User talk:Maria Stella

I wish to object to your continuous deleting of the Holocaust from German history. Gidonb 22:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And I object to your continuous POV-pushing and flooding of a short history section which is intended to outline the history of Germany as a state with alleged German wrongdoings. It may be your opinion that Germans are evil, but Wikipedia is no place for such propaganda. Using 30 % of the history section for 12 years which cover 0,6 % of the country's history is extremely POV. Maria Stella 06:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can see, 30 % of the Israel history section is not spent on the Nakba. Maria Stella 06:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

3RR on Erika Steinbach

Hi. I have listed you and Space Cadet for a 3RR on Erika Steinbach. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for details -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked oyu [1] for WP:3RR. Please take thetimeoff to read up on our policies. William M. Connolley 11:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board

Hello! I'd like to make you aware of the recently-created Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. Feel free to participate with the project. Olessi 01:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Polish Nationalists

Hi Maria, I would like to show you a link to the official page of Polish Nationalists: [2]. Maybe it will "learn" you the difference between a nationalist and an encyclopedia editor of Polish origin. Also, please stop calling me a "polish nationalist", because I hate to be compared to these degenerates, and am ashamed to be their countryman. If you continue calling me those names, I will consider it a personal attack. You can call me a patriot if you have to, but if I was a true patriot, I would have stayed in Poland rather than have immigrated from it to USA. If you are so fascinated by encounters with nationalists, perhaps you should write a fan letter to the organization mentioned above. Unfortunately nationalism is not dead in Europe, it is a driving force for many people. Sad, but if we start labeling each other "nationalists" based on differences of our knowledge and culture, we will only help them grow. Sincerely, Space Cadet.

Hi Space Cadet;

I don't think the "Blood and Honour" are the only nationalists active in Poland. I would certainly consider parties like the League of Polish Families or even the PiS fiercely nationalist. You are however correct that there are also other nationalists around in Europe. Maria Stella 12:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Steinbach

Maria, pretty please, take your problems with the new version to talk before you blind revert to the version that caused so much stir. I've really done my best to make that article as NPOV as possible and it hurts me to see that people value my work so low. Halibutt 14:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to integrate some of the improvements, but the problems were not solved with your version. Basically, using Polish sources and Polish points of view in a biography on a German politician in English is wrong. The article should rely on mainstream German sources like her official biography. Maria Stella 17:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a based on cooperation and compromise between users. Blindly reverting to your version and throwing out work done by other editors is not productive, especially if you don't even mention the fact that you are reverting in the edit summary. It seems that some kind of a compromise has been reached on this article. Please keep that in mind before making drastic changes. Balcer 13:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There is still no compromise reached. Whenever the Poles are ready to discuss actual compromises, I am ready to take part in that conversation. Maria Stella 13:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

And once again I would kindly ask you not to delete sources and references. I will not revert the article any more but will guard the dispute tag as long as the article represents purely Nazi German POV. As a sign of good will you might want to add back the references you unilaterally deleted. Halibutt 15:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is representing a neutral point of view, based on the actual name and status of her birthplace when she was born, as stated in her own Bundestag biography. That you consider the Bundestag or the BdV "Nazi" isn't my problem. The link to http://szukaj.gazeta.pl/archiwum/1,0,2259930.html?wyr=Tygrysica%2Bwyp%25EAdzonych%2B is leading only to an advertisement page as far as I can see. 17:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, her own POV that makes her believe that the Nazi Germany had the right to annex any territory is irrelevant to the Wikipedia. And Bundestag simply uses the German name of that place. It does not imply any "reannexation" or "liberation" whatsoever. And the link leads to the archives of that newspaper. You have to log in to be able to see the text, but it's the best link I could find. Yet, you deleted also the references in German and English that were easily-accessible to all - for no apparent reason. Halibutt 21:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

---

On POV Pushers

Hello Maria, before wikipedia I would have never believed, that this kind of everything distorting group could really exist. I can tell, you are getting an eye full yourself.

You fell into the trap of irritating same group by your innocent attempts at trying to insert some None-Pol POV. How dare you, don't you realise, that anyone not going along with all their POV is going to be ganged up on and declared a Nazi at minimum ? Look at old old wikipedia talk pages and you will find, that this behavior of constant barrages of trash- talk and ganging up on anyone not going along with this massive POV is endless. Once in a while a reasonable person like Jasra, tries wikipedia, but all the reasonable people get soon discouraged and leave.

That is the reason, why Wikipedia, even thought it is pretty good in some parts, is nevertheless nothing more than a type of 'Revolverblatt' (trashy sensationalising propaganda paper), copied, mirrored over and over (see google.com on any subject and wikipedia stuff always comes up first)

I get mad at myself for inserting factual knowledge into wikipedia, even though I realise, that everything soon gets trashed and it really is a waste.

My suggestion is 'cool it, (also to myself, it is really not worth it wasting time inputting into Wikipedia). Maybe you want to think of this part of wikipedia and the tedious job of constantly trying to clean up big POV messes as similar to changing diapers or 'pooper scooper', no matter how often you clean up after them, sh.. always happens again and again and again.

---

Page move: East Germany → German Democratic Republic

You copy & paste moved the page East Germany to German Democratic Republic. I fully support your view that German Democratic Republic is the right place for the article. Pages should however newer be moved manually, but by the Wikipedia:Requested moves procedure. Copy & paste moves distort the page history. In this case the damage is even worse; we have completely lost the history before 23 May 2006. Where did you get the material from? -- Petri Krohn 01:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Undiscussed page move: Herero and Namaka Genocide to Herero and Namaka Uprising & vandalism template

Please discuss such controversial moves before. Thanks! Lapaz 18:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. See this nice deletion of 3/4 of the page. Lapaz 18:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Negationist vandalism on Lothar von Trotha

Please stop immediately your negationist vandalism, now at [3]. You will be blocked from editing if you don't abide by the rules of the community. Lapaz 16:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

3rr on Herero Uprising

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. --Birdmessenger 16:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverting simple vandalism does not count. Maria Stella 16:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you are edit warring. Please consider discussing your changes first. While I agree with you that some changes to the text to make it more NPOV are in order, I do not believe replacing the text of the article with a photo of a plaque commemorating the Germans killed in the conflict is anything short of POV.

Also, please consider not making accusations of "vandalism" against other editors. Clearly, that's not what's going on, and it's not going to resolve issues here any faster.

At any rate, if you revert the article again, you will probably be blocked, so think about discussing your issues on the talk page first. Thanks.--Birdmessenger 17:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC) :At any rate, if you revert the article again, you will probably be blocked, so think about discussing your issues on the talk page first. Thanks.--Birdmessenger 17:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Lothar von Trotha and Herero and Namaka Genocide

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Lothar von Trotha, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. + Do not remove content without following standard NPOV dispute. Repeatedly deleting contents & engaging in edit war may lead you to be blocked. Furthermore, please do not remove vandalism templates from your talk page as it may also be considered as vandalism. Lapaz 15:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on Herero and Namaqua Uprising

Hi Maria Stella, I've added a straw poll to the talk page at Herero and Namaqua Uprising regarding the title of the article. Perhaps you could comment. Thanks!--Birdmessenger 15:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

3rr on Herero Wars

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.--Birdmessenger 15:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking a Move

Adding an edit to prevent a move war may have been done with good intentions, but the better way to have solved the issue would have been to stop moving to your preferred title and to take the issue to the talk page (as was later done). Moving a page to your preferred title and then blocking a page move like that is not a nice thing to do. Thanks. -- tariqabjotu 23:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please do not call other people's edits vandalism, as you did in this, this, and in this edit, as well as disingenuously adding a vandal tag to my page in this edit and again here. See WP:VANDAL and look under What vandalism is not. You are calling a content dispute vandalism, which is false and frowned upon. I quote the policy:

If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as vandalism, then he or she is actually damaging the encyclopedia by driving away potential editors.

Please reconsider what you believe is vandalism in accordance with the actual policy and discuss all policy disputes on the talk page. The version that you are calling vandalism is in fact the one agreed upon by editors on the talk page after much discussion, while you are the only one that supports the other version (in your view, the only "non-vandalized" one). If you continue to falsely use these tags and edit war, it is actually you who will be blocked for violating WP:3RR. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding unrelated "Lebensraum" see also links and garbage about Nazi concentration camps is clearly vandalism. Your version is only supported by vandals (who may in fact be one person). The vandals have declared not to be willing to participate in discussion of their edits, and their edits may thus be reverted on sight. Please stop reinstating the vandalism of User:Lapaz. I am restoring the consensus version in accordance with our most fundamental policy. Maria Stella 22:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You did not read my edits, then. I did not revert to Lapaz's version. I reverted to the version before him, because his edits were POV and unsourced. He added a link to Lebensraum and linked Shark Island to Nazi concentration camps. Without a source, the information should not be included. Nevertheless, I did revert your edits because they do not agree with the consensus view on the talk page, which is that the current page should be named Herero and Namaqua Genocide (or some variant including the word "Genocide"), with perhaps a separate page specifically for war aspects. If you search the version I have reverted to, there is not one mention of Nazis or Lebensraum (which you claimed in this edit). Those who have edited the page are not vandals because they do not agree with your POV, and do not make accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence. There are some 6 or 7 diverse editors who agree with this view, not one with extensive sockpuppet accounts, and to call them (and me) vandals is violating Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Your characterization of your version as "consensus" is not based on fact, and any user can see this with a quick perusal of the talk page. You seem to have misunderstood my edits (from your edit summaries, response here, and response on the talk page), so I am going to again revert back to the earlier version, which never included the Nazi links added by Lapaz. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus view on the talk page. There are two people who are interested in NPOV and a couple of foreign nationalist POV pushers who are probably the same person (but it doesn't really matter because even organized POV pushers are not allowed to disregard the NPOV policy) who do not want to reach consensus or discuss their/his edits, which they have clearly stated and clearly showed. Edits of people who are not willing to discuss may be reverted. I suggest you don't start a new move war, the current title has been agreed on for months. Maria Stella 22:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There has been much discussion, and clearly enough for at least some consensus to be reached. Do not call other people POV-pushers, as the same application would apply better to you, as you have persistently added your own version of events. Be careful not to violate WP:3RR, as you have reverted 3 times now. Without evidence, you cannot call other editors the same person. Feel free to request a checkuser, but I doubt they are the same editor and should not be treated as such until conclusive evidence is provided. No one is allowed to ignore the NPOV policy, including you, so try to work with other editors to get a consensus. The current consensus is that the article should be at Herero and Namaqua Genocide (and not "Wars"), as well as favoring the current article version, not yours, as clearly found in the talk page. The current title has not been agreed on for months, it's just that you edited Herero and Namaqua Genocide here so that the article could not be moved back to where consensus had determined it should be. The result was that everyone would discuss the move and require an administrator to move the page. Unfortunately, no administrator has involved himself or herself yet, which is why the page has remained where it is right now (not the consensus site). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone reading the talk page may see there is no consensus on using such a POV title. You are lying. Maria Stella 22:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not call me a liar, remember WP:NPA. The current consensus is on the "Genocide" title, but it is a slim one. Clearly more discussion should take place, but unilaterally reverting to your preferred version is not the way to go. The problem mainly stems between whether the war should be included in the page or whether there should be two separate articles. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus on using "genocide". Multiple people have opposed such a ridiculous title for the entire conflict, which started with Herero massacres on German civilians, not the other way round. Just because there are three or something foreign nationalist POV pushers, it does not make a consensus, and a consensus between POV vandals would in any event be irrelevant. No administrator would move the page to a POV title like that, and that's why the article is staying where it is. Maria Stella 22:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Seeking cooperative editorial procedure re Herero Namaqua

Dear Ms. Stella,

You have invited work on your effort to make a new version of the article currently but disputedly titled Herero and Namaqua Wars. I am interested in doing such work but would like to avoid provoking you with unexpected changes on your temporary page. Unfortunately it appears that for such a temporary page there is no "talk" page. It may be that the talk page for the main article would be the place for it.

My situation with respect to this article is that I believe the current content of the protected article has considerable misleading and POV material, for instance referring to colonial forced labor as slavery (not the only example). But I also think that your emerging draft has misleading and POV material, for instance calling the large German military movement of 14,000 men or so into the territory "restoring order," which is clearly German POV -- from the POV of the African peoples of the territory, German colonialism, land expropriation, cash taxation, forced labor etc. was a massive disordering of the prior order of their ways of life. To me a phrase like "restoring German rule" or "restoring colonial control" would be more NPOV. Again, just an example.

On the genocide question, I happen to disagree with you and think that in fact a genocide against the Herero did occur -- I have given extensive and I hope substantive arguments for why I think that on the main talk page, in which I have tried to respond to your earlier arguments. I also have tried to avoid personal attacks or aspersions on your motives, which I hope you will recognize. I believe that something like the view I advance is close to a consensus position among historians of Africa (I have a Ph.D. in African history, so this is a professional opinion). My understanding of NPOV would suggest that if that interpretation is disputed say among historians of Germany, the appropriate course would be to describe such dissent after describing the more widely held view of historians of the area under consideration.

A feature of the genocide question that has not really come up that I think should be addressed is that application of the term is retrospective and anachronistic to 1904, when it did not yet exist. That does not mean that it cannot be appropriately used, since we all the time use descriptive terms about the past that were not used then, and genocide actually has a pretty clear definition. But I think an NPOV approach to possible colonial genocides around the turn of the 20th century needs to state that the term didn't exist at the time. General von Trotha pretty clearly intended to destroy the Herero nation in its historical form and historical place, was most open in his intention to use violence on a totalistic scale to achieve that end if necessary, and went a long way to carrying it out. In retrospect this can and should be called genocide -- but it just as clearly is wrong to say that he "intended to commit genocide," because he did not have the idea available to form that specific intention in that way.

I am not motivated by an anti-German animus and do not believe German colonialism in Africa as a whole was particularly different from any other European colonialism of the early colonial era. By the same token, I don't believe General von Trotha's actions in Südwestafrika were typical of German colonialism. Arguably, failure to recognize the distinctive quality of the violence inflicted upon the Herero and to a lesser degree on the Namaqua (though notably not say the Ovambo) within the range of German colonialism may do a disservice to proper comparative perspective on colonialisms in Africa and Germany's place in that perspective.

Also, if you look at my comments on the talk page, you will see that I am critical of genocidal aspects of the history of my own country, the United States of America. I point this out merely to say that any criticisms of German actions don't derive from nationalist self-congratulation.

(As it happens my surname, Lowe, is an Anglicization of a German surname, Löwe. by my paternal grandfather at about the time of the First World War, though possibly a bit earlier; I have cousins whose surname is Loewe, preserving the two syllables though not the sound. I am not certain as to my grandfather's motives, but our family has never been anti-German. My father was stationed in Germany in the U.S. Army in the 1950s and speaks German tolerably well, as does one of my brothers who did an exchange program in Austria after high school. I studied French and later Russian in school, and Afrikaans and Zulu/siSwati in graduate school. Of my two brothers and me, I and one other happened to marry women who came from partly German-American families. My ex-wife's family like mine was pretty deracinated -- the common state of most white Americans with respect to European ancestral cultures by the third generation -- though they lived in a heavily German-descended farm community. My brother's wife's father grew up speaking German and her family had stronger continuing ties to relatives in Germany; I think she like he has school-learned German language).

On the putative connections between Nazism and events in Südwestafrika in 1904-07, I think that the current protected version of the article goes at it wrong way around and is misleading by in effect projecting Nazism back anachronistically, which needs to be changed. On the other hand, I do believe there is a school of German historiography which considers those events as having a significant if subsidiary role as a moment in the distinctive development of German racialism and nationalism from its turn of the century European mainstream situation into the extremes of the Nazi period. I don't know enough to say more, but it does seem worth pointing out.

Please excuse my discursiveness. The main question I have is whether there is a way that I can proceed to make suggested edits that would enable us to have civil discussion and that would not look like vandalism from your point of view? I will watch this page for response.

Cordially,

Chris Lowe (Ngwe 07:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

Image:Merkel-steinbach.jpg

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Addhoc 09:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)