciation, I could accept the observation but not his conclusion and still feel he shot himself in the foot by allowing the publisher to use such a provocative title. I don't know why Paul O' Shea has changed his mind but it cannot be on the basis of Cornwell's assertion that no explicit denunciation was made by Pius XII, naming names and so on, (though he did allude in very general terms at times) - maybe he thinks John Cornwell could have been more balanced and given more treatment to Pius's more favourable attributes. The book you mention I don't know anything about but on a google search I see the editor is head of the diocesan archives in Munich. I don't know if there is anything new from such sources. Guenter Lewy was the pioneer in this area though, if I remember correctly, there was at least one diocese that wouldn't allow him access and another who made reference to him being a Jew. His work has passed the test of time in my opinion even though it was written in the early sixties. The snake-oil merchants blast every book that dares to point out the errors of the past. In the case of Lewy they picked out one passage, in an otherwise very sober and scholarly work, when he speculated on the reasons for the Vatican's somewhat muted response - that the curia may have been touched by a degree of anti-Semitism. The reality is religious anti-Semitism (as distinct from the Nazi racial anti-Semitism) was pretty much the norm in Christian Europe at the time so Lewy was far from expressing an extreme point of view. Yt95 (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're probably right about O'Shea's reservations - and the title- one can see it might have been chosen to sell copies - I'm reading 'unearthing francos legacy' at the moment and paul prestons essay in it - he writes about the language used by the Right - of the need to exterminate vermin kind of thing - and from sources like Angel herreras 'ascoiation catolica nacional de propagandistas' that in the Asturias for eg the left wing workers 'deserved to be punished by exposure to Moorish atrocities' - that it was ironically just that 'the Moorishness' ie. the barbarsim of the working class left deserved the Moors - it is a kind of racial inferiority being asigned the left - and some of the Carlist language 'there are moving around spain complete teams of creatures injected with rabies - ' -i think i'm less inclined than you to think the anti-Semitism and anti-leftism was not at all stained by ideas of racial inferiority/superiority - and pius - i was very struck by Cornwells book when he reported the letter pacelli wrote back to Rome on revoutionary Munich - full of disgust , physical disgust , for the revolutionaries - whatever else, it all seems millions of miles from the kind of things Jesus would have written Sayerslle (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The principle was that once a Jew was baptised they ceased to be a Jew whereas with the Nazis once a Jew always a Jew, albeit a baptismal certificate for a converted Jew (the Church called them "Non-Aryan Catholics") did at times bring some protection. I think you are right about language and acts we now call racist being commonly employed in the past even by official organs of the Church, and even the Popes. I think a lot of this is the principle of "otherness" at work, probably at a sub-conscious level. The effect of it is to dehumanise the target group and make them worthy of hate. Hitler more than once said to women at Bertesgarten, when they asked for mercy towards the Jews, words to the effect "you must learn to hate, hate, hate". He probably worked on the assumption that unity and communion founded on love was all very well but human beings have often shown a greater capacity to rally around the flag of hate. This happened on both sides of the Spanish Civil War. At the present time there is worry in Europe about the rise of Neo-Nazi parties in the wake of economic woes and how there is a distant echo of what happened in Germany after the Wall St crash led to an exodus of money to cover the calls of the speculators in the U.S. Hitler was the "strong man" that many turned to then but look what happened. I never used Cornwalls book for anything on wikipedia because I have many of the secondary scholarly sources he used for his own work. Though Ronald Rychlak rightly noted the errors, it didn't stop him using Cornwell's book extensively in his own work as a reliable secondary source. (his own book certainly isn't free of issues) Oddly enough it was Cornwell's book that showed me in a couple anecdotes what I took to be maybe Pacelli's true self under all the pomp and circumstance associated with the papacy - a boy. This reminds me of somebody you like. I was talking to a Cistercian several years ago who recalled when Malcolm visited his abbey with a TV crew in 1960's. At that time it was a strictly silent order but when the cameras stopped rolling Malcolm, like a naughty schoolboy, was laughing and kept pushing him to tell him swear words in sign language! Yt95 (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a boy - Yes, i know what you mean . I wonder if that abbey was Sancta Maria Abbey, Nunraw? I ve seen excerpts from a visit he made there -, he made an excellent film about a trip to Lourdes too around that time 1963-1966 ish -, - though I have to say I think he lost it toward the very end - i saw a couple of months ago the debate he ahd with John Cleese and Michael Palin about the Life of Brian , and I thought John Cleese made Malcolm seem out of time really - he lost his good judgment I think toward the very end. Still love him though. Sayerslle (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, his friend Richard Ingrams thought the same. I think part of the reason is maybe that Malcolm had a kind of very free lifestyle in his early years and, as happens with so many who undergo some kind of conversion experience, he flipped in the opposite direction in his later years. I think there is a bit of the fundamentalist in most people, veering off one way, course correction, veering off in the other direction until some kind of middle of the road state is established? I think Ingrams also said that towards then end, when in his dotage, he thought he expressed anti-Semitic sentiments. I don't know what he said but maybe when the brain has trouble remembering recent patterns of thoughts and memories the old ones still remain. He came through the thirties when anti-Semitic sentiments were nothing unusual. Yt95 (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Ingrams biography when it cam e out - I think i do remember vaguely something about anti-Semitic remarks when his mind was going - - its true that the 1930s was a very strange terible time - even George Orwell surprised me a bit when i read 'down and Out in paris and london' , when hes tramping and he'll write something like (can't remember exatly) ' a grubby looking man, a Jew...' its like it was in the air they all breathed -disastrous - it is disgusting to see parties like Golden Dawn in greece now - is there a fundamentalist in most people? - i remember watching good old john betjeman being asked near the end of his life by jonathan stedall 'is there anything you feel absolutely sure about john?' and he hesitated, thought and then said ' no...i don't think there is - i wouldn't like to lay down the law about anything.' probably the middle of the road is the most mature position, perhaps that was lacking in the 1930s - not enough people willing to stand up for imperfect democracies because of utopian chimeras.Sayerslle (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of take it that "faith" involves a kind of uncertainty otherwise it wouldn't be faith. But even people with no belief in other than the material can be believe they have a truth that other people must accept as the history of the 20th century shows. Maybe it more to do with a personality trait, excercising control over other people, power lust and all that. Religion and science just becomes the vehicle for something which is far more banal. Yt95 (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

personality trait - oh gawd - the end of 'Dockery & Son' by Philip Larkin comes to my mind ;

Life is first boredom, then fear/ Whether or not we use it, it goes/ and leaves what something hidden from us chose/And age, and then the only end of age.

some are born to seek to exercise control - others to be mystics, magicians, fools - archetypes - free will? Sayerslle (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Often thought about it but no answer, cue Moody Blues "Question" Yt95 (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use edit summaries like this one. You should have stopped at WP:NOTAFORUM.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you alter your editing habits. If you continue to give edit summaries like the above, and like this one [1], you will be reported for personal attacks. Meowy 01:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the substance of the edit summary - bias. am i 100% wrong? Sayerslle (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

p.s , from cursory glance at your talk, meowy - 'probably you had never even heard of syria until last year, but now, all whipped up with fake indignation fueled by whatever propaganda news channel you watch - leave wikipedia alone.' bloody hell,- and you'd report me. ah well - all part of life's rich pageant i suppose. Sayerslle (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sayerslle, the immediate matter here concerns your abuse of (and insertion of abuse into) article edit summaries. You have done it many times - it is not just limited to the two examples cited here. This is not what edit summaries are for. Meowy 17:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this [2], I've got no objection to either phrasing myself, but it seems redundant to me to say "Shia/Alawite men from Shia/Alawite villages"--I think that's why another editor altered it originally. Thanks for the addition, btw. That Channel 4 News source is one of the most helpful added to the article yet. Khazar2 (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think for some readers 'shabiha from shia/alawite villages ..' could mean - the men were not either shia or alawite, but they came from those villages -' I just think spelling it out, as it is in the source, is the better idea - channel 4 News - yes, it is generally pretty excellent i think and has been for ages. Sayerslle (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to give you a heads-up that this edit [3] appears to be nearly verbatim from the source, and I've had to adjust it accordingly. Please remember that Wikipedia policy on close paraphrasing and copyright violation mean that we have to somewhat rewrite content that we're adding, rather than reproducing sentences verbatim. No harm done, but please be careful with this in the future. Cheers, and thanks for your edits, Khazar2 (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

copyright - nightmare - you sent me to the wrong page - please learn about disambiguation. Sayerslle (talk) 06:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean; it appears to me both links are correct. Cutting and pasting from a text without putting the text in quotation marks is straight-up, if minor, copyright violation--"even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure (this can also raise problems of plagiarism)."-- hence the link. As I said, no harm done, but please do be careful in the future. Khazar2 (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

grrrr - well when I click on CLOSE - i get a page about Closing discussions - I dont care about minor copyright violations - if theres a transgression, just delete the edit - my experience at other times is that when editors have departed from simple texts from books and papers to use their own creative language they have sometimes departed also from the meaning of what they were seeking to impart from the chosen text - if you get my drift. in any case - as you have said - no harm done. far more important is npov imo - - some have tugged my coat ( phrase I like nicked from Danny Baker ) to tell me they have had to remove a photo or two - like one of malcolm muggeridge from the homage to catalonia article - if they hadn't bothered it seems to me absolutely nothing would have happened - still, . Sayerslle (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. My mistake. And FWIW, I agree with you that it's a very difficult line to walk between being overly faithful to the source and not faithful enough; I struggle with it in my own editing, too. But do be careful about verbatim text--that's definitely on the wrong side of that narrow line! Thanks again for all your work at Houla massacre... Khazar2 (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You do seem very even-handed in your editing on the article. that ANNA source - User:A Quest for Knowledge translated their raison d'etre at the reliable sources noticeboard -thinks it likely its an 'advocacy site', 'a group blog', it has a worldview that determines how it will report events - - Channel 4 news, they go in , and report as they find, no pre-determined script - thats the difference - thats why i thought meco was worth fighting. Sayerslle (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Tel Aviv shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. The page has now been protected, please discuss on the talk page rather than edit warring. - filelakeshoe 20:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sayerslle, what was the point of all that? If an editor feels strongly that something belongs in an article but there are other editors that disagree, that's what the Discussion page is for.—Biosketch (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[4] what was the point of that? i dunno - sorry i disturbed your tourist brochure style. taré Sayerslle (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is not racism like the world think !. the problem is that the origianl citizens of south tel aviv is leaving there homes becouse of these African migrant workers. the residents of tel aviv doמ't mind the fact that are a migrant workers from 40 countries. HOW MANY PEOPLE DID ENGLAND + CHINA + AMERICA WAS DEPORTED  ? .... allways israel is the bad guy ?! ....... intresting . פארוק (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you not to refer to my edits as "utter lying garbage" and accusing me of censorship, as you did here. You know full well that such behaviour may result in being blocked from editing Wikipedia, and I will report your misconduct if it happens again. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

go for it. Sayerslle (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Abusive language by User:Sayerslle. Thank you. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You very well know when I said what I said I was methaphorical and not lying. When I said dozens I ment numereous (you in fact reverted 5 times). And I did not accuse you specifically of reverting dozens of times. I was describing what an edit war is in practice, not that you personally reverted dozens of times. You were being too literal. I was trying to make a point that edit warring is not required when we can discuss the issue and reach a consensus. I don't know what is the reason for this behavior. You need to assume good faith from other editors if you wish to work as a team in the effort to positively contribute to Wikipedia. But since you are now even accusing me of being a lier, highly uncivil, than I think I have nothing more to discuss with you. In the future, ask for an administrators/arbitors opinion. Good night! EkoGraf (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you want to look up metaphorical in a dictionary. you exaggerated to paint me in a bad light. Sayerslle (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I want to make you look bad? I don't even know you friend. EkoGraf (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thats true. i'm going off to read Peter Mansfield (historian) on the middle east - 20 years ago he wrote; "what the Arab world urgently needs is more democracy, wider political participation and much greater respect for human rights."Sayerslle (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christians were reportedly present in early demonstrations in Homs but stopped participating in them when Islamist Salafi slogans were proclaimed.^[1]

do you think you fairly represented the referenced material with this edit? I couldnt find in the BBC article the emphasis you put on the material here at all. is that because I'm missing something or is it your POV editing? the article says everyone walked off in solidarity with the Xtians and as far as I could see didnt say they stopped participating full stop at allSayerslle (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you attribute those edits to me? FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

because in the edit history it isnt there after you edited on 2 march and then it is there after you edited on 4 march. still, a revealing answer in its way i guess. says it allSayerslle (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read whatever you want into it, who cares, seems I must have mixed up different articles or something, it was months ago. FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i read into it you are a liar and a twister for your POV - you got 'mixed up' - yeah right. fuck off. Sayerslle (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why dont admins like wilkins confront twisting liars like this bloke rather than hastle over civility crimes - as if integrity isnt way more important? Sayerslle (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

are you allowed to censor my talk page? please don't - Sayerslle (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for personal attacks. Originally the block was shorter, but having seen more of your editing history I have increased it. Considering your history of blocks for similar reasons, together with statements which make it perfectly clear that you have no intention of abiding by Wikipedia's policy on this issue, I think this block is minimal. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sayerslle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

for telling a liar to fuck off - who said 'who cares' about misrepresenting source material, i get a months ban. that is way excessive imo. and wrongheaded - admins semm to prioritise 'civility' over integrity - very wrongheaded - and then loking back - what over 3 years jamesbwatson,, when i have had a few blocks - and then deciding that constituted a pattern of endless, excessive personal attacks - when in 3 years i've had a block a year - normally, until this absurdity - for about 24 hours. Where did i say i had no intention of abiding by wps policy - i have no desire to be sweary - i think if swearing is outlawed totally wp poicies are out of kilter but i dont believe swearing is illegal on wp. anyway- i think this ban is outrageously excessive -and admins should confront POV twisters more - this picking on the odd use of the f word - too easySayerslle (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wikipedia works because people work together. That's why the civility rules are very important- it is not possible for people to work together if they can't be polite to one another. This is your fourth block for making personal attacks, so a month seems very reasonable. Generous, even. It's likely that the next one will be six months, a year, or even indefinite. You seem to think that one block a year for personal attacks is reasonable- it's very unusual. Most people never get blocked, and to have a block log as long as yours but not be permanently blocked is unusual. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

i dont suppose you bothered to look at what led to my unforgivable use of the f word :

Christians were reportedly present in early demonstrations in Homs but stopped participating in them when Islamist Salafi slogans were proclaimed.^[1]

do you think you fairly represented the referenced material with this edit? I couldnt find in the BBC article the emphasis you put on the material here at all. is that because I'm missing something or is it your POV editing? the article says everyone walked off in solidarity with the Xtians and as far as I could see didnt say they stopped participating full stop at allSayerslle (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you attribute those edits to me? FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

because in the edit history it isnt there after you edited on 2 march and then it is there after you edited on 4 march. still, a revealing answer in its way i guess. says it allSayerslle (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read whatever you want into it, who cares, seems I must have mixed up different articles or something, it was months ago. FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i read into it you are a liar and a twister for your POV - you got 'mixed up' - yeah right. fuck off. Sayerslle (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-isnt that misrepresenting the source and then denying you wrote it ? is that all fine? - i dont accept no workplace operates properly without the occasional verbal fracas- i've known workplaces where the odd verbal fracas arose - seems par for the course to me - i don't like the implication that you'll enforce a surface perfectionism of conduct while POV twisting and 'subtle' verbal undermining, and mocking bullying such as BWilkins practices is winked at and encouraged - loathesome to me all that - - this last verbal storm in a teacup was all but blown out until the interference of BWilkins - who doesnt seem to actually edit articles much - anyway, teachers rarely get it right when dealing with bullies thats been my experience - c'est la vie. Sayerslle (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confused: the block is not about swearing, it's for calling people "liar" and other such personal attacks, and similar actions throughout your "career" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what does "career" imply - is that a personal attack. or just snidy. like the editor implied he hadnt made the edits that twisted the source material. i guess thats the difference - i just say what i'm thinking, straight out, you leave snidy comments in " " , and you, like the other editor, imply things - mean really. snide.Sayerslle (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this discussion, and some of your other comments to warnings, I am getting the impression that you don't think WP:CIVIL is a good rule, and that you are not willing to follow it. Is that correct? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sayerslle (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. No, you don't think that WP:CIVIL is a good policy, and no you don't intend to follow it.

If I read this talkpage correctly, you have copy/pasted another conversation in the middle of this unblock discussion ... why? It makes it look like others have been involved in this conversation. You also understand that someone else's comments may explain your own incivility, but they can never excuse it. In addition, your "example" is horrifically non-WP:AGF. You called someone to the carpet for an edit they made 3 months ago ... what use is that? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Horrifically? Do you watch the news? how can you call anything I write here horrific? perspective? -AS for the 'no' it was a reply to fisherqueens question 'you intend to ignore CIVIL?' kind of question - - do you believe in civility - was it civil to mock at my wp'career' - the edit made was still on the page , for all that it was made 3 months ago - and i dont find that so long ago anyhow , and it was not an accurate reflection of the source. and then i got told 'who cares?' - well, i do. i care that material is accurately reflected and not distorted. naive i guess. Sayerslle (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... some of this discussion is copied from elsewhere? The people who appear to have commented on your block did not, in fact, comment on your block? I don't understand why you would do that. Could you remove the conversation that didn't happen here, and replace it with a link? It is not okay to misrepresent other users in that way- and it makes it confusing to understand what discussion of your block has really happened. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one has commented on the block except you because I asked for a review after wilkins/waston blocked me . thats it. noone else has commented on it. Sayerslle (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff of this page where he copied/pasted from this discussion here ...or was it originally directly above the block notice? It's been copy/pasted all over, so it seems (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm super confused about where that conversation actually happened. It's a pretty clear example of you assuming bad faith of another editor, and being insulting in a situation where being a little more reasonable would have worked better, so I have no idea why you'd want to cut and paste it anywhere - did you think it made you look like you were in the right? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps i just wanted to practise cutting and pasting. is that finished now. you think i'm lucky to be blocked for a month, - perhaps it should be indefinite. ok. finished? weird indeed. in a month maybe i can return and edit some articles - like therese of lisieux - god knows it would be nice to spend some mental time in the orbit of a spirit like that. cleansing. Sayerslle (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for after this months block is ended

1: is there a place i can ask for admins actions and manners to be reviewed?

• is AGF not just a starting place - after other editiors have manifested, and exhibited obvious bad faith and incivility, does it still hold
• arent admins meant to be calm , and above it kind of thing - when wilkins mocks at my wp 'career' , talks of me 'horrifically' non AGF-ing - and when fisher queen mocks with ' do you think you are somehow shown in a good light' etc like you you scum kind of thing,, they are heightening the atmosphere, not being civil themselves. isnt there a rule like 'want to enforce civility rules - obey civility rules' - or has an editor who used the 'f' word become fair game, beyond the pale like the jews in the middle ages,and admins can go at it like poor old Angus getting basketed by the bullies in Summoned by Bells.
• shouldnt there be some kind of rule that to be an admin at least half your edits should be on articles - kind of power corrupts, -those who seek it are least likely the ones you'd want to have it - those that see being an admin as a big deal, who hardly edit articles should be ruled out because the main focus is the encyclopedia, not the policing - i reckon people who care about the content of an article tend to look after them anyhow.- like wilkins thinks its a big deal to be an admin, he thinks 99% of admin abuse is abuse of admins - he's pre-judged everything, got everything out of perspective, not only is being an admin not a big deal, the whole of wp is not a big deal in the scheme of things - its just an online version of those big heavy books on the bottom shelf of the bookcase isnt it? -
• and the utterly cavalier appoach to the bad faith, so that admins dont seem to care about NPOV, is that typical of all adnmins or just these two?
• and the wilkins 'law' of 'that might explain - doesnt excuse' - so what excuses your mockery of my 'career' then wilkins - my 'f' word might explain your mockery, but does it excuse it? - and fisherqueens disdain ' do you think that shows you ina good light? - again , it seems like the admins are heightening feelings - not above it all enough - admins should edit more articles and police a bit less - and finally, as for 'career' wilkins - thats probably a bit of veiled autobiography , my wp acivity is more an outcrop of ocd ish behaviour, and after a month I'll probbly have got different routines so that 'll be it - and no that isnt an invite to fisherqueen to block me for ever thuogh she seems eager to do so -bcause i might like to edit Orwell or THerese articles - Sayerslle (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who mocked you? I always put "career" in quotes or italics because none of us get paid for this, so it's not really a career. I see you've been harping on that for some reason. Again, WP:AGF a little.

You're not blocked for saying "fuck"; you're blocked for personal attacks. Even above, you seem to continue to believe you're above civility and community as a whole. This is a community.

You are always welcome to see a breakdown of my contributions. I find this one to break things down best - of course, you don't get to see my contributions to articles that have since been deleted. At least one of the articles I have created was featured as a "did you know", so I do my own share of gnomish work around here, thanks.

I'm willing to believe that your actions are all because you've never read nor understood the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. It's good reading. Indeed, if you read those, and then read WP:GAB, you would probably be able to put together a pretty good unblock request that another admin may accept. Then you'll be able to file an WP:RFC/U about my editing, or an WP:RFC/ADMIN if you have some proof that I have actually abused my admin tools.

Finally, I will remind you: while blocked, the only use of your talkpage is supposed to be to attempt to become unblocked. Additional discussions, personal attacks against anyone, etc can lead to this talkpage being locked. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sayerslle, sorry if it appears I'm butting in here but since I've never edited the article in question, but have been involved with pages associated with ideologically driven editors, that some observations may be in order. Having looked at the edit in question it is clearly wrong as you state but unless there has been a history of such editing by the same editor I would in this instance assume it wasn't deliberate and that it's simply a misreading/paraphrase of the two paragraphs in the original article. It may even be a case of the editor seeing what they assumed to be there at the unconscious level. I have made the same mistake. These articles, I guess, will generate a lot of heat. The only time I accused somebody of lying on wikipedia was because I knew of a whole string of questionable edits such that there was no reasonable grounds for assuming good faith and the editor in question didn't report me (a wise decision on their part from my point of view). Do you have a link to where the person complained to an admin about you calling he/she a liar and rejected the accusation? To block somebody for a month without first analysing the truth of a charge seems strange since it revolves around matters of fact. If you have a got it wrong then I'm sure when the temperature has dropped you would right any wrong committed in the heat of the moment and you don't need wiki legalese to do the human thing. Yt95 (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello yt95 - I dont think the editor complained to an admin and rejected the accusation. admins have decided that i need blocking for a month without him complaining i think - i dont even believe i can write here unless I'm seeking to be unblocked and i shan't bother any further with all that. its quite authoritarian - not much fun. i dont mind being reminded not to be potty mouthed - fair enough, i find the 'who says i wrote it' and 'who cares?' kind of uncivil, but people see things differently - one thing is with the month clear of any ocd-ish wp editing i shall really read paul johnsons 'history of Xty' which i started a while back and found his style fine , but then went off on other roads again. best wishes. Sayerslle (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watson - i read on the link Wilkins indicated that to complain about admins actions i should address concerns first to the admin who blocked me . Can I ask 1: did you look at the edit that i questioned[5] - the edit funkmonk made on the syrian crisis and sectarianism. if you did, did you see the point I was making? - that the edit mangled the sense and misrepresented the paul wood bbc article - with pov effects - intended or not. 2: when the editor responds ' who says i made the edit?' - do you as an admin think that is civil? - and is it good faith? , to my enquiry? why dissemble at this point? 3: when he acknowledges he did make the edit, he says 'who cares? - i got mixed up' - is that bad faith in your admins eyes? is that totally civil? since obviously the questioner cares or he wouldn't have asked would he? and that it was all of 3 months ago - do you see as an admin that is not so long ago and is hardly relevant since the eit was live , on the article page, misrepresenting the bbc article .shouldn't editors care if they misrepresent? , and thus catastrophically distort the meaning of the source? then , at this point, faced with this evasiveness, and then incivility to my enquiry - at this point i write 'liar - fuck off' . I am banned for a month - funkmonk is not even asked politiely to use more care in future and respond helpfully to enquiries. 4; when fisherqueen mocks me for wanting to point out the occasion for the 'liar' / personal abuse , she says - i was the one who all along did not assume good faith - but i asked a question - a valid question concerning an honest concern - only when i was treated with disdain and bamboozled with 'who says i wrote it?' kind of thing - who cares? ' etc did I then no longer really AGF and swore. those are my questions to you. Sayerslle (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

houla massacre tlk page - funkmonk has a POV to push all right. where is watson admin to look at my complaints. why doesnt fisherqueen ask funkmonk if he has any POV at all? why are the admins so useless and corrupt? Sayerslle (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. You have already been told, but I'll tell you again. You were not blocked for saying "fuck off", you were blocked for personal attacks.
2. You do not seem to grasp the point that personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia, no matter how convinced you are that someone else's editing is at fault. Posting here at great length to explain why you think other people's editing is wrong is missing the point.
3. I do not see anything that looks to me like "mocking" you.
4. You have continued to make personal attacks on this page while blocked. If you really honestly can't see that that is what you have been doing then it is very likely that you will continue to make personal attacks, which will be likely to lead to an indefinite block. To avoid that, I strongly urge you to re-read everything you have written on this page, and try to see how it will look to others. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is that answering my specific questions about whether you looked at the incident that sparked this block? if i'm blocked for 'personal attacks' and 'harassment' - when no editor compained i was 'personally attacking' or 'harassing' them - how it looks to me - like bullying really. like i've got the wrong side of wilkins/watson/fisherqueen - no-one has complained about me to you have they? and i just edit articles really mainly - occasional verbal exchanges on talk pages - i shout and am shouted at kind of thing - politics/history on talk pages - it is fairly common ( and yes, i do think i should stop swearing, even if very frustrated) - and for this i get a months ban from uninvolved admins who havent ben called to intervene - because why would i be complained about - i am not the caricature you admins are painting frankly - thats it - i'll shut up - you obviously aren't going to say whether you looked at the incident where i was concerned over an edit that misrepresented a bbc article. you know - bothering about the integrity of the prose - or 'missing the point' as you see it. i am blocked for harassment - though no-one said i was harassing them and 'personal abuse' though no-one complained to an admin i was personally abusing them - (though yes, i accept, i did abuse funkmonk and have abused a few others - and its been mutual dislike) i see this - you and wilkins and fisherqueen hate my guts, thats how it looks to me. Sayerslle (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody needs to complain about being harassed - your actions led to the block, period. I have never hated any individual in my life. You are STILL not accepting responsibility for YOUR ACTIONS. How many times do we need to point out the specific policies that you broke before you actually get it. If the answer is "never" then we might as well lock this talkpage, and block you indefinitely. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do accept responsibility for my edits. I personally, if an editor came to my talk page and said 'i saw this edit of yours Sayerslle and the ref you gave it for it, and i can't see how you got from one to the other. whats this about -what you've written seems to misrepresent whats written in the source material - what explains that sayerslle, your pov? what? ' - i would have looked at my edit and then replied. thats me accepting responsibility. when i asked a question similar i was told 'what makes you say i wrote it?' and then 'who cares?' and 'i got mixed up' - from a single source? - i would have just answered the questions straight off - but I accept i am obviously the one out of step - i shall certainly change my ways - if suffered to be allowed to return to volunteer to edit articles i shall never depart from article space -and never depart from the blandest civility if attacked myself on my talk page Sayerslle (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came to me on my talkpage about an edit I did 3 months ago, I'd pretty much ignore it - I cannot remember the circumstances behind all 28000+ edits I have done. If you pushed me to try and remember, I'd probably treat you with some degree of contempt - just like they did. It's all well and good to discuss recent edits/changes, but there's a logical/common sense thing that comes into play as we forget the reasoning behind specific edits. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

youd 'probably treat me with some degree of contempt' - because i asked you about an edit that deformed the source material? - all of three months ago? hardly time for 28,000 edits - i dont forget the reasoning behind edits i made all of three months ago - but we are different. and it seems to me like what you're saying above is rather the opposite of taking responsibilty for your edits -and i dont think contempt is a CIVIL response either to a concern about the integrity of the prose, - which is the centre of the project after all isnt it?, the articles with the words the reader reads about the subject of the article. Sayerslle (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does "some degree of contempt" equal uncivil? No. God almighty, will you just cut out the WP:BATTLE mentality - it doesn't belong in life, and it sure doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Look, don't even bother asking me what I had for breakfast last Monday - I won't remember. Nevertheless, it was your RESPONSE when the other editor said "I DON'T REMEMBER" - you called him a liar, and went off on him. That is not, nor shall it ever be. That's the entire point. If you cannot fathom that, then we might as well just lock this talkpage and move on - there're more intelligent things to be doing here than having a battle of wits with an unarmed individual (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

to edit articles - thats all i want yes , move on. except i'm blocked. when i'm unblocked it will be articles 100% as far as i'm concerned. Sayerslle (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so, an unblock request that is WP:GAB-compliant will help. In it, you'll need to acknowledge that what you said was uncivil, that you will ensure not to follow that path again, nor maintain any form of WP:BATTLE-attitude, and include a good idea of the types of edits/articles you intend to improve as you move forward. Eventually, if you're able to do as you're suggesting, this whole thing will blow over and be gone ... I personally will not action the unblock, so make it good and make it count. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

notes from Paul O'Shea's book intro : " acceptance of Pius XII as the veritable savior of Europe's Jews is proof of fidelity to the Church, the pope, and the Tradition. Alterntively, suggestions that Pius made mistakes, or worse, is regarded as proof of dissent and even apostasy. the good guys are devout catholics who have studied Pius XII's life, the vatican and John paul II" and the bad guys are " the media, liberal catholics, academicians, and editorial commentators."

significantly, over the last ten years there have been a growing number of Jewish voices allied with the catholic Far right on the question of paceli's role during the Holocaust. they are often well-funded, media-savvy, and enjoy significant favour with a number of like-minded vatican officials. Their commitment is always to a willingness to substitute rigorous and open research with the inflexible certainty of ideological devotion. It may appear somewhat simplistic, but the only way forward is through the speedy opening of the Vatican archives of the 1939-45 war. If Rome wishes to engage seriously with historians on the role of the wartime pope, dalliances with the polemicists and apologists must be replaced by engagement with credible and qualified historians. - [in] what has become more of a war of attrition than historical inquiry."

"The justifiable and verifiable, criticsm that can be made is that pius XII did not give as full a leadership as was possible through public proclamation of the type employed by other leaders from both sides of the war. he never once spoke of Jews as a distinct victim group. " - " he acted in response to situations, rarely taking the initiative, and always with an eye to the context of what he perceived as the larger struggle between Christianity and atheistic Bolshevism." - aktion, grande razzia Rome , October 1943 " many - were astounded that he refused to be used as a political pawn by either side - at the end of the war, pius declared to the world that he had done all he could to the best of his ability."- "Pius named almost every victim group except one - Jews . communists were named more often - the fear that refused to vanish - the Popes dread of a communist sweep across what he still regarded as Christian Europe. [!]-

Questions - How did pacelli respond to the rise in antisemitism in Europe throughout the interwar years.."

for the intro , maybe , if expanded In 1963 Rolf Hochhuth's play The Deputy had opened in Germany and in effect accused the pope of negligence and moral culpability before the Nazi destruction of European Jewry. Hochhuth's work in turn had led supporters of the dead pope to write about Pacelli's strengths and virtues - amid rumours of a Soviet-inspired black propaganda conspiracy created to depict Pius as pro-German and pro-Nazi. Disturbed by increasing negative evaluations of the Church's role during the war, Paul VI ordered a team of Vatican-approved scholars - Pierre Blet, Robert Graham, Angelo Martini, Burkhart Schneider - to collect and edit all relevant documents pertaining to the Secretariat of State of the Holy see during the Second World War. 12 volumes of Actes et Documents du Saint-Siege relatifs a la Seconde Guerre Mondiale were published between 1965 and 1981,- " as a direct result of Hochhuth's paly and the growth of academic and religious unrest over the role of Pius XII during the Holocaust."

A recent study of the issue by historian Paul O'Shea concluded that "deliberate ignorance of the complex network of multiple contexts -military objectives,Vatican power politics of whatever hue, the legacy of centuries of anti-Judaism and Christian antisemitism, the battle against modernity, and the all-too comfortable alliances with shades of fascism - leave Pius XII's defenders without credibility". The Vatican had decided as early as 1924 that Soviet Russia posed the greatest threat to Christianity and that all other regimes were open to at least some form of negotiation with Rome. "Pacelli's decisions - to keep the Catholic Church as intact as possible within Germany and Occupied Europe until liberation by an allied coalition would come a a price - Rome would not do or say anything that would create a crisis of conscience for German Catholics, many of whom were active in their support of the Reich and the war, and , at least, passive toward the elimination of the Jews." ^[2]

Nothing has demonstrated the inadequacy of the international community's response to the crisis in Syria quite so starkly as the growing number of massacres in the country's Sunni Arab villages.

The first reports of what appears to be the bloodiest yet filtered through as the UN Security Council met in closed session to make yet another attempt to step up the pressure on Bashar al-Assad, Syria's president.

As many as 200 people were killed in the village of Treimsa, according to opposition figures, eclipsing the bloodletting in nearby Qubeir, where between 55 and 78 died on June 6th, and May's Houla massacre that claimed 108 lives. from telegraph article - see guardian also UN obstructed from entering Tremseh..etc [6] - that article - wp article its not a massacre - usual edits trajectory

Hi! You were right, it was in the report that was watchable in the blog, so it truely is sourced. My apologies. That Alex Thomson surely is weird man, rebels tried to get him killed, but he still sympathises with them. It ain't Stockholm syndrome, but it is something quite likely. But anyway, you were right and I was wrong. Will try better the next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kepukka (talk • contribs) 10:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'something quite likely stockholm syndrome' ? - psychiatry to explain away the unwelcome report, off to a psychiatric hospital for him, he is weird - or maybe he has no predetermined script and is not just about propaganda maybe. if he thinks the rebels try to get him killed, he says so - if the graffiti is painted over he says so , a camera records the physical scene- maybe he's just a reporter trying to do his level best and as fairly as possible - hard to believe i'm sure. Sayerslle (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC) today 26 july btw thomsons blog is very unflattering of saudi/qatari influence - neither regime as he points out , has a good democratic record - the sectarian nature of its seeking influence and the anti-democratic role saudis played in bahrain. etc . he is like a journalist, not a partisan for the syrian rebels - says he has tried to get to talk tto the ASsad people but they are stasi-like secretive - hurting their case kind of thing - Sayerslle (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding Russian support. They have normal bilateral relations, they have a contract about sale of arms, which means, Russians give arms to Assad and he pays, while US, Qatar, Britain ect are giving aid and rebels don't need to give them anything in return. You see, Assad is still president of UN-member country called Syria, and it's normal that two countries keep the good relations. So, any country, according to your logic, that has a trade contract with Syria is supporting them in the conflict? --Wustenfuchs 01:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't normal times. you know russia supports Assad dont you ? its like chechnya to putin. if military economic diplomatic support is going in, its going in.. its late - im not a sophist, reality is the master. the reality is Russia is supporting ASsad al kinds of ways - you know it, i know it, everyone knows it - but keep condescending to me telling me i dont understand, i don't care. reality is the master. Russia/Putin , the flag should be there . Sayerslle (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • december - faisalal miqdad deputy foreign minister - Mr Miqdad said they “have daily conversations” with their Russian counterparts -- how does Syria and the Syrian government get out of its present crisis? Mr Miqdad spoke of the end of the leading role of the Baath party, and, if that did not work, national dialogue.

There is no need for your sarcasm in your edit summary. It was NOT clearly sourced previous, which is why I deleted it. Furthermore your current rather scant citation (apart from being in an inconsistent style to the remainder of the article) leads to a page which makes no reference to Peter Hall whatsoever, nor does it support your edit. I will flag this up to the FAC citation reviewer and ask for their comments. - SchroCat (^ • @)

the peter hall quote derives from the programme - the bbc page was just to prove the existence of the programme mentioned - as for 'inconsistent style' well i'm sorry - so good content will be axed for inferior cliched tabloid rubbish because it doesnt fit some need for a false idea of what excellence is etc. i dont mean to be sarcastic - i genuinely can't stand the daily mail style of speaking bout things its all opinions of what makes a good read. if you axe the excellent peter hall/arena material i won't seek to return it to the article and will just not read the tabloid-eze personally. wikiwatcher hated the peter hall quote in the lead too - so you agree about that at least. Sayerslle (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have is that it is fairly unverifiable. If there was a link to the programme's text, then that would be great, but there isn't. I've asked the FAC citation reviewer to comment. It's also poorly written—"he lacked the talent to deal with his talent"—the double use of 'talent' jarrs, as does the additional space before the citation. As we're at FAC with the article they are a little hot on things being written properly, cited properly and sourced properly. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i'm precis-ing the peter Hall quote which was 'its not enough in this business to have talent - you have to have talent to handle the talent - and that i think peter didn't have'- i don't personally find it jarring - i like the repetition in fact-in the original - my condensing is less well phrased of course - as for unverifiable - i dont know what to do about that - i'll have a look on you tube - i doubt the programmes text is anywhere handy. this link proves peter hall contributed to the programme[7]Sayerslle (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'spurious' peter hall quote?? bloody cheek. btw this sentence "An enigmatic figure, he often claimed to have no identity outside the roles that he played." is narration fragment from the Arena documentary. Sayerslle (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. The phrase "God allowed her to find suffering through the remembrance of this favor" just looked so strange, but I didn't get the full significance of her feelings in my edit. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. that was a strange 'pious language'-y phrase you drew attention to. I think its probably lazy and not best practice to just keep quoting Therese herself, but I tried paraphrasing the sense and couldn't get it right , - so I just quoted her.Sayerslle (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I think the safest thing to do when trying to explain how a person felt is to use their own words.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arthur Marshall (broadcaster), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newbury (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Life at the Top (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Room at the Top (film)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove it? It was well sourced and clear. Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[8]

There is a discussion here that involves you. --Wüstenfuchs 20:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Hafez al-Assad. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --Chris (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10

[9]

There is a discussion here that involves you. --Wüstenfuchs 19:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve started a move request to change the title of the article Al-Nusra Front to Protect the Levant to Al-Nusra, per WP:commonname. Your input is appreciated. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Gielgud, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Little Theatre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit summary, did you make a WP:GOCE request for the article? If not, it appears the tag was removed without credible grounds. Thanks. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alcmaeonid - no, I made no GOCE request for the article - re-reading that section it still seems unsatisfactory to me , though the bit about the French and democracy seems more lucidly put - it's surprising to me there's no mention of Demons in that section - Malcolm Muggeridge said that novel was a great political work, a great political prophesy, and that Dostoevsky sensed what was coming in the 20th century - I wish I knew more about Dostoevskys politics - I think that section is a bit clearer but also that it could still be tagged for clarity issues - P.S. - i havent forgotten about Nietzsche and Human, all too human, - I lost my momentum in the proof reading I was doing, but I'll finish it. ! Sayerslle (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Gielgud, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Constant Nymph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Aniela Aszpergerowa and pl:Aniela Aszpergerowa she was Polish, not Lithuanian, so I have corrected John Gielgud. She was born Kamińska, which is Polish. Xx236 (talk) 09:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took the detail from page 2 of Ronald Haymans biography of Gielgud - page two it states "His [Frank Gielgud] grandmother, Aniela Aszpergerowa, had been a well known Lithuanian actress, and on the banks of the river Memel, in Lithuania, there was a castle, Zamek Gielguda, which belonged to the Counts Gielgud until the revolution of 1831. The eldest Count Gielgud, a Polish general, died n the revolution and his younger brother was banished." I think you should supply a reference ideally at some point for describing her as Polish - Lithuanian has a source. Sayerslle (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aszpergerowa was Kamińska and was Polish and Gielguds were Gielguds, with Lithuanian roots. Aszpergerowa worked in Wilno, which didn't make her Lithuanian, ahe worked longer in Lwow, which didn't make her Ukrainian, either. Generally Western ideas about Eastern European geography and ethnicities are comparable to Ancient Greece descriptions of people with dog's heads. Ronald Hayman is probably en expert in Western subjects but unfortunately writes about East. "Lithuanian actress", really.Xx236 (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article (in Polish) informs about the common error in British press. No Lithuanian roots of Aszpergerowa are known.Xx236 (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok. maybe she got ascribed the Lithuanian roots of her husband somewhere down the line. the polish roots are sourced now so thats good . Sayerslle (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Salome (play), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Against Nature (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi Sayerslle, I've started a discussion at the Administrator noticeboard regarding your editing of wikipedia's page describing the Houla massacre. While I appreciate that you care about the massacre and contribute material, your commentary is poorly written, often partisan, and sometimes devolves into superficial satire or ad-hominem attack. That kind of editing does not help others understand or appreciate your point of view, and is counterproductive to the creation of an exemplary, or at least neutral wikipedia article. Please feel free to comment at the noticeboard. I won't be able to contribute until this evening. Regards, -Darouet (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HI Darouet - i added something to the article page a while ago , details from alex thomsons report on channel 4 news , a day or two after the massacre - he actually visited the scene -unlike the German journalist. i dont remember you contributing anything at the time and i'm sorry you slag off my contributions to the encyclopedia. i'll leave the article in question - it was ok imo before you sought to improve it , - you want undue weight for a certain damascus german journaists report, - thats it. the prevaling view is that the narrative of the villagers themselves as delivered to alex thomson a day or two after is the most plausible - and the damascus based german journalist story is tangential. undue weight kind of thing Sayerslle (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is poorly written by the way? I've hardly added anything to the article - or the talk page, and i like Philip Larkin and Henry Miller and Charles Baudelaire for Christs sake, - I don't want to come across as illiterate - what is so poorly written? on the article itself i dont think i've written more than two sentences in three months anyhow - Sayerslle (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

copying this from your attack on me - "Sayerslle has been arguing that an account of the massacre based upon a report by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung should not receive mention in wikipedia's article. " Where? where did i ever argue such a thing? i said it should say the material came from a reporter in Damascus, quoting anonymous sources-I never said the report from hermann shouldn't be mentioned. that is not right. And you attack for me for saying i'd never heard of the paper - so i dont know the name of every paper in the world? do you - i dont know every german paper - why would i - i went on to add it looked like RS - a right wing german rag but RS - please don't tell lies like i said all mention should be discarded - I never said such a thing. Sayerslle (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sayerslle, I don't think that my statement, that you would like no reference to the FAZ account, is inaccurate or an attack. If you do believe FAZ shouldn't be mentioned, or if you don't, that's OK. I made a note on the notice board because these kinds of edits are disruptive: ([10]), ([11]), ([12]). All I'm asking is that you take more time to consider your edits carefully - in terms of both content and grammar - and that you show respect to other editors by engaging meaningfully with the talk pages while avoiding ad hominem attacks. I know you've contributed to the Houla massacre article and respect that. I also agree with you when you write that "the prevaling view is that the narrative of the villagers themselves as delivered to alex thomson [sic] a day or two after is the most plausible." What I can't agree to however is that Hermann's account is "tangential," or that the FAZ is a "right wing german rag."

I'm glad that you like Henry Miller and Baudelaire (a French poet, as I'm sure you know). If you'd like to improve your writing, you should 1) practice capitalization where appropriate 2) pay more attention to punctuation and 3) read your words as if you hadn't written them. For instance, the sentence "undue weight kind of thing" is not really a sentence, but were you to develop it, you might better explain how it is that you feel different journalistic accounts should be weighted in the encyclopedia entry. I don't think you should leave the page, you should just edit more conscientiously. -Darouet (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt matter that you personally esteem and treat seriously Hermann's account - it's whether it has been picked up and discussed by other RS. thats my understanding of how things are approached. as for the advice i don't know your credentials for handing it out - it looks petty minded and feeble to me, -what is the point of telling me baudelaire was a french poet when I've written that I admire him? - and the examples of my poor writing style are thoroughly trivial - give advice to people who respect your opinion . Sayerslle (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung actually carried two articles on this issue, which was "picked up and discussed" by the Berliner Morgenpost, Der Speigel, the BBC, the National Review, Foreign Policy, The Telegraph of India, the New Statesman, The Guardian, The Scotsman, Russia Today, and plenty of smaller outlets used by professional news sources like LexisNexis including The Moderate Voice, the Activist Post, the Pacific Free Press, the World Socialist Web Site and Morning Post, and so forth (that list would drag on a while). The FAZ account is also specifically mentioned by the United Nations HRC report from August 2012 because its authors obviously decided they had to take it seriously, investigate, and respond. So you see, when you fail to even consider the criteria you claim to hold important, and insist on writing about "reliable sources" while admitting you've never heard of major global papers, why I might comment on the nature of your writing and propose that you spend no more time thinking about the content of your thoughts than your presentation of them.

I mentioned that Baudelaire was French (and stated that you probably knew as much) only because we were discussing the English language, which Baudelaire did not make use of. -Darouet (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you search for reports mentioning 'Houla' in 'The Guardian' - what picture emerges? This is typical - "The biggest single massacre confirmed so far was in Houla province in May, in which 108 people were killed, including 49 children and 34 women.

Survivors told the Guardian that the killings in that case had been carried out by the Shabiha militia. A UN investigation also pointed to evidence of Shabiha involvement." From summer 2012. I found one passing reference to the FAZ german damascus journalist narrative , in a story about spiegel contradicting it , having actually gone to Houla to speak to people there - its a question of weight etc. I 100% deny i ever wrote that the FAZ article should be not mentioned at all -you may not think that your saying so is inaccurate but I'm telling you it is - In the meantime like I said i'm leaving the article and i've said all I feel I want to say about this. Sayerslle (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darouet, starting a discussion at the Administrator noticeboard for this is a joke. You have way too much time on your hands, you've been patronising towards Sayerslle and his mistakes have been trivial at best. With all due respect, which is none(why does anyone owe you any 'respect'), he clearly doesn't care for your frivolous opinion, so just get over it. End of discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.1.48 (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can you consider yourself a leftist when you do nothing but apologise for the most reactionary and pro-American forces in the Middle East all day long? FunkMonk (talk) 06:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Amal militia, Hezbollah, Bashar al Assad and his wife shopping like marie Antoinette while opponnts are tortured, KGB Putin, Russian Orthodox/Putin social reactionaries, Iranian hierocrats - corrupt Gaddafi, thats not my idea of 'progressive' people and ideas . Sayerslle (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just thinking about the channe 4 series the british empire I watched a long time ago - the fall of Mohammad Mosaddegh for example - the West has a lot to answer for, for sure, - he would be more my idea of a leftist leader, not the current lot. Sayerslle (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mid Eastern leftists are usually allied with those groups because they at least have the same enemies, and have some Socialist leanings. But the pro-Saudi/American Hariri family and the Phalangists? No Leftist supporters at all (apart form you, apparently). So it would make more sense to be against that faction, or better yet, not support any of them. Like it or not, as a Leftist, you have more politically in common with the Ba'ath party than with the Muslim Brotherhood. FunkMonk (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. - this is a bit of text copy-pasted from the guardian, 27 july 2012 - "However, that has now changed, and not in President Bashar al-Assad's favour. Attacks on Palestinian camps by Syrian forces loyal to him – most recently last week against the Yarmouk camp – have resulted in killings, injuries, and the displacement of thousands. This has angered Palestinian refugees, many of whom are now openly supporting the revolution, as well as taking in Syrian refugees." and. Looking backwards at the mid 1980s -'early in 1985, the Amal militia-with the approval of the Syrians-attacked the camps of Sabra and Chatila and Bourj-al-Barajneh in southern Beirut'. [13]

Sayerslle (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)notes to self - books to read to add to my understanding - Disappearing Palestine, Jonthan Cook ISBN 1848130317 ; Ilan Pappe - Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine - ISBN 1851685553 18 december Yarmouk "Syrian tanks have closed in on the entrances to the largest Palestinian camp in Damascus after battles between pro-and anti-Assad groups for the first time directly drew the country's refugees into the 21-month-old crisis. Skirmishes between Palestinian groups allied with the rebel Free Syria Army and other factions loyal to the Assad regime continued on Monday, a day after an air strike on a mosque in Yarmouk camp was thought to have killed around 20 people." guardian IRANIAN PRISONER SWAP "Syrian rebel fighters accused the 48 of being members of the Iranian revolutionary guards corps, which was helping the Assad regime crush the uprising.[reply]

Iran denied this but said some of them were retired guards" - some of them were retired guards, guardian 10 JanuarySayerslle (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

mid june - update - Russia, repressive, anti-democratic, increasingly socially ultra-conservative, look at recent vote on homosexuality etc - iran repressive, conservative, - the regime in Syria - these are a group of authoritarian, politically repressive forces - of course , there are many others , - but what is on the retreat , everywhere, are secular, democratic leftist forces - - what I don't see is how cheering the Assad-Putin-Iran arc - is in any sense 'leftist' -it isn't - its about repression, social fascism and identity politics. Sayerslle (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating The Temperate House, Sayerslle!

Wikipedia editor Razr Nation just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

The page needs some wikifying. Everything else seems to be in order.

To reply, leave a comment on Razr Nation's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hello,

Please note that you violated the 1RR restriction at Operation Pillar of Cloud with your reinsertion of the Independent source. I would advise that you self-revert lest somebody bring it up at one of the noticeboards. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its actually up to 2RR already, so this is getting serious.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

also to report my block history and saying I have been blocked 'a few times' for edit warring is a lie. I looked at it - twice in nearly four years. Please don't exaggerate in future to paint me in the worst possible light, stick to truths. Sayerslle (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my sourced edit was reversed with the reason of 'grammar' which i regarded as specious - what was wrong with the grammar - then by someone saying that the reports in the guardian and independent cant be right because they know better - which is OR - which is serious . Sayerslle (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sayerslle reported by User:Brewcrewer (Result: ). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

You have reverted other editors several times. Please self-revert your recent edit at Operation Pillar of Cloud. Ankh.Morpork 17:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AM - on your user page there is a userbox saying you have a pov and are aware of it - but this candid admission is made rather moot because you then don't say what it is. in the interests of openness, honesty and democracy, and against any shenanigans I have become increasingly convinced that users should be open about all their religious/political predilections on their user pages -if you're self-aware of a pov thats good, but its better also to let others be aware isn't it? of course people coud lie but their predilections usually become apparent in time - it would just be great for openness if people would declare openly a partisan allegiance and loyalty.Sayerslle (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point AM of having a userbox saying you have a POV and are aware of it - but then leaving it pointless, and moot, by not saying what it is - so you're admitting to a partisan allegiance but are un-open to letting others in the community know what it is. What is the point of such a userbox? what is ma'an news that you are laughing about with brewcrewer? you should be open and democratic and say in the userbox what bias you acknowledge you have, what is it ?, otherwise its a pointless userbox and you are a potential POV pusher in my opinion and anti-openness and seek with others of your bias to get others blocked in censoring operations. Sayerslle (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i didnt understand the reasons which i took to be pov driven and specious - 'grammar', so restored the RS sourced material. i am leaving that article alone now. you are perhaps partisan? openly and honestly and democratically i think editors should say where they stand - i dont know - i wont touch that page - its got a pov title - i'm not sure what chance there is for neutrality there so i'm leaving it well alone. i'll read the guardian and indpendent and listen to bbc if i want to get info on this subject.thankyou so much Sayerslle (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sayerslle, I don't understand the 'grammar' revert either but regardless of any content dispute you kept adding closely paraphrased text that was too close to the original source to be acceptable. Not to mention the formal 1 revert per 24 hours restriction for this article which is prominently announced on the article's talk page. Since you have now declared to abstain from editing this article I won't block you, but please make yourself familiar with our copyright policy. And in any case, when your edits are repeatedly removed by other editors, don't restore your version without previously discussing the issue. That's why there are talk pages.

Regarding the note about Arbitration Enforcement left to you by Ankh Morpork, I am now warning you too that many articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are subject to special edit restrictions, and sanctions may be imposed on editors who breach these rules or other core policies of Wikipedia. So the next time you go edit warring at any such article will result in a block. Please see also my comments at the edit warring noticeboard. De728631 (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the text seemed to me to be so very straightforward and the language used hardly copyright-able , -it was a couple of very plain language straightforward sentences from RS, I don't like to use my own words when it doesnt seem particularly necessary because i dont want to distort whats being reported - - but Ive read and understood what you've written. Sayerslle (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note to self , since I want to understand the middle east better -read this Palestinian incitement - looks interesting, fascinatingSayerslle (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC) reminder to find out what ma'an news is? -[reply]

Maan News A nice balanced opinion-piece. Ankh.Morpork 20:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate did not do a great job, but so much I was able to determine is that it is a lovely article. Mind you this "newspaper" is used throughout the relevant articles as a reliable source.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With writers capable of such incredibly psychological insight, of course it's reliable. You obviously didn't pick up on the socialogical and historical expertise of the writer, nor his beautiful poetic prose. Ankh.Morpork 20:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

israel related anima conspiracy theories - obviously wants to save this kind of core qquality content - admirable Honest Reporting No More Mr. Nice Guy (song) ? the usual yada yada - socialogical - is that a word?

Digital Luxury Group Palestinian political violence delusional fantasy land - they are quick to insult others, they are arrogant, they dont reply to questions note to self -1948 Palestinian exodus created by Ed Poor, a Conservapedia bloke aint he  ?, pov title? - things that make you go hhmmmm..look at this article

Bosra al-Sham - bodies littering the streets - refugees flee assad regime to jordan

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Temperate House, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Victorian, Acanthus and Coade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Conservative Friends of Russia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander Yakovenko (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that may concern you [14]. Regards -- Director (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for letting me know - i'm not commenting there because i don't feel knowledgeable enough about the subject to debate with editors who i think are much more versed on that situation - I just follow on the radio and channel 4 and the independent, and lately there hasnt been much about the Kurds - the last on the world service was of the rebels clashing with Kurds in Ras-al-ain -having said that i looked at the independent and saw this about recent turkish/kurdish tensions -

" taking a cue from the recent Arab uprisings, seeking to inspire a "Kurdish Spring" among segments of a stateless ethnic group numbering roughly 30 million and traditionally living in parts of Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq. The campaign is presenting a major security risk for Turkey at a time when this strategically vital NATO member is also pushing for a limited international intervention against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who Turkish officials see as being at least partly responsible for the mounting PKK threat.

As Assad's grip on Syria has loosened during the civil war, a Syrian Kurdish faction allied with the PKK has established itself as a de facto administration in a growing number of northern cities and towns. Some analysts and diplomats suggest that Assad may be tactically ceding lands to Kurdish rebels there, allowing Syria to become a transit point for weapons and fighters targeting Turkey - which again, reinforces a feeling that a Syrian rebel/kurd identification is misleading and so i would tend towards a 3rd column as better.Sayerslle (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!
History2007 (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Insults by Sayerslle (talk · contribs). Thank you. Sceadwefax (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Orwell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fascist Italy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anatole France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Third Republic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joseph Losey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Regency (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On adding the video to the Lucas Cranach the Elder article, I was just halfway through my edit when I decided to save. I do think adding these external videos is quite important for the articles - they give expert opinion and a view (literally) that wikipedians can't otherwise add. Feel free to pitch in at WP:GLAM/smarthistory. And no, I don't think Smarthistory should take over - notice I was adding the National Gallery video during the edit conflict - but I do think that art videos have an important part in art articles! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few editors added Israel to the infobox without any consensus whatsoever. This is completely against Wikipedia policies. Can you please remove it? I think I might have already used my revert for the day. (The page is now subject to sanctions).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open, talkpage invitation to organized edit-warring and WP:GAMING the 1RR restriction. Wow. The tip of an iceberg comes to mind. -- Director (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you there's a thread on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that may concern you [15]. Regards -- Director (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

for what crime is this exactly? is it the gulag for me? the page is back how you like it anyhow thanks to 'a wikipedian who no longer gives a shit'. well. i thought there was just an exchange of views on a talk page , but no - its time for those speaking freely to be disciplined ? pathetic. Sayerslle (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)-[reply]

fine chance of disinterested editing from these quarters - "Exactly, DIREKTOR! Assad is king! And terrorists and their Western mentors need to fight in a long, bloody struggle if they want to change that! Much bloodier and longer than up to now. You said: When the UN changes its position, or the rebels take over the vast majority of Syria, then we might have something to discuss. Hopefully, neither of that will ever happen!" -

Sayerslle, that "citation" is inept and incorrect. Direktor didn't say "Hopefully etc.", and saying (or suggesting) that he did is out of line. You are bordering on personal attacks here and I hope you will stop. For you also WP:ARBPIA applies as much as it does for Sundostund (talk · contribs): "After being warned, any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process may be blocked up to one year, topic-banned, further revert-restricted, or otherwise restricted from editing." Please consider this a warning. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DRnmires , I didnt say he did say it. etc did I. nor suggest it. really. Sayerslle (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You changed a quote in quotation marks to italics, I see that now--but citing a quote with a quote within it muddies the waters, and suggesting (which you're doing with your citation and the terms you couched it in) that Direktor would subscribe to such politicking, that's still not OK. I will scrap my warning, but will you please take it easy and try to keep it neutral? I have no dog in this fight, but things will have to be discussed calmly. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

do i have to share your estimation Drmies, of the nature and worth of other editors' edits to be suffered to contribute to articles and discussions? i express myself frankly, wtithin the rules i hope, and try to rise above the utterly inappropriate and fatuous condescending tone of adversaries, their fatuous and utterly inappropriate use of :) symbols and such, - but surely free speech is worth the touble. i see the articles on Syria and the civil war there in danger of being turned into something Press TV or Russia Today would produce and i think that should be challenged at least. i honestly believe the de facto/de jure isues as reported in RS , are disputed - the nations of the UNited Nations are not of one mind, that is why I spoke of a parodic version of the paralysis overseen by Russia etc. I may be hopelessly wrong, way inferior as an editor to the great direktor - he said himself he was much better informed about the project than me, I'm not saying 'great direktor' as an insult, he has told me personally he is greater than me - fine - i know how little i know and understand , but i dont like to see the freedom to speak, so long as one is reasonable, and i believe i have been, being squished. but i appreciate your intervention and will keep it to the fore if i intervene again on that subject - though i think i may wander in literature articles for a while - too depressing to spend long on the other subject, especially if a crowing, utterly partisan non NEUTRAL, and childish :), culture is going to become preponderent. Sayerslle (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vaso Čubrilović, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dubica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you report that editor who is putting the false claim that Assad regained the eastern ghouta Alhanuty (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Liz Fraser, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Bates (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heading text

If you touch my comments again[16], I will report you to the admins. FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i didnt see how they were about improving the article which is what the talk page is for.something about the bombings in Boston. seemed Forum-ish. WP:NOTSayerslle (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you think is irrelevant. Read the damn guidelines.[17] FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

off topic , plus CIVIL - read the damn guidelines yourself- it was OFF TOPIC - and just put it back if its so precious to you - and please stop bullying me over a nothing. grow up Sayerslle (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you haven't read the guidelines. Even if we pretend the comment was "off topic" (which it wasn't, I argued for excluding Chechens from the infobox in the same comment), that does not allow you to remove it. As for "growing up", I think you need to do just that, judged on your frequent blocks, unless you want it to be permanent. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you are allowed to remove stuff you think is off topic - if i made a mistake, please put it back - is it such a big deal. i have nothing more to add personally. if i got permanently blocked by you or anyone for this i would be well out of a madhouse really imo. a bit de trop really Sayerslle (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are not allowed. Read the guidelines ("hatting" is not removing). But be my guest, remove some more, and you will be blocked soon enough. That's all for now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really want me blocked dont you. i remember when I first came across you - the reason for it. you were gleeful then that i got blocked but i still remember what it started about. .Sayerslle (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I want you blocked if you continue being disruptive. If not, no problem. FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

disruptive? well, really. throw enough mud. i read the guideline - it said you could remove gibberish - and it looked like gibberish abuot the boston bombings or something. it says that in the old days deleting gibberish was common but peoples ideas of what was gibberish were different - so i should have left it alone on reflection. is that it ? articles are more important than this really arent they - i've learnt soemhting about this rule though so thats something.i still remember what it started aboutSayerslle (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, you get the picture, so let's leave it at that. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oh ive always 'got the picture'. Sayerslle (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sayerslle - it is a challenge to maintain an NPOV on such a controversial subject. There is no need for people to use accusatory or negative language such as "apologists" or "radical" and so on from either camp while Editing or sharing ideas on Talk pages. It's pointless and leads nowhere. You're also exposing your "bias" in the process. To use such language makes clear you have a point of view that may be a tad skewed - perhaps not - but that's how it "comes across". Simply because an earnest edit does not jive with your world view does not automatically disqualify its validity. Let's strive for objectivity as hard as this is on this topic.67.167.210.70 (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if faulhaber and htler discuss spain and the church delivers sermons on it etc - to just axe the whole section as not about the subject of the article is idiotic. as for bias - well, let him who is without sin cast the first stone. and ratlines - just axed, again. whats your pov? - i'm sure the article will always be a battleground - thats how it goes.Sayerslle (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed- there is a place for what you state. The question is - context. This topic is complex enough w/o layering layers upon layers. Why not then bring in the relationship of the Fascists of Portugal, Austria , Romania and we can go on . . . . we can be certain Faulhaber and Hitler had words to share regarding them as well. One of the issues of this Article is that it looses its focus which is, and should be - Nazi Germany - not "Fascism and the Catholic Church." which is a subject in its own right. This Article is plagued with ad hoc "piggy back" editing that bleeds into areas and subjects that are "side bars" which deplete the Article's focus into near incomprehension and confusion. This causes a reader to associate that which may, or may not be, germane to the subject: The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.210.70 (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Germany got involved in the Spanish Civil War and the church took up the Nazi narrative about this important conflict. the sermons delivered about the thereat of 'Bolshevism' were delivered from pulpits in nazi germany.thats the 'context' as far as i see it. it is a massive topic really - the catholic church and nazi germany and the nature of wikipedia means there will be a lot of disagreement i guess about what is germane and what is not, what is mud slinging, what is white washing etc. thats how it is. Sayerslle (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And so it goes. It stands to reason the Catholic Church would be in direct opposition to "Bolshevism" which is a euphemism for Communism Soviet style. A Communist philosophy is atheistic and solely focused on a materialistic world view. It is building a "straw man" to mix this position of the Catholic Church long predating Hitler as "picking up" the Nazi narrative. If anything - it is the other way around -if one wishes to mix it up in this way.

The Catholic Church produced the encyclical Rerum Novarum denouncing and rejecting Communism in 1891 (Hitler was two years old) in response to Karl Marx's three volume writing of Das Kapital begun in 1867. It, Rerum Novarum, also denounced unbridled Capitalism and supported trade unions as a solution to the plight of mass labor and the advent of industrialization. It is matter of historical "accident" that this particular conflict (the Spanish Civil war) found opponents , that is, the Catholic Church and the Nazi Party, sharing the same position in a very specific and unique event. The Soviets were very active participants in this conflict. It only stands to reason - again- a spiritual institution would speak out against an atheist institution attempting a violent overthrow of a nation. Not difficult to grasp at all. That Hitler was anti-communist was more a political position to sedate the landowning aristocracy and Capitalist than a "spiritual" objection. To imply they were "in bed" on this and the Bishops 'picked up " the Nazi narrative is - well - backwards logic - if one knows the history.67.167.210.70 (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

do academic RS discuss the position the catholic Church took up in the midst of all the world shaping historical struggles in the 1930s? Yes, they do. So wikipedia should. Do they ever find things to criticise about its policy with regard to these struggles. Smetimes. your piece above reads like an apologists pov - the article should include whatever RS pick up as important in the catholic Churchs relations with Nazi germany -i think the point of the criticism about the nazis echo-ing their anti Bolshevik narrative , if you want it put like that - it is that it led them to deliver pastoral letters etc , or whatever they are called, that served the regimes interests. they sught to defend their own institutions - - the eseential thing whatever else is - follow RS. not 'catholic heroes and victims of the holocaust. com' - or endless rychlak quotes and other apologists. RS.RS academic RS. - published by university presses, lke OUP, and CUP and Yale University press etc. On November 19, Pius XI announced that communism had moved to the head of the list of "errors" and that a clear statement was needed. On November 25 Faulhaber told the Bavarian bishops that he had promised Hitler the bishops would issue a new pastoral letter in which they condemned "Bolshevism which represents the greatest danger for the peace of Europe and the Christian civilization of our country". - User:Sayerslle|Sayerslle]] (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's stay with the facts. The position of the Catholic Church on Communism was well established and predates the existence of the Nazi Party. If you insist that this section regarding this somewhat extended theory remain? Then this section of the Article - I fully agree - needs RS verifiable academic citation, which currently it lacks.

Nor, is it simply a matter of paraphrasing a book and offering a page #. It needs to be verifiable in such a way that its access is easily reached within Wikipedia or the Internet. To only state a book Title, a writer and reference a page number presumes every reader has a copy. Rather unrealistic wouldn't you agree? It also implies a high degree of trust that the editor is being forthright. Yes? Willing to work this but, what I see is an awful amount of work that needs to be done for this section to have "street cred". By the way, scholars from the Ivory Towers are just as likely as anyone to be biased in their work especially when it comes to history and economics. It is no warranty - at all- that an idea is correct simply because it comes from Yale or Harvard and so on. So, let's agree the section stands- but it needs work 67.167.210.70 (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'It also implies a high degree of trust that the editor is being forthright' 'forthright'- is that the right word? - if there is an RS source, a book , a page number , that is sufficient as a ref.i like the way you as an anonymous IP, with an apologist agenda, are slagging off academic RS. brilliant. Sayerslle (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sayerslle - let's be civil. Your apparent need to pigeon hole an editor for subjective judgement is not useful for open dialogue. It is a distraction that clouds the facts. "If you do not like the message? Attack the messenger." This is not helpful. No one here, from what I see in this Article, is suggesting that all Catholics were virtuous saints walking on water through this period of history. This includes lay persons and clergy at all levels. At he same time - to use your language- to "paint over in black with a single swipe" that the Catholic Church was involved in some grand conspiracy couched in secrecy and "coded language" and agreements at the highest levels to promote and support Hitler and the Nazi cause come across as less than objective. This section - that you have such a passion for - requires work as to verifiable citation that is easily accessed and, therefore, falls short of NPOV. That's all that is being stated here. It remains - but the bar needs to be raised in terms of context and citation. With that, I sincerely wish you the best of luck in doing so.67.167.210.70 (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i dont recognise this at all - "At he same time - to use your language- to "paint over in black with a single swipe" that the Catholic Church was involved in some grand conspiracy couched in secrecy and "coded language" and agreements at the highest levels to promote and support Hitler and the Nazi cause come across as less than objective" - whats all that about ? - i never used any such language - to suggest i have a 'passion' to include material - is a bit naughty - do you then have a 'passion' to see it excised? - the article needs good sources - we can agree about that anyhow - Michael Phayers book on Nazi germany- The Catholic Church and the Holocaust -and the catholic CHurch is widely described as the best, so I thnk that should be used more in the article - how easy to access is it though? have to order it from the library or buy it - is that easy access enough? there is no rule that everything has to be easy to access - it has to be RS. Sayerslle (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to "paint black . . . ." is a counter to your "white wash". The passion of us both is to get to the truth. As to, let's call it, "reasonable access to a citation/reference or quote for verification"? In an Article such as this to maintain and protect NPOV a citation verification s/b a point and click away to actually read what is paraphrased to maintain the the quality of context and the facts. It is agreed that blogs, private websites with an "agenda" regardless of POV, newspaper and magazine articles sliced and diced, or selectively edited, are to be avoided with a high preference for legitimate scholarly sources. A private Catholic website is problematic - as an example. As should be a writer who clearly is controversial in the world of academics such as, John Cornwell. This is why I challenge you to "raise the bar", so that, a reader can actually read the source your referencing with a simple point and click. Not be obligated to visit Amazon. Com to buy the book or go the the library. It's a matter of sincere engagement to do so in such a hotly contested subject such as this one. Once more, I bid you all the best 67.167.210.70 (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sayerslle. No, not at all. Just need citation for specific statements, cleaning up POV and offering Wikipedia references. BTW, comments and statements are to be offered in the Article Talk page not in Edit areaIntegrtiyandhonesty (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

but where will it all end - every sentence have to be reffed. Sayerslle (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. References can be requested for contentious stuff. That way it "ends" when contentious stuff is referenced to source so it can be cross checked. FYI re our last edits - I didn't delete your Galen text, I transferred to the main section as: "Bishop von Galen of Munster was among the German conservatives who had criticised Weimar Germany, and initially hoped the Nazi government might restore German prestige. According to Griech-Polelle, he believed the Dolchstosslegende explained the German army's defeat in 1918" and incorporated the "conservative + nationalist" epithets into picture text. Not sure if you picked that up in your rewrite, as you repeat the "nationalist, conservative" bit (also got grammar wrong). Cheers and happy editing. Ozhistory (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes i did pick it up. im sorry (i got the grammar wrong), or miss a word out, whatever. sorry. cheers.Sayerslle (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - what was that you were saying about "rounded" portraits? If this is your honest intent, could you put your mind to a "rounded" description of Faulhaber to replace that essay length entry you have just written about one purported exchange at one point in time. Shorter for a start - and with the "nuance" you have admirably called for in other texts: ie Faulhaber is a bad example of a "silent" bishop - a noted defender of the church from nazi harrassment, he also did indeed publicly challenge Nazi antisemitic racist theory (notably in his banned 1933 sermons). Before altering, I'll give you a chance to practice what you preach first! Ozhistory (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read his 1933 sermons? i doubt it. i have. click on wikiquote for a flavour because I copied some out there. what do you mean banned sermons? they were public sermons - there was an english translation from sheed & ward available shortly after. and what doyou mean 'purported saying-' you really are in denial. 'essay length essay??? - one little quote . before you alter i think you should do some wider reading - read those horrible sermons. Sayerslle (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a link to that source from The Independent? Or was it a paper version? --Emesik (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British expedition to Tibet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Redshank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The section you are trying to push into the article adds nothing to the article, because the first 2 sentences of that paragraph already summarizes the point. We can't copy sections from news sources and paste directly into the article (you also did not correct the punctuation), unless it really extraordinarily says something. The section you have been adding into the article affects readability in a bad way as well. Logos5557 (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the journalist is there - its a few sentences illuminating the tensions that have followed upon the bombs. i'm not'trying to push' anything into the article , I'm adding info from a journalist actually there, reporting on realities on the ground - most disturbing to you, i'm sure and very important you make sure I don't push it. far better to use the space to promote half assed speculations and shit-stirring stuff Sayerslle (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "info" you were trying to push into the article is directly reachable by clicking the ref. There are wikipedia rules and guidelines, which prevents half assed speculations, shit-stirring stuff and funny stories claimed to be illuminating the tensions which followed the blasts. Yo do not live in Turkey and do not have access to Turkish media, therefore you can't judge what was fringe and what was mainstream. And, once again, English WP do not mandate english reliable sources, especially for the subjects which are "non-english" by nature. When english sources do not cover a subject which was heavily covered by other languages, we can't refrain including non-english sources; see these links [18]. I will not bother to educate you about wikipedia in future. Logos5557 (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

funny stories claimed to be illuminating? what the bloody hell are you on about. There were no 'funny stories' reported by wyre davies - he was reporting on the aftermath of the bombs - it was all very relevant to the aftermath section and informative. it couldn't be accessed by clicking on the link I don't think because that story was not referred to elsewhere. calling anything in the material 'funny stories' is completely idiotic and distasteful Sayerslle (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The real incident is not funny for sure, but the way davies reporting is quite funny. I can access full of that funny story -including the part you were trying to directly copy/paste into the article- by clicking on the ref link. Logos5557 (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there is no sodding funny story ok. anywhere. Sayerslle (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emily Davison, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morpeth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church and Nazi Germany Disputed Neutrality

Hello - on the Talk page you may have noted the issue of Disputed NPOV where there is an emerging consensus. Editors will no longer engage in unilateral Major Edits, but rather, agree to submit Major Edits ( whole sentences, paragraphs, photos with long captions, etc.) to the Talk page prior for a period of time yet determined (2-3 days?) so that others can offer input to reach a consensus before hand until the Neutrality Dispute is resolved by consensus. And a general clean up of this Article in terms of format structure as you have pointed out.

This makes good sense. This is a sound way for an Article this hotly contested covering such a serious topic; given, this entire Article has no edit protection and there has been a pattern of unilateral good faith edits by all parties that tend toward unbalanced POV and there is a history of "set-up" edits where editors are literally using Wiki via going first, or subsequently, to another Article, edit that and then use it as a citation in this Article. A touch "racy". Not to mention a history of low level hit and run vandalism by, well, not editors of quality and sincerity such as yourself, but what I call "disturbers" who stir the pot for what seems to be its entertainment value.

Until then any type of questionable POV should be submitted to Talk. Keep at it. You're one of the better editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Integrtiyandhonesty (talk • contribs) 22:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

o.k. I intend to collect material on a sub-page for a while and then i'll present bits i'd like to add at the talk page. but will everyone still be around kind of thing - one problem with wikiedia is that a group can't be guaranteed to stay around for, say a year or so , and work in good faith , to arrive at a fair, interesting, article - but people come and go - ive ordered the Robert Ventresca, new biography of Pius XII, and i'm interested to read his version of the Nazi period and Pius within that. This is one of those quite diffuse and sprawling articles also that Wikipedia I think has more problems with - but anyway, ok, Il present material i'd like to add/change on the talk page first. Sayerslle (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! Agreed. Wiki editors can be very transient. And, an unprotected "hot topic" Article such as this is very subject to, well, opining vs genuine neutral co-operation editing, which is the "vision and mission" of Wiki. Hope to clean up this mess of an Article with its incoherent sub-groups dashing here and there and hopping - irrationally in parts - from one topic to another, harsh inappropriate language in other parts and its ever so taxing redundancy, wherein, what has been stated earlier is repeated over and over again. Very distracting and pointless. Look forward to working with youIntegrtiyandhonesty (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weimar Republic and the Concordat's- It is a common misnomer to confuse terms with time lines given the rapid acceleration of the death of the Weimar Republic beginning with the tension filled elections in the Spring/Summer of 1932 and its climax in August of 1934 marked by death of Hindenburg and Hitler - that day- consolidating the offices of the Presidency and Chancellory affirmed by a national referendum soon after to create the "office" of Führer. A period of only 27 months. Or still, his negotiated appointment in 1/1933 to early 8/1934 - only 18 months.

With that, political scientists and historians mark the death of the Republic as, August 1934. Prior to this date, despite the abuses of the Nazi Party, the Constitutional Office of President as the Commander and Chief of the military, the power to appoint the offices of the Chancellory, the principal of all international treaties was still functioning. The Enabling Act of 1933 did not infringe in any way the Office of the President and its powers.

This is why, for example, it's a bit of stretch to say Hitler was the primary party negotiating the Concordat - no treaty was possible without Hindenburg's signature - Hitler could have signed it a dozen times and it would not have been valid in July of 1933. He only signed the Ratification as mere formal affirmation of acceptance and procedure. If he had refused? Hindenburg could have - if he desired to- nullified his action by Cabinet procedures. His name appears no where in the language of the treaty nor does it bear his signature for this reason. Hitler's power in the Spring -Summer of 1933/Spring of 1934 is greatly exaggerated too often. Until Hindenburgs death, he was more often desperate for power than actually having it. Only his constant threats to unleash his para-military (the source of his power) to spark a civil war and terrorist tactics kept him "in the game" as his electoral base and "insider industrialists" support began to weaken in the Spring-Summer of 1933. So, this is why . . . .

Joseph Biesinger of Kentucky Univ writes in the book, Controversial Concordats, edited by Frank J. Coppa, professor of History at St, John's Univ, in New York discussing the Concordat of 1933 on p. 121, begins by saying, "Throughout the period of the Weimar Republic . . . . Until next time. Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why don't you just provide an RS ref for your formula - no need for an essaySayerslle (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sayerselle- Not going to engage a sidebar debate over nuance. We must conclude - we see it differently. I just offered above "who describes it this way" in academics. My point is precision and specificity. The treaty itself states its an agreement between the President (Hindenburg) of the German Reich and Pius XI of the Catholic Church. However, it was negotiated and signed by the principals during the period of the Weimar Republic. This is an historical fact. Not word play.

Lewy is not the final word on all things of the Nazi Era and the Catholic Church. His description is "initiated by Nazi Germany" on p. 57, is - in itself- a controversial manner of framing it. Not all -and not a small number- of historians are in agreement on that language. Who initiated is still unclear and an unresolved fact. Yet, the Catholic Church was in pursuit of a Concordat with Germany for nearly a decade before this time. So, who initiated again? And, was Germany of the Spring/Summer of '33 really "Nazi Germany"? That too is a leap. Could Hitler command the German military and declare war in '33? No. He only commanded a para-military and -to a modest degree - some of the Prussian and Bavarian state police. Hindenburg was the Commander and Chief of the military. Could he appoint a Chancellor? No, only the President. Could he act as a principal and sign international treaties? No, only the President; in short, in my mind, it is a false image to say Germany was "Nazi Germany" in '33 - far from it. Hitler was sweating bullets and grasping from 1/33 through 6/34 which culminated in mass murder in a fit of rage, frustration and paranoia in June of '34 to prove himself to the Germany military, who had little respect for him - if any - to demonstrate he had control over the SA while murdering a few opponents for good measure.

That said? We can - as I was- attempting earlier - to settle on the German Reich as the treaty states it that way -but not for history of it - but for the purpose of legal international language of the treaty. Take careIntegrtiyandhonesty (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sayerselle -We simply need to conclude we will not reach a resolution on this point and move on. As I stated above, I offered a legit. reference. The period of the Weimar Republic is 1919-1933. This is not disputed by any historian -even the Article on the German Reich acknowledges this with an abundance of legit references. Why this is such an issue seems unwarranted and undue "insistence" - but, it is what it is. This is where we are-no change is going to happen here. We can settle with the German Reich as this is the language of the treaty. Moving on now. Good to see you're reading your latest book. Look forward to what you picked upIntegrtiyandhonesty (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you comment on this?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stats in Lead for Catholic Church and Nazi Germany

Hi Sayerselle - What do mean by skewed? We are now using three RS sources and the lead from Religion and Nazi Germany. How much more can we do or say? The stats are the stats. Please - send a note to my talk to explain what you mean by "skewed" and perhaps offer a resolution. Talk to you later. Have a pleasant evening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Integrtiyandhonesty (talk • contribs) 01:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sayerselle - I almost see your point, but this determined insistence of: Enabling Act+Concordat = culpable complicity via a quid pro quo is being imposed without balance. If you insist on this theory then I must demand that it include Phrayer's comments to the contrary from pg. 18. This is genuine neutrality. Otherwise, we're creating a foregone conclusion in the lede. We're passing judgement immediately and create a very controversial debate before the Article even begins. As for the general idea "of things just happened to the Church", etc. Uhmm, to a degree - this is the general reality.

Not only for the Church but anyone caught up in this mess. Ask Poland, France and England- Im sure they have a POV on this. They too attempted to reason with Hitler and were did it get them? They too signed treaties with him. Let's keep foremost in mind it was the murderous Nazis who brought this to the world. Dialogue and reason end at the point of a weapon, Sayerselle. Yes?

Let's see. 1 Pope, an handful of Church diplomats, 25 bishops, 20,000 priests -all unarmed- vs the Nazi murder machine armed to the teeth in modern weaponry of the 1930's and 40's. Gosh, I wonder who's going to win this one. Smile.

And, stating that Hiter, etc. was "raised Catholic" w/o bringing home that they were not engaging the Sacraments for decades up this point is wholly unbalanced and - again- points to an attempt to "spin". Hitler at this point was anything but a devout Catholic - seriously, Sayerselle - what is this saying about that edit? Till next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Integrtiyandhonesty (talk • contribs) 14:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

phayer p.18 " ever since the Concordat at the beginning of the hitler era catholic leaders had accommodated themselves again and again to the new regime" - only Maximilian Kaller by 1935 had the Nazis singled out as an enemy of the state. p.18- and , murderous Nazis early on wanted the enbling act and needed catholic support - and got it - so 'it all just happened' is very lame imo - 'the Catholic leaders "grossly overrated and misunderstood hitlers smooth talk" (Lewy) - Ventresca (paraphrased) - p.92 "Meeting with dr.Rudolf Buttmann in JUne 1935 pacelli attacked the Nazi press - Buttmann said it was a hangover of tensions between the Nazis and the CEntre Party - "Where is the Centre Party?" Pacelli asked pointedly, hardly anyone spoke of the party in Germany anymore, even less of its revival - Buttmann said the Nazis still believed it was active, its HQ in Rome - pacelli dismissed this out of hand , and pointed out that in signing the 1933 treaty, the church had hoped for a period of mutual trust and respect between church and state , which could have been achieved but for the anti-Catholic attitude of the Hitler government - "as close as Pacelli would ever come to acknowledging that the 1933 treaty was negotiated at the expense of German political Catholicism" (Ventresca) - how would you 'parse' what Pacelli is saying there ? - anyhow, do you think the enabling act of 1933 and catholic voting for it should be excised from the lead paragraphs ? and after that, the treaty did follow, chronology wise - not a lot can be done about that - that's a fact - as for your last point - the catholic roots of leading Nazis was used at points to reassure pacelli, according to ventresca, when he was worried - so it was part of the history - Himmler was very devout up til the age of about 20 I believe -some of the leading Nazis were catholics at times in their lives - sorry, but that's the facts.- Pacelli, while negotiating the Concordat was reasuered by the german ambassador to the Vatican , "the diplomat pointing out that hitler had been raised a catholic and that many leading figures of his government were serious catholics." Ventresca p.77 Sayerslle (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Fiasco Catholic Church and Nazi Germany

Very disappointed in the actions of yourself and Binksternet this past hour. Wholly disruptive, meat ax disregard for properly RS references and actual history while reverting with a wisp of consideration. This must go to arbitration at this point. Editors are not to be bullied by a handful. This is outrageous!! Willing to work with you. Not Binksternet who displays no respect for the efforts of others and dismantles months of hard work by numerous editors on a whim!!

sorry you are disappointed - the article was getting pulled all over the place though wasn't it. - i'm going to pull back , work on sub-pages about this difficult material - unless an editor is blocked , like I have been quite a few times! - we all get a chance to edit articles , we can choose not to edit an article, but I don't see how you can pick and choose who you edit in collaboration with Sayerslle (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sayerselle - Sorry you see it so causally after all this hard work and progress collaborating with other editors. This is simply unacceptable. Hope to talk laterIntegrtiyandhonesty (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sayerselle - not to over stay may welcome- but are you seriously going to maintain "radio silence" while one single editor tosses out weeks - actually - months of hard work by several editors who were starting to work reasonably well in collaboration on such a challenging topic? If so, its rather sad. I've supported you a number of times. What's up? Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the lead was too long - it can't be like that - too detailed on just one small aspect of the topic etc - it was out of order - nothing is lost - if you want to retrieve anything you can, its in the history, but it has to be in the right section and given the right 'weight' so to speak when looking at the article as a whole - at the moment in the lead, maybe its a bit critical of the church by way of bias in a way - but it mentions the two popes of the times, it mentions the enabling act and political Catholicism , and the concordat and the 1937 encyclical , and a (critical) quote from a respected historian-maybe that could be balanced with an overview-ish quote from a less critical respected historian - it could have a couple more short paragraphs maybe -, but its much more the way an article should be introduced in my opinion than it was getting - it was getting out of hand like i'v e said- anyway, I'm going away from the article , not to forget about it, but to get more of an overview in my head. Sayerslle (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sayerslle and Integrity. Yes, the March text is inadequate and yes the July text was too long. On the Fest quote though, it is well worth going back to the original, the balance of which is really very different to the text presented in the March lead - especially given that the March lead completely overlooks any conflict whatsoever between the church and Nazism. Essentially, Fest is not as critical as the text implies. So not only could it be balanced by quoting from another historian - it could be balanced by quoting from Fest himself! This is a common problem with this topic area: editors either unable or unwilling to read a source for it really says. Ozhistory (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning Sayerselle - your contribution today in the lede s/b in a section - get your point about the "silence issue"- but the lede is a general overview. Not details of who said what when. Most Article Ledes do not even have citations for this reason. Look at the Nazi Germany lede. Not a single citation. To say issues and controversy arose is enough said in the lede. Self-edit this - and let's move on. This is what got us caught up in the last ficaso Integrityandhonesty (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

but the point that controversy was got up only after pius XII died is what is suggested as it was , which is not true, there was plenty of dismay at the time at the circmlocutions and evasions of the Vatican - and plenty of articles have citations in the leads - and I don't share a distaste for any concrete examples in the lead - far from it - just within bounds. I wont edit it at the moment - it seems ok to me as it is and it makes a generalized comment about the language , non-specific, too frequently employed , according to critics. Sayerslle (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again- Good point, and I just read the pages you referenced from Ventresca. Let's offer a summarized balanced and concise sentence that does not require a point - counter point "edit-skirmish" of citations. Perhaps something like, "Critics before, during and after the war expressed frustration with the Holy See/Vatican and its diplomatic policies regarding what they saw as silence or vague utterances of an appeal for peace on a host of issues." Just a suggestion - but maybe this works. Best of luck.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the stuff sourced to Catholic education can be phased out with better sources, but can I ask why, after all the reading you've done on this area, you are still putting up Cornwell as a reliable source? That seemed to be the inference of one of your recent edit comments, but surely you've read Phayer, O'Shea, Britannica and so many others (not just your favourite Ryschylak) who agree that "Hitler's Pope" is riddled with errors? Ozhistory (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwells book uses quotes from letters Pacelli sent at the time - I don't think its claimed by anyone that Cornwell made them up.Sayerslle (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's claimed that he uses mistranslations (which amounts to the same thing) and generally relies on secondary sources. Certainly he made up a lot of things - claiming that the April 1919 letter had previously been unpublished, for one; claiming to have spent months on end researching in the Vatican archive for a second; claiming to be the first to have access to the documents for a third. I am surprised you haven't read this? Hitler's Pope is not a scholarly work. Ozhistory (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

whenever the letter was first published is not as important as what it conveys. Ventrescas book tells a similar story to Cornwells about these years. you seem to like very old biographies of Hitler for your most trusted sources, so you know, we are mutually critical of each others preferred sources. (ventresca cites letters Pacelli sent to Rome ,written in Italian ,amongst the material he used to make his chapter on this episode, in his book - his surname looks Italian, so probably he did his own translations. he doesn't cite Cornwells book) Sayerslle (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get past the Lede in Catholic Church and Nazi Germany-

Please -we need to stop expanding the Lede endlessly. It was already too wordy as pointed out now by two Senior Editors even before your recent addition. Place it in an appropriate section instead. Not concerned with the edit as a statement, but this seemingly ceaseless expansion of the lede needs to end now. Not singling you out friend - I intend to offer the same to Ozhistory. And, I intend to exercise the same discipline.

The Lede is to provide a general overview not nuanced detail of who said what when to whomever for whatever motivation and citation skirmishes. Save that for the Sections. If anything at this point - regarding the lede - we should be focusing on reducing the verbiage w/o loosing its purpose - a simple 4 paragraph general overview touching on the vital/essential points and events. That's all that s/b in the lede. Please self-edit your recent contribution to the lede and apply where you see it working in a Section. Hope to collaborate in the future. Now off to Ozhistory. We're doing good work here - let's make it stick. Till next time.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add much did I? - the thing is from my reading it was slanted, so I added a couple of things, what a real individual, really said , at some point, - it needs to be nailed down with a few absolute quotes in my opinion - the first paragraph read pov-ish to me- it was saying , 'they made an agreement before hitler was in power - Hindenburg was, -it achieved a degree of independence for the church, though naughty Hitler deceived them and didn't keep his side' , and the death of political Catholicism is glossed over - why not look at it from what it gave Hitler - Ventresca p.86 "hitlers strategy for dealing with the church was paying the fuhrere rich dividends. by contrast, the benefits to the church of the vaunted diplomatic entente with the german state were neither clear nor certain' - its like a pro- "what-the Church- did -and said- and certainly intended-was always - for the- best - attitude" is so innate , it all gets slanted without even being noticed. Sayerslle (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning Sayerselle- I get the heart of your motivation - that's not the concern. We do not need to explain in such detail in the lede. It's already borderline wordy - put it in a Section. And, the last sentence in the 1st paragraph is from the Encyclopedia Brit. added by Ozhistory over a month ago. I verified it more than once. Please-let's move on.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the trouble is in cutting corners a load of airy waffle gets put over as 'gospel' its not too wordy, yet. it was short and to the point before but since all the pov generalities and elisions and waffle came in, it needs to be called to account. just my opinion. if a ref is asked for , its polite to add one, no?Sayerslle (talk) 13:15, 16

July 2013 (UTC)

Sayerselle? Seriously - we have covered this-more than once-its becoming circular and leading nowhere. In the link to the Article discussing the Rise to Power - it uses that very language- word for word. And, already the last sentence in the 1st paragraph has been explained. We're done. Are we going to challenge every single sentence eternally? We're now flirting with disruptive editing that only leads to unwarranted challenges. Again, let's move on! We only have 4 paragraphs to work with. A single sentence "eats up" precious space thereby "muscling" out essential info- becomes full of noise and much good work could be lost. Let's have some regard for what solid editors have accomplished. Can we just get on with it? Thank you. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how asking for refernces is disruptive. why assume everything has been explained, the last sentence could do with clarification and a some RS refernces - imo - how is that disruptive? - how can supplying a ref be so difficult. if its taken from EB , fine, but give the ref. and saying its all explained in other Wikipedia articles is not a reference. like I say, my real concern here is that a pov is being pushed on to the material and getting fed up with me asking for refernces wastes time when you could just supply them and then its clear what is being taken from which sources. perhaps its all been taken from the EB - well ref it and then its clear.Sayerslle (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2013

(UTC)

Good work-the answer to your questions? This has all been covered before. Why continually rehash repeatedly. Originally the last sentence (now omitted) was cited by Ozhistory and somehow removed. Then replaced. Then removed. Do you see? We're becoming a tad reckless which causes these near endless edits in the lede and requests for citations that had already been provided, or the information is such common knowledge and/or cited in Section that its not necessary to or required to provide a citation. If you look at the lede of Nazi Germany, which I think provides a sound model to follow -there is not one single citation. Thank you. Good work today by the way. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and the Philip Larkin has 10 refs - so what ? - which is better -is the larkin intro so utterly crappy and terrible? I think refs are essential here so we can see what material editors are using Sayerslle (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My last input on this topic Sayerselle- Let's get back to fundamentals. If we read the guidelines on Leads and Articles, they're fairly straight-forward. Not more than 4 paragraphs, basic elements and points of interest that do not get buried in details. Yet, a Lead is not to be so short that it is not viable, or omits material information. An Article allows for varying POV's - particularly on a controversial subject- that are to be acknowledged - not dismissed - but balanced. Simple. Thanks for your good work today.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sayerslle, Integrity. If the text in the lead closely matches referenced text in the body, then it certainly does not need a reference provided in the intro. The least courtesy you could offer other editors Sayerslle, is to do a quick word search through the main to see if the material you want to question is already referenced there. I note too that you are questioning some seriously common knowledge content like Hitler used acuity, threats and deception etc to gain power. Why oh why waste our time on challenging that!!?? Also I struggle to see any logic in your last "undo" where you state "why too much?- who decides- the whole article is too much , probably". That's the whole point - the article has "too much" and you are additions to the Goebells description include his home town, province, parents' religion, and the fact that he was a "Jew baiter" - most of this is not necessary and your undo was quite unreasonable. Ozhistory (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sayerselle- Great question regarding "lifting" the ban in March 1933, and worthy of discerning a very important distinction that makes a world of difference. It was very much "conditional". One of the downsides of 'snap-shot" history is that it offers no context of previous history.

At the Feb. 1931 Synod of both the Fulda and Bavarian Bishops Conferences the German bishops formally ex-communicated all leaders and activists of the Nazi Party - including - Hitler. It was never rescinded. Under Canon Law, if a bishop(s) ex-communicates a person, or group, the Pope does not need to act. It remains valid unless reconciled, or made void by the Pope. Ex-communication is not "damnation" it means one is egregiously not in communion with the Church.

Neither Pius XI or Pius XII acted to rescind - ever. The notion Hitler and others where "never ex-communicated" is , well, false. By the way, Pacelli played an historic role in forming Canon Law before becoming nuncio. He was a Canon Law scholar and degreed lawyer. So, he was fully aware of this. And, so was Hitler. We can agree Hitler was a walking definition of a murderous hypocritical pathological liar. Yes?

This conference is also the source of the "ban". In the same document, the ban is declared and defined. Now, fast forward to March 1933. Using the Reichstag Fire Decree of Feb.'33 as a cover - the Nazi Party - in states where they had firm control - most importantly, Prussia (2/3 of the administrative territory of Germany) they began to make it a requirement to be a member of the Nazi Party to hold or secure a civil job from a toll collector to a university professor. Not the infamous "Aryan Paragraph of April 7". They were simply bullying people. Good people of principle were losing their jobs in midst of the Great Depression; mostly - Catholics and Protestants attempting to sincerely live out their faith. This had been going on for a month.

Meanwhile, Germany is falling apart at the seems, getting worse and on the verge of civil war. Hitler pledges he desires no harm to the churches and cynically proclaims his embrace of Christianity. Now, have you ever actually read the document "lifting of the ban"? I encourage you do to so. Let me offer you the actual text that is most important - at least is was to the bishops - they debated for days over these few words:

"The benevolent attitude expressed in the declaration of the Chancellor, the bishops, for their part, will remain faithful to the point of view indicated (Hitler embracing Christianity - my words) . . . . this episcopal edict is in no sense an invitation to join the National Socialists Party, especially as the bishops have formally signified the continuance in force of the condemnations already past on certain religious and moral errors. The bishops believe . . . . they can trust the above mentioned general prohibitions and warnings no longer apply."

Do you see what their saying? Hitler is still ex-communicated - we still object and denounce Nazi ideology- we still do not desire one to join the party- given the public statements of the Chancellor - a dully appointed official - if you must, by force or necessity, you're not morally culpable as long you do not embrace their ideology. The general "prohibitions and warnings" were - in essence- under no circumstance whatsoever is one to be a member. Do you see?

This is why in the book, Controversial Concordats, by Frank J. Coppa states on p. 126, This declaration published 28, March . . . by the German bishops . . . . conditionally withdrew the previous warnings . . . ." That's it. This is why- this is a distinction that makes a world of difference.

Now, you may not agree. . . . but this is valid position and must be made - in balance. Thanks for taking the time. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Integrity, a good precis of the above needs to go into the article, as little of this important detail is made clear yet. You might also insert the info on ex-communication of Nazi leaders into the article religious views of Adolf Hitler which makes no mention of any such move by responsible bishops. Ozhistory (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that's a lot to look at right now- I just looked up who frank j coppa is - teaches at catholic university, writes for catholic encyclopedias - says he has checked all the Encyclopedia Britannica entries on popes so is an expert on encyclicals and stuff - certainly - in lewys book it presents the crucial months of early 1933 in certain , fairly damning terms - i'll try and read the Catholic historian , Coppas book - haven't looked at your other ref( did that now - john zeender, Catholic historian again, expert on Centre party , veteran of the Battle of the Bulge!) - I still think if you write conditionally revised - a ref is not much use in clearing it up for the reader at the time they are reading it is it - why not explain , succinctly, what this conditional revision-ing - meant - in the real world, could you join , or not join? what conditions? etc - otherwise it is awfully muddling imo Sayerslle (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, complex. A walking of a tight-rope. Look forward to your input. Phayer, who you quote often, is a Catholic, taught at Catholic Univ. and now lectures at Catholic Univ. Kreig who is quoted, lectures at Notre Dame. Lewy, is a known ant-cleric, Sayerselle, and despises organized religion - what can we expect him to say? Who suffered great trauma in "Christian Germany" as a young German Jew. A good man - no doubt, who has an firm POV. Now, neither are not credible they just see it differently. The seeking of truth is always a journey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Integrityandhonesty (talk • contribs) 14:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

its no good you just saying 'papen not there' when the fest ref says clearly he was - 'the summit of conservative blindness and error was reached on 21 march 1933, the day of the carefully staged ceremonial opening of the first reichsatg of the third reich, which brought together partners in a supposedly common cause at the tomb of Frederick the great at Potsdam in a welter of national emotion; the deceived and the triumphant deceivers, Hindenberg and hitler, Papen and Goring, Hugenberg and Goebbels. " so if you say 'papen not there' it needs ref to an RS. Sayerslle (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sayerselle- Good to hear from you. It is simply concern that your obvious passion for this topic could overwhelm. You are a good Editor. And, I respect your well informed POV. It is not the only legit POV - at the same time. As you know all too well - it is serious hard work to edit with credibility and verify. Sure, we're going to "lock horns" from time to time on a topic like this. But, let's agree that when this happens we offer one another the benefit of the doubt and due respect. Often times an honest miscue is just that. No need to start labeling and editor a "liar" or "a right-wing. etc." That's all. It was a authentic concern - based on the past to be sure- that all this work was going to be for naught. Are we prone to mistakes - or off be off mark on such a complex topic? Absolutely! When this happens? Assume- honest good faith. And, when we reach a consensus? Respect it. That's it. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ZEPHYR (code word) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZEPHYR (code word) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. LFaraone 22:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its a RS and it can be defended. The opposer has a hazy grasp of WP RS at the moment. Cheers Irondome (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok. Its already been done. Cheers Irondome (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at my question about the Independent as a RS thereSayerslle (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oskar von Niedermayer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turkish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been constant edit warring related to the lead section on the 2013_Ghouta_attacks aritcle. We get no new information, so please use the article talk page to gain consensus before making further changes to it. Thanks --PLNR (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you pay a little more attention to what you're doing? The "incorrect reference" which you've re-added is to "consortium.com" instead of consortiumnews.com (as you'd realise if you had bothered to wikilink it). I guess the infowars.com mention can stay since it helps illustrate the "widely circulated". Podiaebba (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ive changed it to consortiumnews.com now Sayerslle (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how it is relevant. You don't seem to understand how to spell the name correctly. See the message you left on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newdigg (talk • contribs) 00:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read a good blog about muhawesh, one of the main backers -

"If you do a cursory search on Odeh A. Muhawesh, not much comes up except that he is pretty serious about his religion with several Youtube lectures about Islam. The best place to go, however, for the ideas of this man is the Odeh Muhawesh Fan page on Facebook. It is quite an inventory of some rather thought-provoking items starting at the top with a link to Iran PressTV and something from Russia’s RT.com just a few entries below.

Many of you asked me about receiving a good Islamic education. Here is the next best method to actually going to Qom n Iran. [sic] The professors are all top scholars and the offered prigrams [sic] are excellent!

http://www.aou.ir/html/index-en.html

Going down a bit further, there’s a video clip from Iranian TV about “terrorists” beheading a Christian in Syria, with this warning:

I apologize in advance for posting this video and recommend you only read the article because it is gruesome. The video shows US backed syrian rebels beheading Christians including a priest. Our givernment should be held accountable for supporting these monsters. (Takfiris means Wahhabi terrorists)

Well, it is news to me that the USA is backing the jihadists but why quibble? What might require some quibbling, however is the veracity of the beheading since Human Rights Watch has identified it as a Baathist hoax. The priest in question was shot, not beheaded—not that it is any consolation—but the Vatican said that the circumstances of the shooting could not be determined.

Muhawesh naturally is worked up over the rebel who took a bite out of a dead Baathist’s heart. Who wouldn’t be? But the right of the Syrian government to fire rockets into apartment buildings? Well, that’s their God-given right, one supposes. On the scale of Allah, surely a bite out of a dead man’s heart is far more sinful than turning a working-class neighborhood into something that looks like this" - (and theres a photo of a demolished building in a rebel held area) -

the mint press news is not 'independent' as it postures - it has its reasons - and in a spirit of openness, these should not be covered over - or do you think the muhawesh alignments are irrelevant? well, that's debateable especially as they promoted the story abut the rebels blowing themselves up. Sayerslle (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Mint Press News. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 07:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help thinking that if Louis Proyect had an opinion on his blog unhelpful to you, you'd raise complaints about WP:RS. Tell me I'm wrong... Podiaebba (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just discovered this writer and at the moment I find it hard to imagine he would write something I'd find 'unhelpful' -if his blog is not a RS I'd have to go along with that - on the mintpressTV article though it seems to get removed, not because it isn't RS but just because its found annoying and 'unhelpful' Sayerslle (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Podiaebba. Blogs aren't WP:RS unless they are operated as part of a credible and notable news agency and adhere to professional standards, IIRC. I'm not sure there's a hard-and-fast rule, but Proyect doesn't seem to meet the criteria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can go way down the rabbit hole delving into the history of people who have commented on the Ghouta chemical attacks and the Syrian civil war more broadly, but I don't think it's constructive. Piccinin is not a notable figure, and his assertions have not been independently verified; the tale he and Quirico told upon their release by fundamentalist rebels in Syria attracted some media attention from reliable sources, hence its insertion into the article, but I believe that WP:DUE demands it be treated in a fairly minor way (relative to, say, the UN report). Would you consider removing mention of Piccinin's blog post and speculation as to his allegiances from the article, considering WP:SYNTH and WP:RS guidelines? Thank you for all your contributions, and I'm open to discussing this either here, on my Talk page, or on the article Talk page depending on your preference. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you to roll back your last revert on Ghouta chemical attacks page. Al-Akhbar has not been listed on Wikipedia notice board for being unreliable, and it is not a blog site either. There is no reason to accuse it of being non-RS.

By removing my content you have also violated 1RR which is enforced on pages related to Syrian civil war. --Emesik (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

its a blog by narmila sharwani isn't it - she appears to be accusing Saudi intelligence - if y put it back , I think you shuld say 'according to al akhbar blogger narmila sharban - something like that-' - -Sayerslle (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may precede it with any comment you like. Or put it under discussion on the talk page. What I don't like is plain removal of content which looks uncomfortable to you. Somehow we have lots of unconfirmed information on the page, the Mount Qasioun azimuths being a prime example - why aren't you removing all of them? --Emesik (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Emesik (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

who is sharmine narwani - in 2012 she started a blog like this "There is something quite unique about the Middle East’s “Resistance Axis” which includes Iran, Hezbollah, Syria, Hamas and a smattering of smaller groups opposed to western imperialism and zionism." is it just happenstance she writes a story that endorses a regme/ Hezbollah/iran friendly narrative - time and time and time again in this war people write for their 'side' and forget everything else-their allegiance trumps everything else. depressing. Sayerslle (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sayerslle. A novel - no matter how well researched, and even if based around historical events and historical personages - is essentially a work of imagination. We don't and can't use novels as sources for such topics as Religious views of Adolf Hitler; we can only use scholarly sources. Please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Cheers. Haploidavey (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you. Haploidavey (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. The thing with the category is that a novel set in the Stalin era and a novel made during the Stalin era are two different things. A novel set in the Stalin era may be made anytime, even today; the thing is that the plot takes place in the soviet union during Stalin's regime. Which is not the case of Animal farm, the plot takes place in Britain. Cambalachero (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the action takes place in Britain, but follows the arc of Stalins career. how is it clear that the category intends only works where 'the plot takes place in the soviet union' - that isn't evident to me. it is set in the stalin era.Sayerslle (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sayerselle - hopefully soon we'll "get there". Ugh! Right? I've come to respect your good earnest work and desire for full disclosure. Let's just keep working this. Maybe down the road we can achieve something good. And, secure at least some edit protection for the lead and stability to the Article as a whole. Look forward to the day. Yeah, I read some of that you refer to. We'll see. I'm certain there will be more sparks with other editors - but I'm hopeful anyway. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ghouta chemical attack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Lucas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sayerslle. You have new messages at Nthep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Sayerslle. You have new messages at Nthep's talk page.
Message added 16:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

NtheP (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're from Headingley and a Rhinos fan - I lived across the road, off Kirkstall Lane, for almost 20 years, went to numerous games but only when it didn't clash with a Keighley Cougars game. NtheP (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My user page is true but my family left Headingley - Argie Avenue, - when I was two, and unfortunately I can't remember it - but I watch the Rhinos on TV when I can , an armchair supporter I'm afraid, though I have been to Elland Road quite a few times - thanks again for your help with the Therese images. I will try and get one back I think. Sayerslle (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You have reverted more than once on Syrian Resistance, and written nasty things in the edit summary. I will now report you. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Done:[19] FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • your edit at the Syrian resistance page was wrong-headed and part of your pov pushing Sayerslle (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to your own biased POV. Whatever the reasons, you are not allowed to revert more than once on Syria civil war related pages, and you know that well. If you hadn't foolishly exclaimed "idiot", I would had let it go. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

its not a Syrian civil war article specifically is it - you said ; 'There were predecessor organisations (with Ural's involvement) with similar names at least all the way back to the 70s' - so its part of a different story to the civil war or summat like that - considering you called me pro-cannibal I don't think whining about people saying 'nasty things' is ground you should attack me on either - your whole modus operandi is slagging off people yu don't agree with - call them all sorts -and you endlessly paint them as things they aren't. and yur edit summary saying the sectarian-word was not supported by the ref was idiotic etc etc Sayerslle (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, the report is not about "idiot", but about breach of 1 rr. This specific organisation is only part of the civil war. Yes, there are predecessors, just like al Qaeda is the predecessor of al Nusra. Yet Nusra is only relevant to this war. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oh. Sayerslle (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating WP:1RR at Syrian Resistance per WP:SCWGS. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was editing a page about a sectarian movement and the page was being made disingenuous by two disastrously pov editors - - I didn't think of it as a scw article - wasn't looking at category or whatever - again, Wikipedia seems much more able to chastise neutral breakers of somewhat arbitrary rules than it is to deal with pov pushers - the page is grossly misleading if left to the likes of punxkid and funkmoki - an editor who btw serially abuses other editors who don't share his particular political 'line' - seems to be saying now that academics (Josh landis), likewise, who don't pass his political test, are not to be used - absurd - editors who are prepared to edit in the obnoxious atmosphere created by the likes of these editors should be encouraged , not shut up. Sayerslle (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

who bombs ?[20] - funkmoti says Josh landis wants to bomb Syria -[21]

bbc 26 march 2011"The authorities in Syria have released a substantial number of political prisoners, reports say.

The London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said more than 200 inmates, mostly Islamists, were freed from Damascus' Saidnaya prison.[22]

The move comes after the US and the UN condemned the Syrian government following reports that troops fired on peaceful protesters on Friday. now corriebertus is censoring this from the lead - this should go back in - they hate this the funkmoki/ sectarians cc: "Bashar al-Assad is one smart mass murderer. He has been saying all along that he is fighting al Qaeda and not a revolutionary movement of the Syrian people while at the same time letting al Qaeda leaders, many of them known terrorists and murderers, out of his prisons so they can provide "leadership" to the al Qaeda like groups, the ISIS and al Nusra, that are proving to be a boon to him and a plague on the democratic opposition.

Assad also has a history of attacking the Free Syrian Army more that he attacks these jihadist groups, while they have a very spotty record of attacking the regime. Assad also has a practise of bombing Syrian civilians in schools, hospitals and breadlines while leaving the camps and headquarters of these groups untouched."

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Syrian Civil War may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• that it had fired on pro-democracy protesters, Assad released Islamists <ref> BBC 26 March 2011, [[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12870679]</ref> from the country's prisons.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Ayaka Komatsu at Busan Film Festival October 2013.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 talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 03:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ayaka Komatsu at Busan Film Festival October 2013.jpg, which you've attributed to http://asianwiki.com/File:Ayaka_Komatsu-p03.jpg (CC-BY-NC-ND). 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

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 the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mint Press News. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I am taking the other editor to AN3 for their violation, but you should know better, too. Please escalate to the appropriate noticeboard next time rather than running right up to the "3" in the 3RR. VQuakr (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you self-revert your last contribution here? I get what you are saying, and certainly any experienced editor that reviews the history of new accounts on that article would raise their eyebrows. However, the point of the article talk page is to discuss content. The user behavior issues and speculation below on user talk pages and noticeboards. Getting that talk page back on track needs to start somewhere, and as the more experienced editor I think it is more likely to be possible to start with you. VQuakr (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Mint Press News. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You blocked me for resisting the pro-Assad and Iran fascist regime pov pushers. and back in the real world - - "English PEN joins PEN International in strongly condemning the recent execution of Ahwazi Arab poet Hashem Shaabani

The execution of Hashem Shaabani, a poet and teacher from Iran’s Ahwazi Arab minority, shows the gap between Iran’s attempts to improve its international relations and the human rights situation within the country. PEN urges the Iranian authorities to halt all executions and to release all writers, poets, journalists and bloggers held solely in connection with their peaceful exertion of their right to freedom of expression.

Relatives of Hashem Shaabani, a 31-year-old father of one from Ramshir (known as Khalafabad by the Ahwazi Arab community), were reportedly told on 29 January 2014 that he had been executed ‘three or four days before’. He had been transferred on 7 December 2013 to an unknown location from Karoun Prison in Ahvaz city where he had previously been held." -Sayerslle (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just had to chime in here after that rant. So how are you in turn not a pro-Salafist Saudi fascist regime pov pusher? FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pro-Saudi to oppose this? [23]Sayerslle (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

just found this quote online "We ask once again the question we have been asking always: Who is protecting Eli Hbeika now, when nobody disputes his responsibility for these massacres? The answer is: The Syrian government who rewarded him two years after the massacre, by appointing him as a minister in the Lebanese government. The Syrian rulers, and first and foremost Bashar Al-Assad, should prove their commitment to the Palestinian cause before they fill the air with their slogans about it." - i'm convinced the 'resistance' rhetoric of the snarwanis, the Syrian resistance, the bbaathist 'left' , the philgreaves, the pro-Assad gangs, is , has been for decades, the biggest load of b/s Sayerslle (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how that answers my question, or is even relevant to it. Just evasion. As for Hobeika, ever heard of Samir Geagea, who is now one of the biggest Lebanese defenders of your pet cause? FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

answering the question -"The conflict’s transformation into an all-out war—which dates to early February 2012, when the regime began using heavy artillery against Homs—occurred before there had been any significant Saudi involvement on the rebel side, although Iran was already funding and supporting Assad’s government at that time." "The Syrian conflict is first and foremost about sectarian power sharing inside Syria. It cannot be solved while Assad and his fellow members of a small religious minority, the Alawites, exert total control over the military-security apparatus " btw this is interesting video[24]Sayerslle (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few often overlooked facts: some groups that are fighting today were already arming themselves well before 2011. Salafist militants were involved from the very beginning. Many clerics based in Saudi Arabia incited anti-Alawite/Shia sentiments before and after 2011. Who funded these groups? Saudis. And a bonus question: Who attacked your country on 9/11? Iranians or Saudis? FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and Assad released some didn't he. you choose which facts to obsess over and which to overlook - for example you have your own version of the hafez assad policy regards Palestinians and Lebanon - tbh , just following twitter for the last year, i'd support the FSA on that alone - the pro-Assad gang are loathsome, repellent, vile, glorying in torture. they deal in constant personal attacks. the more open-minded on Syria are intelligent, they rarely resort to personal abuse, etc - to me its revealing. and i'm not an American , I am English/irish by heritage, internationalist socialist by predilection, I told you , you don't seem to be able to take on anything that runs counter to your beliefs about anything - unless youa re just winding me up, which is childish. so , unless thers anything else , I think that conclude our business. Sayerslle (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, can you tell me a single thing the government has done that the opposition hasn't done equivalents to? And as for "abusive language", I didn't know you knew Arabic. As for obsessions, you seem to mention Sharmine Narwani whenever you get the chance, even though no one ever refers to her here. Secret crush? On Socialism, there's a reason Socialists in the Middle East are rallying behind the likes of Sisi and Assad: with Salafists in power, they will be eradicated. It is not about Assad for most of those who oppose your Salafist friends. He's just a rallying point. FunkMonk (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not socialists - just pro-Assad or pro-Sisi - are rallying around sisi and assad .[25]- Iran/Hezb - a lot of 'leftists' are utter morons '

Jason Han ‏@hanjixin · Feb 4 His Excellency Mr Vladimir #Putin President of the Russian Federation likes cats - that's good enough for me :) '

Sayerslle (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked you for longer because you have been here longer than the other editor and you have been blocked before for edit warring. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an community sanction, and for edit warring on the page Mint Press News,

you have been blocked from editing for 1 week. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: Community sanctions are enacted by the consensus of the community. You must either discuss this block with the blocking administrator and receive their approval, or receive consensus at a community noticeboard before reversing this block.

Since the content the edit war is regarding is about the Syrian Civil War the general sanctions (which you have been made aware of) for that topic apply. You have a longer block than the other party as you have been blocked for edit warring on a number of occasions. Please note, that if you continue to edit war you may be sanctioned further, such as through topic or article bans or stricter revert restrictions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Sayerslle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

-I have been blocked for edit warring - where exactly ?- I took out 3 paragraphs of a CV on mint press news - which is not a category Syrian civil war article anyhow - but I simply undid what amounted to vandalism - I am at a loss to understand this block which looks most unjust to me. and highly punitive for no reason whatever. - even if mint pres news is labelled - by whom? - a Syrian civil war article - and who knew? - that isn't more than IRR in 24 hours , I didn't edit war - all I did was edit articles , ken jones and mint press news, I wasn't banned from editing those articles - all very censorious and arbitrary imo ( oh , I see from calleneces - 'Since the content the edit war is regarding is about the Syrian Civil War' - because the page is considered related to the Syrian civil war then its under general sanctions - the bit I reverted was about the staff at mint press anyhow- and I maintain I did not edit war at all - it takes two to edit war doesn't it, and I simply cancelled out a pov addition from a pov spa - they were not around though they did return to put back their version - I dd not edit it after they returned their pov version

Accept reason:

block expired. --slakr^\ talk / 09:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jean Simmons Bradford 2003.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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

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 the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic ban from Mint Press News anywhere on Wikipedia for three months

You have been sanctioned due to continued edit warring on that article both directly and indirectly related to the Syrian Civil War.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the community sanctions authorised for this topic area. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here except to the administrators' noticeboard rather than the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]