Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:01, 26 April 2014

Welcome!

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Ozhistory! I am Bidgee and have been editing Misplaced Pages for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Misplaced Pages! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Bidgee (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Skiing in Australia has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Misplaced Pages. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Misplaced Pages. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \babout\.com\b (links: http://goaustralia.about.com/od/skiing/a/skitasmania.htm, http://goaustralia.about.com/od/skiing/a/skitasmania.htm).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Misplaced Pages's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page Skiing in Australia do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Since Misplaced Pages uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  
   Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Misplaced Pages. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Misplaced Pages. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \babout\.com\b (links: http://goaustralia.about.com/od/skiing/a/skitasmania.htm, http://goaustralia.about.com/od/skiing/a/skitasmania.htm).
   If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Misplaced Pages's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Culture of Australia - under construction

I've put an "under construction" template on Culture of Australia, because we've already had a couple of edit conflicts with three people editing it today. I'll wait until you finish until I do any more. Please remove the "under construction" template, when you're done. (My intended edits are copy-edits, not restructures.) Thanks, Mitch Ames (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - will do. Almost done really. For time being I am only planning to add a Theatre in Australia section.Ozhistory (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Please do review.Ozhistory (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those many sensible corrections and additions. Ozhistory (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Aust Hist

Hi. Nice section on Australian democracy you just added to History of Australia. Just a thought - should it be headed "Development of Australian Democracy" or similar? CheersNickm57 (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - yeah, sounds good. Done.Ozhistory (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Great work on the page - terrific to have another set of eyes across the topic, I was beginning to dispair! (Pls note - A couple of citations seem to be errors) Cheers Nickm57 (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Pacific War

I noticed you've been working on Pacific War and I don't want to mess with it. but I made a mistake when I change the lede to add It is generally considered that the Pacific War began on 7/8 December 1941 with the Japanese invasion of Thailand for the invasion of British Malaya.... It actually began about an hour earlier. See comments I added to Talk:Citations needed badly. The present Note linking to Churchill's broadcast should be deleted; or if considered of import, moved somewhere else. --Pawyilee (talk)

Nice to know you

How about letting us have more detail about yourself? Greenmaven (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

How to make redirects

Hi Ozhistory, I noticed you made a page at Catholic church and medicine with a note saying "see Catholic Church and health care". I have turned it into an actual redirect page so visitors will be automatically taken to Catholic Church and health care. I hope that's okay. If you want to make redirects yourself you can take a look at Help:Redirect. Have a nice day! —Noiratsi (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I coudn't remember how! Ozhistory (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Catholic Church and Nazi Germany

Hello Ozhistory. Good to meet you. Recently you "undid" an edit I created. You make a valid point and caution that we're not to "cut and paste" copyrighted publications. This I too am aware of, which is why I did not; the wording is slightly different for that reason. Perhaps, it is too close to the actual wording so there is the possibility to paraphrase with genuine intent and providing a citation for detail.

One of the problems with this Article and any involving religion and the Nazi Era is that it lends itself to emotion, controversy and sometimes, unfortunately, selective and "creative" editing of legitimate sources. This introduction allows a tone to take hold early on that promotes a NPOV to assist and encourage the Article away from becoming a battle ground of "edit wars" between those who go to extremes from all camps. This is the heart of this particular edit and should be our goal overall objective, which I'm certain you share. This Third Party reference helps in that way.

As for Pius XII - well, it is rather challenging - if not impossible - to discuss the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany without his pontificate becoming the central focus with regard to the Catholic response to Nazism and Nazi Germany. Yes? And, ultimately, it leads us there regardless of our best efforts because this is how the history unfolds naturally. Therefore, why not "cut to the chase" early on and diffuse a topic that is bound to be contentious? Not much one can do about that. So, I ask you to collaborate. I invite you to edit my input rather than simply "undo" to reach a working compromise. So, I will revert my edit for you and I look forward to your future input. Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look - but it seemed to follow the Britannica text awfully closely. As for Pius XII being the crux of an article on Catholicism and Nazi Germany, I'd say he is mightily important, but there's far more to it - his predecessor Pius XI was on the spot for the rise of Nazism for a start. Ozhistory (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a difficult job, but I've tried a rewrite, keeping shorter than original but longer than yours. It now encompasses Pius number 11 as well as 12, and discusses some of the complexities of the Catholic response to Nazism and the Nazi response to Catholicism. On the material taken from Britannica, I see no reason to give focus to The Deputy or Hitler's Pope in the opening of this article as they are plainly among the least credible accounts of Pius' pontificate. I think it is enough to refer to and wikilink to existing[REDACTED] discussion of debate and controversy where that stuff can be found. Ozhistory (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, Ozhistory, I think it was maybe unnecessary to revert the most recent edit on this article even allowing for the other circumstances. Adding the word 'German' in front of 'Catholic priests' would have brought it into line with the scholarship in question (the Polish Catholics, of course, were not praying for a Nazi victory!) and Ericksen is an internationally renowned expert on the subject whose views certainly should be represented. Of course, the priests' precise motives for wanting to show support for Nazism may be debated, and may have practical (supporting the nation in time of war to avoid trouble/conflict) rather than theological. But there is a body of serious scholarship that makes a convincing case for criticism of at least some Catholic priests over their actions and I think that should be reflected in both the article and the lead. If of course there is another reason why you reverted it, do please let me know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcc01 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I might be inclined to make an alteration along the lines of what you say above. But in view of a the ongoing issues with that editor, my "revert" was motivated by:

• your point: the editor is combining/confusing the complex reactions of a multinational church - ie the statement cannot be extended beyond German priests and obviously in no sense was the response of Polish priests;
• my fear, born of experience, is that he will give no quarter in recognition of this blatantly obvious point, and that any efforts to nuance the point would be futile;
• the experience of him serially misquoting sources and the possibility that I could be nuancing a source that doesn't even say what he says it says;
• I have reached a point of believing that he is a disruptive editor without either the will or ability to accurately present the views of the authors he is quoting

In relation to his requests for citations, they are either already provided in the body of the article, are generally common knowledge in nature or verifiable by quick reference to the content referred to (eg Summi Pontificatus on the "resurrection of Poland" etc.). I could spend a day referring him to the citations - it would have no effect (as you have witnessed from previous exchanges). Greengrounds has taken to thoroughly declaring his trust in John Toland as a source (solely it seems on the basis of Toland's comment that Hitler was "in good standing with Rome"), but I doubt very much that he has read Toland, as Toland, for all his criticisms, accuses the church of a "sin of omission rather than commission", stating unambiguously: "The Church, under the Pope’s guidance, had already saved the lives of more Jews than all other churches, religious institutions and rescue organizations combined, and was presently hiding thousands of Jews in its monasteries, convents and the Vatican itself." (Hitler, 1997, p.760) - a view fervently denied by Greengrounds.

If you feel you are in a position to shift Greengrounds' text into an accurate, or adequate reflection of the point his cited author is trying to make - by all means go ahead. I am afraid I am beyond trying, and would prefer to wait until the referral to a moderator has run its course. In the meantime, the text he has inserted is clearly inadequate and should be revised or reverted. Ozhistory (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I entirely understand your frustration Ozhistory and after my own bruising encounters can sympathise. This is how it now reads after I have tidied it up a bit; On the outbreak of war between Germany and Poland, the German Army murdered up to 1,000 Polish priests, fearing they would be foci for discontent, while German Catholic priests and bishops prayed in support of Germany's cause, seeking to show their support for Germany's (and by extension, Hitler's) cause was undimished. I think that's a fair reflection of what's in the book. It's maybe a bit of a side point for an introduction, but it does deserve to be mentioned. As it happens, it was sort of right...although if you will pardon my borrowing a phrase, there were some 'sins of ommission' in it! Hope that you are OK with that edit.Hcc01 (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. I've just shortened a little further (+ added wikilink) on basis that lead is very crowded. In view of aforementioned editors requests for citations, I have provided same, including one from his aforementioned preferred source: John Toland. Ozhistory (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC:Infobox Road proposal

WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to {{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.

• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal

You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:AUS

Nbound (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler, User talk:Greengrounds". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  04:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Catholic Church and Nazi Germany

Hello Ozhistory- sorry to ask you to jump in . . . . but as serious fiasco just took place at the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany Article. An editor by the name Biknsternet - on a whim -discarded weeks of solid work by yourself, Sayerselle, Greengrounds and myself. Please go to Talk page to voice your input. Thank you!

Hello Ozhistory- someone removed your link in the Articel lede of, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, attached to the phrase "spoke out". It was probably not intentional, so you might want to correct that. Keep up the good work. Best of luck.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done some more work and actually think that we may just about have the topic covered - for the first time! But, it is still too wordy to pass muster for many a passing editor, so if efficiencies of language can't be found, I fear a well intentioned editor will again erase much of it. Have you put those stats on 20,000 priests etc into the body of the article, with citations? They are good, but are an example of a detail which could be transferred, no? Ozhistory (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ozhistory- Good work. The link attached to "German Catholics", I would suggest, s/b Religion in Nazi Germany because of its relevance to the topic. The alternative offers such a glossing over of the period it overs little to shed light on the Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Integrityandhonesty (talk • contribs) 11:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ozhistory- Just left a note with the good editor Sayerselle to request he self-edit his recent offering in the lede and place them in an appropriate Section. We need to focus rather on reducing the verbiage of the lede. We now have had two Senior Editors point out that its too long. And, I truly desire to avoid the "roll-back" fiasco. I intend to exercise the same discipline. All the essentials are already there. Now its about an economy of words w/o loosing the essentials.

What I have noted is that Articles that cover complex epic subjects have no citations - at all, but rather 4 "simple" paragraphs. We're doing great work - just desire that this round it all "sticks". Until next time Integrityandhonesty (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ozhistory-Left a message on the Talk page making a formal request that Sayerselle start genuinely collaborating. He has been editing this Article since 12.11 - nearly half the life of the Article. And now, 35-40% of the word count is sourced to his edits alone! Yet, he seems to feel his voice is being muted. Not sure where this is headed -but my take is if we turn our heads for a matter of weeks all this work is for naught and he'll jump right back in and edit our work to a stub. As we say here in Chicago, "Just say'n." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Integrityandhonesty (talk • contribs) 03:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That's good. Yes, that editor is generally not constructive. I will support any further action by way of referring him to administrators, as it is clear from his talk page that he is a serial offender, who has been banned often. By the way, when you want to post something like that on a talk page, look for the "new topic" button, which will separate your content from previous. Ozhistory (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hawkesbury and Nepean Wars

Hello there, I see you are quite interested in Australian history. I myself have been working on the article Hawkesbury and Nepean Wars. But it has turned out to be much longer than I realised and I haven't had much time to add to the war parts or even properly finish the origins section. If you would like to help me with this please contact me on my talk page and we can go from there. Cheers. --Collingwood26 (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, I will try to review it. Ozhistory (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Stalking and Slander, repeat offender

Ozhistory, recently you followed me to an article and proceeded to slander me on the talk page, trying to undermine my credibility while offering nothing of substance yourself. Please cease and desist with your repeated attempts at slander. This is not your first warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 00:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is my comment placed on the Historicity of Jesus page:

"Dear editors, a note on editor Greengrounds. Previously he was the subject of over abusive comments, POV pushing, poor sourcing, edit warring and a general battleground attitude in relation to editing articles relating to Nazism and Christianity. I hope this pattern of behaviour is not repeated in this article and at Tacitus on Christ, but responses of two editors suggest this might be occurring."

The comments speak for themselves. I have absolutely no intention of re-engaging further in your disrespectful to-and-fro. Ozhistory (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Please keep it that way. Respectfully, --Greengrounds (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Historical Jesus

I enjoyed your reply back to Greengrounds. It was very well said. Since he seems to be very active this week on many of the Christian pages I watch, its been interesting to read (and reply to) some of the comments he has made on Talk pages. He has a serious axe he's trying to grind... Ckruschke (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Hey Ozhistory, I think Greengrouds has calmed down a bit on the relationship between science and religion page and is going ok there. I think Greengrounds biases are quite strong, but as long as wiki protocols are followed there should be no problems. Appreciate the heads up.--Ramos1990 (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update and for keeping an eye on the page. There is a pattern of behaviour with that editor, the hardest of which to pick up can be misquotation of sources which shift the tone of an article towards his "very strong biases", and perhaps the most distressing of which is his habit of personally attacking editors who challenge his edits. On that basis I thought a "heads up" to longstanding editors would help guard the integrity of the page. Best regards and happy editing! Ozhistory (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Wiki pages for various catholic Martyrs

I have nominated several of your articles on non notable christians for deletion. The reasons are as follows: poor sourcing (the Huffington Post, catholic news, obscure German websites), non notability of the articles, and bias. We don't generally keep a list or provide a memorial for non notable islamic "martyrs" AFIK, so why would we have one for non notable christians. Keep up the good work, though. You're trying.Greengrounds (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I have reported your comments above and disruptive edits to the . Your final personal attack is evidence of Misplaced Pages:Harassment#wikihounding. In reply to your "points" above: firstly, the articles you have marked for deletion are not all by me. Secondly and without exception they also appear on multiple other language wikis (somewhere between 3 and 5 language wikis in total in each case), excellent evidence for notability, if such factors as being important figures in the German Resistance, or the fact of being honoured as Blesseds by the Catholic Church are not sufficient evidence for you. On sourcing, The Resistance Memorial Centre website is a useful resource, as is Yad Vashem and newspapers like The Australian, the Jerusalem Post etc are perfectly valid. Sources like Paul Berben; Dachau: The Official History 1933-1945; Norfolk Press; London; 1975 are more than adequate. Your reference to Christian v Islamic martyrs is infantile. Ozhistory (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

A lot of his recent conduct could be characterized as infantile, actually. Sorry about the abuse here. Also, for what it might be worth, regarding Christians of at least previous eras, archive.org contains a truly astonishing number and variety of highly regarded, if older, reference books and history, including Baring-Gould's Lives of the Saints and the early edition of the Ramsgate Benedictines' book, among others. I'm going to try to put a lot of them on Wikimedia commons and some of the longer articles from some of them on WikiSource, but they are all available for at least use for reference purposes. John Carter (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that sounds interesting. Actually, and contrary to the impression Greengrounds might be giving above, I haven't been writing up on Catholic saints, but rather, I am in the middle of some interesting research on Resistance to the Third Reich, and have honed in on "Christian Resistance", which is/was a topic not well covered on wikipedia, in part I think because the bulk of literature is in German. These are the "martyrs" GG objected to having on wikipedia. Ozhistory (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Your question re Green issues at AN/I

Re the section "Resolution?" and how to get a decision, what happens is that we just have to wait for an "uninvolved" admin to decide to "close" the discussion with or without some action. It is very frustrating, I know, and they always dilly dally about such things, why I do not know, these procedures are all so bureaucratic and time-consuming, how there could be anything clearer than the current green problems I cannot imagine. Whatever happens we must not let it go 36 hours on that thread without any comment from someone or the bot will archive the whole thing without any decision or comment from an admin at all. Regards,Smeat75 (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds IPs

Hi, Ozhistory, I happened to see your posts about IPs presumed to be used by Greengrounds on User:Penwhale's page. I think 209.91.107.139 must be the same also, and 209.91.107.167 editing Religious views of Adolf Hitler, and… in fact, take a look at contributions of the 209.91.107.128/25 range for yourself, as listed by Helloannyong's neat tool. It's not a very large range, by my notions, and I'm sure most of the edits from it are Greengrounds'. I've blocked the range for two weeks. I'm new to range blocking, so I hope there won't be a lot of collateral damage (=innocent IPs caught in the same net). If you see continued disruption from similar IPs at the end of the two weeks, you might let me know about it. Bishonen | talk 23:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC).

• P.S. Ha. When I got there, User:Salvio guiliano had just blocked the range one minute ahead of me. Bishonen | talk 23:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC).

• As I requested it on WP:SPI. Bishonen is as sharp-eyed as I remember she was. :) - Penwhale | 23:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well done and thanks. I'd spotted a few of those, but not all. Ozhistory (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It continues: see here (particularly the reversions in Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, for which false edit summaries are given) and here. user: Smeat75 picked up this lot and others. There have been plenty of others. Bishonen, Penwhale, User:Salvio guiliano or John Carter can you put a protection back on Catholic Church and Nazi Germany for an extended period, and keep a watch on those IPs? Ozhistory (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I've re-blocked the range for a month. Hopefully that'll mean we can manage without protecting the articles. Bishonen | talk 09:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC).

• I semi'd the Church & Nazi Germany article for 1month, but was called to question why. I have directed User:IRWolfie- to here. - Penwhale | 15:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Dear User:Penwhale, Greengrounds has deleted a new round here. Thanks for your work. Ozhistory (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear user:Penwhale, User:IRWolfie-, user: Smeat75, Bishonen, User:Salvio guiliano or John Carter - action is required to block new sock puppets of Greengrounds and protect Religion in Nazi Germany page, where he has reverted a considerable amount of well sourced content and made a personal attack and false allegations on the talk page. I can see two IP puppet addresses used for this latest round of vandalism: here and here. Ozhistory (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess the month-long block on the 209.91.107.128/25 range just expired. Time flies! I've re-blocked it for three months and semi'd the article for a month (it had never been protected before, so I couldn't really make it longer). Bishonen | talk 00:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC).

Pius XII and the German Resistance

Were you aware that this article had been nominated for DYK? I've reviewed it at {{Did you know nominations/Pius XII and the German Resistance}} and raised a couple of substantive issues and one stylistic one; I'd appreciate it if you'd go there and respond at least to the substantive objections. Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware. I have made adjustments to article and will advise at the nomination page. Ozhistory (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

catholic church and Nazi G

do you mind not putting 'happy now sayerslle' and such fatuous personal directed notes in your edit summaries? - I watched a programme on the rise of hitler on Sunday and , after the Reichstag fire, it said Hitler addressed the 'parliament' in an opera house that was serving as a new temporary Reichstag and at this point it said simply, the Communists having been banned , the socialists bravely voted against hitler, while the Catholic Centre Party and the Right voted for him - your whole drive is to portray the catholics , and at this point, their party, as victims, but there , in a simple portrait, they are rather conniving at Hitlers rise. you are, like (soi-disant) 'integrity and honesty' determined to portray things in a certain light and just because I do sometimes add a tag , or question wording or sources, that is legitimate Sayerslle (talk) 07:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You saw a documentary on Sunday so you put up a tag?? The information is already in our article. It's in every history book of the period. I regret if you were offended, but it was an unnecessary tag, that led to an unnecessary expansion and the issue has been dealt with before. What do you suppose the documentarian meant by calling socialists "brave"? They were indeed brave, because the vote was conducted in a climate of intimidation. Same goes for your re-request for the already multiply cited line on the Nazi radicals led the persecution of the churches. Your POV is simple and clear enough "there , in a simple portrait, they are rather conniving at Hitlers rise". History is so much more complex than that. Clearly the church in Germany claimed to be unjustly oppressed during the Nazi era. That smaller minorities were more harshly treated is of course true. These are not mutually exclusive ideas.Ozhistory (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

it is complex. your pov simplifies in its waySayerslle (talk) 08:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

On the topic of the Nazi takeover, I really can't quite understand your assessment of the times. I agree that the Centre Party vote raises moral issues. But surely you recognise that it did not take place in ordinary "parliamentary" conditions? Ditto the dissolution of the party, only more so. Ozhistory (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Concerns regarding your edits to "Religious views of Adolf Hitler"

FYI, I have a few concerns about your recent edits to the Religious views of Adolf Hitler article. I wasn't sure if you were done editing the page, plus I'm not exactly sure I'm unbiased in this area, so I wrote up my concerns on the talk page. Since it directly related to your edits I thought I should let you know I posted my comment about your edits there. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. -- HiEv 22:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, I'll take a look. Ozhistory (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Just another heads up. I looked into your source, Richard Weikart and his book From Darwin to Hitler, and found them to be an unreliable source (as now explained on the talk page), so I removed most of the references to it. -- HiEv 17:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Pius XII and the German Resistance

On 2 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pius XII and the German Resistance, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that despite officially being impartial, Pope Pius XII (pictured) acted as an intermediary between the German Resistance and the Allies during World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pius XII and the German Resistance. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It's now featured on Portal:Germany, - if you have other DYK related to German, please feel free to add it there yourself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Precious

Catholic resistance to Nazism
Thank you for quality articles such as Pius XII and the German Resistance, the general Catholic resistance to Nazism and biographies such as Karl Friedrich Stellbrink, for looking at women in the history of the Catholic church, for your modest user page, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Awww shucks! Danke, Gerda. I've travelled down a huge side track of researching resistance to Nazi Germany, which I am finding fascinating. I keep thinking I've finished on it, then find more. All the best. Ozhistory (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent project! I nominated Stellbrink for DYK, there are more details in German, I also asked to get his image to the commons. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

A good German (and general) DYK could be on Otto Neururer. Does the German page agree, or mention, if he was the first priest (I assume Catholic priest) killed in a Nazi Concentration Camp? If so, that could be the DYK? The fact appears here, so could benefit from a corroboration. Ozhistory (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

de says he was the first Austrian priest, - I didn't find "first priest" (yet). The article is a bit too short, but will probably grow? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I ask because I thought that 1940 seemed very late in the Nazi reign for him to be the "first" to die. Please keep an eye out for a reliable German source that might clear up the point. Danke shoen. Ozhistory (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Just a note to let you know I caught a recent piece of yours in the New Articles queue and was impressed with your editing work.... Thanks for your efforts! Carrite (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. Ozhistory (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Karl Friedrich Stellbrink

On 10 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Karl Friedrich Stellbrink, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Lutheran pastor Karl Friedrich Stellbrink was one of the Lübeck martyrs guillotined on 10 November 1943 for opposing the Nazi regime? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Karl Friedrich Stellbrink. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 11 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Pope Pius XI and Germany page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for your recent contributions

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions to previously less developed articles, like Criticism of Atheism, and making them more informative with good references. Keep up the good work. You are making a difference. Mayan1990 (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:CITE

Ozhistory, please do not include complete bibliographical information in each and every individual footnote in which a book is cited. I've deleted thousands of bytes from Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, to discover that it's all because of redundant information in footnotes. There was a bibliography already, so a footnote need only contain a brief reference, not full name, full title, year of publication, publisher, and year. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Thaddeus Ma Daqin‎

On 31 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thaddeus Ma Daqin‎, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Catholic bishop of Shanghai, Thaddeus Ma Daqin, has been held under house arrest by the Chinese Government since 2012? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thaddeus Ma Daqin‎. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Gottgläubig

I'm not contesting the work of Evans, however I think the paraphrased formulation of his work now present in the article is misleading since the quote "convinced Nazis who had left their Church at the behest of the Party, which had been trying since the mid 1930s to reduce the influence of Christianity in society" most certainly directly refers to those in the category "gottgläubig" and to them alone, but not to the 1.5% atheists. Unfortunately I don't have access to the book so I can't present the original quote, but I believe it has been either misconstrued or the author was not careful with his wording, hence the misleading interpretation in this article, taken out of the original context. As I said there is an entire article about gottgläubig in the German version of Misplaced Pages, unfortunately all sources provided there are naturally not in English. I think it is important to point out that "gottgläubig" was a specific religious affiliation only present in the "third reich" and not equatable with deism since deism has no specific ideology attached to it very much unlike "gottgläubig" which explicitly included the worship of Hitler as a messiah-figure. Unfortunately, I'm not an experienced Misplaced Pages editor and unsure how to go about this myself. All I know is that the current wording is certainly better than the previous one (which falsely equated gottgläubig to agnosticism) but still less than ideal.178.5.161.105 (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, while I don't entirely agree with some of your conclusions, I think there have been some improvements to the text prompted by your involvement. This is a problematic article as it attracts a lot of agenda pushers, who aren't necessarily basing their work on good scholarship. Your writing style seems nice and clear, I think you just need to familiarise yourself with some[REDACTED] protocols, such as that you be careful not to change attributed quotes, and if you are adding new material like the gottgläubig definition, then you need to provide a reliable source for it. Another thing you might consider is logging on with a user name, so you can set up a proper talk page and edit from different computers. It might be worth creating a Gottlaubig article in English. It's an interesting topic. I have read about the movement it before but am a little rusty. On the question of Nazi support for atheism, it did in fact exist - if not on the scale of officially atheist Communist states. There were very senior Nazis like Martin Bormann who were militant atheists, and the Nazis legislated against discriminating against atheists. Only non-Nazi atheist groups were banned in Germany (Nazi atheists had perfect liberty). As I understand it, the claim that Hitler "opposed" atheism arises mainly when his rhetoric is taken out of context, because when he spoke of battling the "atheistical movement" he was actually referring to Bolshevism. Also there are Hitler quotes on the importance of religious education for example, which were made when he was negotiating a Concordat with the Vatican as part of his plan to shut down political Catholicism (which he knew only too well had bested Bismark) - but such comments did not translate into policy once he had secured power, and the regime proceeded to shut the churches out of schooling. Can I ask what source you are relying on for believing that the Nazis gave "no" support to atheist groups? Ozhistory (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

Your edit to Religious views of Adolf Hitler was in violation to WP:NPOV, so your edit has been reverted. TheGFish (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Greengrounds - what edit to Religious views of Adolf Hitler?? As far as I can see you are seeking to replace longstanding, cited content without discussing with other editors. You have undone useful bundling of sources, deleted several citations and attempted to add contentious content. Ozhistory (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:VAN

If you keep making nonconstructive edits as you did to Religious views of Adolf Hitler, you may be subjected to a block after farther warnings. TheGFish (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I notice you have been warned against your false allegation against me here. This constitutes a personal attack. Ozhistory (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This confirms again that you have made a false allegation: here. Ozhistory (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I was mistaken that you were a vandal. Sorry, it was not a personal attack either. I thought at first that you tried to remove large content for no reason, but I accidentally deleted something of your's while I included something. TheGFish (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

My Apologies

I'm sorry for mistaking you for a vandal. TheGFish (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)