Thanks for your reply to the talk page atControversial command decisions, World War II. The article is a good idea but I have to say it appears to be only half of what is needed. What it consists of now are the arguments why a decision appeared to be controversial, but there is no substantial rebuttal to the arguments. For example, in the part about Churchill and Stalin's discussion concerning a landing in the west, it mentions Churchill's odd contention that the Germans had "nine divisions" in the west. Churchill may have believed that but it is completely untrue. In 1942, there were 35 divisions in the west and this had increased to 40 by 1943 (Harrison, p. 142.) Any discussion of this possibility would have to identify the numbers of divisions and aircraft on both sides at a given date to realistically assess what the chances of military success might have been. Given the often below-average performance of Allied formations before 1943, a landing in 1942 could well have led to a decisive Allied defeat in France and perhaps even a permanent closure of the western front dictated by an armistice with the Germans. 1943 was also problematic because the Allies were still building troop strength, and even when the invasion took place in 1944, by the time the Allies got to the German border it had become clear that there were not enough infantry divisions as well as serious manpower concerns that compounded the problem. The Germans became rather famous for statements like "if the other side had only pushed hard at this moment ...", but history documents that no matter how hard the Allies (or Soviets) pushed, the Germans were always capable of providing spirited resistance. The morale and cohesion of the German forces did not notably diminish in the west until the Rhine River was crossed in March 1945 and in the east, it remained hard-bitten to the end.
I hope you intend at some point to expand the sections of the articles to bring outall of the pertinent information, because as it is now, the article is lopsided. Cheers,W. B. Wilson (talk)07:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another example -Western allies were fielding 91 full-strength divisions against 60 weak German divisions whose overall strength was roughly equal to only 26 complete divisions. -- This strength quote is picked from a point in the campaign in which the invasion force has been brought up tofull strength in 1945 -- at which point a massive offensivewas launched and which did not really stop until Germany was defeated. The articlereally needs to bring out the rest of the story in these sections, because as it is, the information brought out in it appears to selected in such a way that it supports the notion that there was a controversy of some sort, but does not provide any information that would indicate there were valid reasons for something not to happen, such as the inability of the Allies to push into Germany in late 1944 (they tried that with numerous offensives but all ground down primarily because of logistical and manpower issues.) Cheers,W. B. Wilson (talk)07:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are noted. I think you really understand little about the western front, "dominant narratives" not withstanding. I just wanted to let you know that the two articles are strongly POV.W. B. Wilson (talk)16:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Controversial_command_decisions.2C_World_War_II may be of interest to you. It is considered, by some at least, good manners to notify involved parties of a RfC, I can only assume that Loosmark simply forgot to notify you.Varsovian (talk)11:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing,Controversial command decisions, World War II, has been listed fordeletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial command decisions, World War II. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.Nick-D (talk)22:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi C - you might want to copy the article tout suite into a user subpage - i.e. createUser:Communicat/sandbox - since the discussion seems to be moving towards restoring the older version of the article and deleting that one. You could work on it there undisturbed for quite a while and solicit other editors' opinions about its scope and whether it deserves to be a stand-alone article. I've already committed to improving the Lithuania article; that will take some time; so regrettably cannot commit to improving this one anytime soon, altho I do feel it deserves attention. Good luck and pls post anytime -Novickas (talk)23:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add non-neutral material such as links to essays at www.truth-hertz.net to Wikipedia articles, as you did toWorld War II andStrategic bombing during World War II. Doing so violates Wikipedia'sneutral point of view policy. Thank you.Binksternet (talk)20:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would you justify the statement that all resistance movements in Europe and Asia during World War II were communist led?Buckshot06(talk)08:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, No you got me wrong. I did not say "all" resistance / partisan movements were communist-led. I simply referred to "communist-led resistance movements", so there's no need for me to justify my words. There were of coursepopulist (i.e. non-communist)resistance groups as with Force 136 in Malaya, and a populist group in Greece, and nationalist resistance elsewhere e.g. China, before the split with Mao. Non-communist groups, however, were ineffectual and NOT a fighting force worth considering by comparison with the communist-led groups (which to some extent also had some populist members, and in Italy they also had devout Catholics as members). British SOE cut off arms supplies to the communist-led groups in favour of supplying the populist groups towards the end of the war, with a view to diminishing post-war communist influence in Europe and Far East. The sources that I provided in the disputed article that was reverted are relevant. But there are many other reliable sources on this topic, which I can provide if necessary. Thanks for your interest. Regards. Communicat (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I would make sure that you keep in mind that in France (especially Paris), non-communist groups actually were more effective and a fighting force worth considering. --Habap (talk)16:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TheRequest for mediation concerning World War II (overview article), to which you were listed as a party, has beendeclined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at themediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to theCommittee chairperson or e-mailed to themediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee,AGK20:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(This message delivered byMediationBot, an automated bot accountoperated by theMediation Committee to perform case management.)

What exactly do you mean by "revisionist" inWikipedia:Requests for mediation/World War II (overview article)? Would this be the same asHistoriography of the Cold War# Revisionism or are you maybe referring toHistorical revisionism (negationism)? --Petri Krohn (talk)01:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I grew up on Manhattan in the late 1960s and early 1970s every classroom, at least in thebetter schools where I went, was equipped with the bookRed Primer for Children and Diplomats. What a wonderful reading and learning experience! I really learned to appreciate the value of the printed word! (It also helped me understand why “we” had to kill all these gooks in Vietnam.) It would still make a excellent source for much of Wikipedia content – although it may be best to use it only indirectly through reliable secondary sources that either quote it directly or at least use it as a source of inspiration. Anyway, here is an on-line reference, in case you ever need to use it in your Wikipedia work.

• Vashi, Victor.Red Primer for Children and Diplomats (1st ed.). Viewpoint Books.ASIN: B0007EEE3I.

The highlight of the book was its description ofOperation August Storm and its causality with theAtomic bombing of Japan. It took me however several years to truly appreciate the insight, as I started to come across loads and loads of commie propaganda.

When I downloaded the bookBetween The Lies by author Stan Winer, I immediately went to the last chapter on these August 1945 events, titledAtomic Blackmail. This must be the worst concoction of commie lies and propaganda I have seen for years! Interesting though is that I recognized I had just read most of the crap in some other context, possibly even as a reference in some Wikipedia article. The author, Stan Winer seems to have used about the same text in several books. What a sneaky weaner! Is he some kind of master propagandist for the bad guys? --Petri Krohn (talk)18:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you're frustrated with the issues on theWorld War II article, butthis edit in particular the comment"when descended upon by the equivalent of a pack of editorial wild dogs", violated Wikipedia community civility standards ( seeWP:CIVIL) andour policy against personal attacks.

Please read those policies and don't do that again. I warned everyone on the talk page there to stop being rude to each other. I understand that there was general rudeness previously on all sides. However, just because you see them as all out to get you does not justify continuing to be rude to them. If you keep that up, you will earn a block for personal attacks. Please don't go there.Georgewilliamherbert (talk)05:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do notattack other editors. Comment oncontent, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Pleasestay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

I have imposed a 24 hr block on your editing Wikipedia other than your user and user talk pages. You repeated on your user page the same "pack of wild dogs" comment I warned you not to make above, after I left the warning.

Again - personal attacks and insults against other Wikipedia editors are not OK. Please edit in a more collegial manner going forwards.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk)19:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of24 hrs forabuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you mayappeal this block by adding below this notice the text{{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read theguide to appealing blocks first.

Communicat, I seriously suggest that you start working onAftermath of World War II, instead of complaining atTalk:World War II. If You do that, you will have my full support. --Petri Krohn (talk)21:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is to notify you that an editor has raised an issue related to you at the conflict of interest noticeboardhere.Sean.hoyland -talk05:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edwards321 seems to have identified that you are admitting that you're Stanley Winer on that image. Is that correct?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk)05:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not admitting that I am Stanley Winer. I shall reply shortly at greater length, when time permits.Communicat (talk)18:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:John Vorster.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

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

• make a note permitting reuse under theCC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (seethis list)at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication topermissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letterhere. 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 topermissions-enwikimedia.org.

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have 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 inyour upload log.Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you. (Hohum ^@)03:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communicat, I've deleted the image you uploaded of John Vorster. You stated on the noticeboard that you only had permission to use it in a non-commercial capacity. This is, in fact, incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. Except in the case of fair use, all images must be published under an unrestricted license, such that Wikipedia may be copied in its entirety by anyone for any purpose (including commercial ones).Someguy1221 (talk)08:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a valid license for the photo, please upload it to Commons and pass what ever permission you have byWP:OTRS. --Petri Krohn (talk)11:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The picture (I'm guessing it's the same one) is now re-uploaded asImage:Disgraced.jpg. There is a plausible fair use rationale for including it inJohn Vorster. Right now it's inHistory of South Africa which is a little more shaky. The filename is POV and should be renamed to John_Vorster.jpg or something like that, especially if the picture was taken on some occasion other than his post-scandal resignation in 1979.[1] The copyright is attributed to Stan Winer, whose contact page[2] describes him as a journalist and historical researcher but doesn't say anything about him being a photographer, and this looks like a press photo to me. Did Winer actually take the picture or acquire control of the copyright somehow? If not, the attribution should be corrected, and it also makes Winer's permission to use the picture noncommercially a little dubious.67.119.14.196 (talk)00:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This[3] and this[4] constituted personal attacks. I have already warned you multiple times about that and had to block you once before. Please work harder to work within ourcivil and collaborative editing policy (WP:CIVIL) andno personal attacks policy (WP:NPA).Georgewilliamherbert (talk)23:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of48 hrs forabuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you mayappeal this block by adding below this notice the text{{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read theguide to appealing blocks first.

Thanks for uploadingFile:B J Vorster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currentlyorphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am abot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this noticeafter the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, clickhere to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add{{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it offhere and leave a message onmy owner's talk page.

Thank you.DASHBot (talk)05:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Nick-D (talk)10:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was bouncing around and foundMadman theory, which I'd never heard of before, but I thought you might find interesting. --Habap (talk)21:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary inthis edit is not acceptable, especially using an intentional mispelling of their name to insult them. That's pretty low. Please don't do that again. Considering 'D' and 'N' aren't anywhere close to each other on a keyboard, even AGF doesn't stretch that far.Ravensfire (talk)22:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I believe I've warned you about this before, plus the previous blocks in September.

It's clear that you are having a serious problem getting along with other Wikipedia contributors. This is evident from the content discussions, and your breaking out into personal attacks like the one Ravensfire just pointed out above is just making the situation significantly worse.

You edited twice after Ravensfire made the above comment, neither of which was an apology or retraction of that edit comment. It appears that you still aren't taking this stuff seriously.

I am imposing a 1-week block for ongoing personal attack issues, following from the prior 24 and 48 hr blocks in September.

While this is active, I want to raise two points:

1. Our No Personal Attacks policy is serious
2. I need you to consider what it is about your interactions with other Wikipedians that is causing such significant negative reaction and response. It's happened with myriad other people, and many other articles now. Have you considered that you may be engaging in a fundamentally inappropriate mode of discussion and debate for the collaborative environment here? Bulldozing people's objections and sentiments is not good community or collaborative behavior, and there have been numerous complaints about you doing that on multiple articles.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk)01:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For evading your block, I have reset and reblocked your account.Elockid^(Talk)02:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original block length is reset, so your block will expire on November 25. Please do not try to evade your block in the meanwhile. Continuing to do so will lead to the block being reset and/or being extended.Elockid (Alternate)^(Talk)14:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is locatedhere. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page,Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page,Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,AGK13:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Communicat. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion atContributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions in relation toWikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be foundhere. For some suggestions on responding, please seeResponding to a CCI case. Thank you. --Nick-D (talk)22:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response toUser talk:AGK#World War II arbitration case[5] and in relation to your commenthere, you are reminded of the requirement to interactcourteously with all editors in theWorld War II Arbitration case. In the event that another of your comments from here on in constitutes a personal attack or incivility, you may be excluded from the Arbitration case for progressively-lengthy periods and/or blocked from editing. Play nice with the other parties, in short.

(This comment is made in my capacity as theclerk of the case.)

Thank you,AGK [•]18:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forthis comment, you are banned from editing any of the pages of the World War II arbitration case for 32 hours from now. If you violate this ban, it will be reset and your account will be blocked from editing. Get your point across without resorting to incivilities and cheap name-calling.AGK [•]00:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been passed:

• You are prohibited from editing or commenting on articles about World War II or the Aftermath of World War II. This prohibition is of indefinite duration, but may be appealed to the Committee by you after six months;
• You are placed under a behavioral editing restriction for a period of one year, as specified at the case page.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•]16:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you for not complying with the above sanctions at:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#CommunicatNick-D (talk)23:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce anarbitration decision, you have beenblocked from editing for a period of1 week. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read theguide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.T. Canens (talk)17:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Notice to administrators: In aMarch 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such asWP:AN orWP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on theproper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

To enforce anarbitration decision, you have beenblocked from editing for a period of1 week perAE thread. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read theguide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.T. Canens (talk)21:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Notice to administrators: In aMarch 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such asWP:AN orWP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on theproper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Regretfully,Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Communicat --HiltonLange (talk)09:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]