Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 41

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"Hitler Putsch" is the German name

In English it's called the "Beer Hall Putsch". The Germans call it the Hitlerputsch. 217.245.8.95 08:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Should we get someone in to make that change for us? Agathoclea 12:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Let native speakers decide.

A bit of historical detail: at first, immediately after the event, it was called the "Hitler-Ludendorff-Putsch", since Ludendorff was both the figurehead and the most prominent leader, while Hitler had been a merely local celebrity. It was this coup and the subsequent trial that propelled Hitler to national prominence, so much that later Ludendorff was dropped from the name of the event alltogether. "Hitlerputsch" certainly gives a more accurate description, as Hitler was the moving force of the attempt after Kahr, Lossow and Seisser (representing government, military and police) had withdrawn their support.

But again, current usage should decide which term to use, so "native speakers to the front!"Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A word from a native speaker: I have never heard someone say "Hitler-Ludendorff-Putsch" - that expression might be found in history books where the author goes to extra lengths to sound reputable, but pretty much anyone would either use "Hitlerputsch" or alternatively "Marsch auf die Feldherrnhalle", which is the event's name as I learned it back in school (mid/late eighties). The "Putsch" name was not used while I was in school - as our history teacher explained, calling it a "putsch" would imply a successful attempt to overthrow the state, and it would then be necessary to call it "attempted Hitlerputsch" or something to remain accurate which would be unnecessarily complicated, so the more neutral "Marsch..." was used. From my reading, it seems that "Hitlerputsch" is used by a number of historians, and people will definitely understand the term. For what it's worth, the article on de.wikipedia resides at de:Hitlerputsch -- Ferkelparade π 14:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ferkelparade, am I right in supposing that you are German. So am I. With "native speaker" I was addressing the native speakers of English, whose usage should determine the term to use. I agree that Hitler-Ludendorff-Putsch is used very rarely, for the reasons given above. "Putsch" however doesn't necessarily denote success. In the vast majority of cases, simply "Hitlerputsch" is used without explicitely saying that it failed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I assmued you were looking for native Germans to decide current usage in German :P You're probably right that "putsch" does not necessarily imply success, I only repeated what I was taught in school (and what seemed quite reasonable back then). Meanwhile, I am so used to the term "Marsch auf die Feldherrnhalle" that I actually have to spend a couple seconds of thinking before I realize what is meant by "Hitlerputsch" when I hear the term -- Ferkelparade π 14:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Where are the English native speakers with knowledge in this? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the question, exactly? In English we always call it the "Beer Hall Putsch." Is there some dispute about this? john k 16:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That is the question: by which name is the event most commonly referred to among English speaking historians and writers. Some (see above) suggested to change it to Hitlerputsch. This is the common German term, but I as a German cannot vouch for English usage. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

But the original person didn't say that we should change it, just said that Hitlerputsch is the German name (while also noting that "Beer Hall Putsch" is the English name). Then Agathoclea suggested that someone "make that change," even though nobody had yet explicitly suggested a change. At any rate, you don't need me to tell you that "Beer Hall Putsch" is the English name - has that ever been in doubt? We should use the English name, I think. john k 17:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It possibly was suggested earlier, now in the archives. Anyway, I don't mind either way and will not pursue the issue further. I just felt that no reply had been given by an English speaker. You, John, now have closed the gap. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have been bold enaugh at the time to make the change, but the article was protected at the time, so I solicited consensus which would allow an admin to do the change. Glad it is settled. Agathoclea 12:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hitler Relative

I heard on the History Channel the other day that a relative of Hitler volunteered for service on the Eastern Front, was a Signal Corps officer and was eventually captured and killed by the Russians. I was wondering if anyone knew this guy's name?

It's Heinz Hitler, I made a page for him and add him to the list of Hitler's relatives. Ingsoc 12:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

"By then, Hitler's racial policies had culminated in the genocide of 11 million people, including about six million Jews, in what is now known as The Holocaust."

my suggest is to change it to:

"By then, Hitler's racial policies culminated in a genocide which most of his victims were Jews. This genocide now known as The Holocaust."

What can we learn about Hitler from the fact that X and not Y million people died in the genocide. Why does the number of other genocides does not mentioned in any into of other dictators who lead them.

I have looked on Adolf Hitler on servel encyclopedias and those numbers do not appear in the all article. (not just in the intro).

--Haham hanuka 16:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked it up. This information is embarrassingly incorrect. The Encyclopedia Britannica writes: Although Catholics, Poles, homosexuals, Roma (Gypsies), and the handicapped were targeted for persecution, if not outright extermination, the Jews of Germany, Poland, and the Soviet Union were by far the most numerous among the victims; in German-occupied Europe some 6,000,000 Jews were killed during the war. The sufferings of other peoples were only less when measured in their numbers killed. Encarta writes: Because the Allies halted Germany's forces, Hitler's global ambitions were not realized; however, of the approximately 18 million Jews in the world, one-third were killed in what came to be known as the Holocaust. The great majority of European Jews perished, a fact that Hitler boasted of in his last testament.

I should take a better look. But it still does not appear in intros. --Haham hanuka 17:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

But you deleted parts of the texts claiming it was not in the articles. Isn't there a lot of tension between your statements and actions? gidonb 17:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The term Hollocaust has a narrow and a wider meaning. Today mostly the hollocaust encompases most death caused by the regime and not just the Jewish ones. Agathoclea 17:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What we can learn from those numbers is that Hitler and his regime were mass murderers in the tune of 11 million in a very short period of time. Its important to keep in and the way its currently worded is better than your suggestion.Giovanni33 08:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Someday, Haham will give up. That day is not today. --Golbez 09:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Not today either. gidonb 20:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he should be warned that he daily violates the consensus of many talk pages, while referring to these talk pages. All this is very time consuming and does not foster the quality of Wikipedia. gidonb 19:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

But is there a reference or citation for the figure of 11 million? And when did the religious term Holocaust become so, erm ... Universal? This question has been put before, without answer. I do foster the quality of Wikipedia and am not giving up today or tomorrow. I am Shtove 23:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

See for example references above for the 6 million Jewish victims and the article The Holocaust for the breakdown of the 5 million non-Jews. For the concept The Holocaust and the alternative Shoah, also please see the relevant articles. gidonb 01:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

But WP must not be self-referencing. On top of that, it amounts to original research - Gio33 will be most displeased. The Holocaust ought to refer exclusively to the Jewish experience - everyone else was just murdered.--Shtove 19:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not self-referencing but referring you to the article that should contain the information, also on the names. Please read it, follow its references and take it from there. gidonb 20:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC) By the way most of the populations are also included in one of the texts above. gidonb 20:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should also be consistant. If the Holocaust article encomapsses non-Jews then it should her. Or get both changed. Agathoclea 20:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Agathoclea, that is why I refered to the Holocaust page. If there is a discussion about what comprises part of The Holocaust and what not, it ought to be held there. OR is irrelevant to this referal. gidonb 09:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Those numbers are disputed, but it's no my point. My point is that this is not really matter to mention the exact number of victims in the intro of this article. --Haham hanuka 17:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Haham is right. The destruction of the Jews was one aim of the Nazis. But their major aim was to destroy the Russian empire and dominate oil-supplies from the middle-east: it caused the death of many more than 6/11 million, but no mention of that in the intro. If death tolls are appropriate in an intro, then it should be at the World War II/Nazi/Third Reich/Holocaust articles. The point about WP self-referencing has been misunderstood - and to say that WP should be internally consistent is a licence for systemic bias.--Shtove 22:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is not included, I favor adding that 55 million people died in Europe because of WWII, initiated by Adolf Hitler. Concrete numbers illustrate the impacts of Hitler's regime and actions well. gidonb 22:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

But you deleted the texts you disapproved of rather than keeping a short version in the introduction and putting the complete version in the article. Isn't there a lot of tension between your statements and actions? gidonb 17:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

what? --Haham hanuka 17:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"and dominate oil-supplies from the middle-east" Where did to read that nonsense? I have never heard of German war plans to try and control middle east oil fields. Perhaps you mean the resource rich areas of central asia that were under control of the Soviet Union? --Nazrac June 29 2006 (UTC)

picture

I've noticed the portrait of Hitler being changed a few times. I prefer the military one, personally since Hitler was first and formost a militarist. But why does it keep changing?Giovanni33 02:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

apparently the lisencing terms were unclear. Agathoclea 07:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It was on commons before, then it got deleted from commons because it didn't cite a source. Then it was re-uploaded here under GFDL - which is definitely not the correct license, I found a source but there is no clear copyright info there. If someone wants to try to figure out how to fix this, have a look at: Image talk:Adolf Hitler Bigger.jpg. The image hasn't been deleted yet, but will probably be deleted soon - so I replaced it with another image so that the page doesn't end up with a broken image yet again. I have no preference for the currrent image, if someone can find something nicer feel free to replace it.--Konstable 02:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Small Name Change

German is my Second language and Main Kampf translates "My Fight". Thought I'd change it. User:Lucky foot

Dear Lucky, you are right but also wrong. Indeed "Fight" would be the more common and closer translation, but "struggle" is also correct and it captures the whole range of connotations better than the mere "fight". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Scholder

In regard to Klaus Scholder, I have reposted a sentence that had been deleted before for lack of a reference. Now, there is a reference, the scan of which can be found here: [1] Having done that I have deleted the whole paragraph, since this controversy requires a detailed treatment which cannot be attained in this overview article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Teppichfresser

Is the section entitled "Teppichfresser" really worth including in the article, especially under its own section? It adds virtually nothing to the article in terms of encyclopedic sustenance, not to mention there being dozens of anecdotes about Hitler (of which this is not the most important). I think it ought to be removed or included elsewhere in a related article. A.G. Pinkwater 21:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed. Got added 21/22 June together with a number of other entries which got reverted. And seems part of a series of articles promoting the author of the book which where created/edited at the same time. see The Treaty of Guarantee, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, "Teppichfresser!", The Collapse of the Third Republic and William L. Shirer. -- Agathoclea 21:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad Links Again

We've already got two dubious links on Hitler's religious views, one saying he was a Christian, the other that he wasn't. Now comes someone adding a link to freemasonry [dot] org which adds nothing new, and is a remarkably badly designed site as well. It should not stay. Bytwerk 12:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Pistolpierre vs. Golbez disputes

Scorched Earth

I move the following from the article to talk. It is valuable info worth including but was badly out of place in many ways. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

According to William L. Shirer in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:

"On March 19, 1945 Hitler issued a general order that all military, industrial, transportation and communication installations as well as all stores in Germany must be destroyed in order to prevent them from falling intact into the hands of the enemy. The measures were to be carried out by the military with the help of the Nazi gauletiers and "commissars for defense." "All directives opposing this," the order concluded, "are invalid."

Germany was to be made one vast wasteland. Nothing was to be left with which the German people might somehow survive their defeat.

Hitler told Albert Speer, the Minister for Armament and War Production:

If the war is lost, the nation will also perish. This fate is inevitable. There is no necessity to take into consideration the basis for which the people will need to continue a most primitive existence. On the contrary, it will be better to destroy these things ourselves because this nation will have proved to be the weaker one and the future will belong solely to the stronger eastern nation [Russia]. Besides, those who will remain after the battle are only the inferior ones, for the good ones have been killed.

This "scorched earth" directive was followed the next day, on March 23 by an order by Martin Bormann, the Fuehrer's secretary. Speer described it on the stand at Nuremberg: "The Bormann decree aimed at bringing the population to the center of the Reich from both East and West, and the foreign workers and prisoners of war were to be included. These millions of people were to be sent upon their trek on foot. No provisions for their existence had been made, nor could it be carried out in view of the situation. It would have resulted in an unimaginable hunger catastrophe.

And had all the other orders of Hitler and Bormann -- there were a number of supplementary directives -- been carried out, millions of Germans who had escaped with their lives up to then might well have died. Speer tried to summarize for the Nuremberg court the various "scorched earth" orders. To be destroyed he said were:

"all industrial plants, all important electrical facilities, water works, gas works, food stores and clothing stores; all bridges, all railway and communication installations, all waterways, all ships, all freight cars and all locomotives.

That the German people were spared this final catastrophe was due to -- aside from the rapid advances of the Allied troops, which made the carrying out of such a gigantic demolition impossible -- the superhuman efforts of Speer and a number of Army officers who, in direct disobedience of Hitler's orders, raced about the country to make sure that vital communications, plants and stores were not blown up by zealously obedient Army officers and party hacks."

Pistolpierre's edits are far too POV for Wikipedia. Can someone make them more neutral Thingymajig 23:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If we can put in the info, then put it in without quoting large passages from a book. Refer to the book. In fact, ignore Pistolpierre altogether, get the book from a library, and cite it directly. --Golbez

Most of those so called Hitler quotes from that book are fictional or altered for dramatic effect in the book "The rise and fall of the third reich" and the movie based on it "der untergang." It also seems to be misunderstood the intended meaning behind alot of verified statements by Hitler. This largely stems from two things. One being the obvious propaganda incentives for distorting and taking out of context various statements, and the other being the linguistic differences and lack of better translated terminology. Even though you can translate something into English, it doesnt always translate the desired implications, connotations and contextual variables originally intended in the statement. Certain political interests have grossly exploited this poorly understood fact and have painted a very skewed and distorted picture when it comes to examining the 3rd Reich. This is true of any translation, whether it is German, English or Hebrew. Nazrac

Explaining the POV tag

Of course this article is going to be subject to biased editorialising, and unfortunately it has been inserted in a big way while partially veiled by copyvios of books about Hitler. Pistolpierre (talk · contribs) has made this series of edits which are unacceptably anti-Hitler for the Wikipedia article, and someone needs to weed the good from the large sections of POV. Thanks. Harr o5 01:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I reverted him, I also removed the POV tag. He's on thin ice, I would not be surprised if he's blocked soon. Next time, just revert him. --Golbez 01:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez

Why does this person keep deleting my edits? How can you claim that The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich has a POV problem? What is wrong with quoting large sections of books if they are accurate? Is Golbez a neo-fascist? Pistolpierre 05:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I will answer each sentence in turn:

Because they are either POV or copyright violations.
I'm not saying it does; I'm saying you do by adding YOUR opinion to the article, like how bad Hitler or Mengele were. I will also remind fellow editors that you were initially blocked, by me, for a 3RR violation for insisting on adding something about incest to the article, which is also bald vandalism.
Because we don't own the books, and therefore, can be sued by the author and publisher. Cite the book, don't paste it.
Yes, because I'm blocking you for that last comment. --Golbez 05:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez is prone to overreaction

How can Golbez rationally argue that I have a POV problem by making a judgment about Josef Mengele and Hitler vis a vis the deliberate destruction of Germany and sadistic medical experiments? How can Golbez claim I am distorting The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. If that work has no POV problem, and I cite it directly and accurately, how can I be accused of a POV problem? Pistolpierre 05:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, CITE it - but don't PASTE ENTIRE PARAGRAPHS from it. What part of that don't you understand? It's been pointed out repeatedly. As for POV, you said, quote: "Shirer wrote of the evil and sadistic Nazi medical experiments carried out by people such as Karl Gebhardt, Fritz Fischer, August Hirt, and Sigmund Rascher are as appalling as the "Final Solution"." No, Shirer wrote about experiments that he may have called evil or sadistic, but he did not write about evil and sadistic experiments; that was outside quotes, and therefore, it was a POV statement from you. --Golbez 06:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous "legacy" section, sloppy introduction, obvious "vandalism"

I find it hard to believe that the legacy section made no mention of the Nazi medical experiments or Hitler's final orders to destroy Germany.

The first time I read the introduction it had no mention of Hitler having been inbred. Golbez accuses me of vandalism for mentioning this FACT. His mother and father were second cousins. If that is not incestous, then why were his parents required to get an episcopal dispensation for their marriage? Pistolpierre 06:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think they should be included then add them. Just be sure to cite your sources. Sheesh. But adding the supposedly incestuous relationship to a section header was beyond the pale. --Golbez 06:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, appeaser of Mengele

Josef Mengele loves your style Golbez. How can you rationally argue that making a judgment of Mengele and the Final Solution is a POV statement? By your own whacked reason, the entire Hitler article is practically a POV statement. It is all about his madness. Does it make you mad that Hitler was mad? Does it make you mad that Mengele was mad? Does PistolPierre make you mad? Pardon my POV statement, but you make no sense.

You misquote my edit BTW. I said the sadism of the Nazi medical experiments were as appalling as the Final Solution. I did not say William L. Shirer wrote that. I quoted Shirer's reporting on the Nazi medical experiments. Are you making a value judgment or POV statement by removing this? Why would you remove this? Are you nuts? You are not even accurate in your appeasement of Josef Mengeles and Hitler. Are you related to Neville Chamberlain? Pistolpierre 06:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You admitted it yourself: "how can you rationally argue that making a judgment..." We don't make judgments here. Period. Read WP:NPOV. --Golbez 06:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't be serious

You admitted it yourself: "how can you rationally argue that making a judgment..." We don't make judgments here. Period. Read

When the Hitler article speaks of the evil of Nazi ideology is that not a judgment? Isn't the Wikipedia article describing a judgment of the evil inherent in Nazi Germany? Are you kidding me? If your goal is to prevent me from including facts about Mengele in Hitler's "legacy" section, I am going to make a POV statement...You should not be a Wikipedia administrator. Pistolpierre 11:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Where does the article say the ideology is evil? --Golbez 11:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't count when you add it, dear. --Golbez 11:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez can't read

Since the defeat of Germany in World War II, Hitler, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism have been regarded in most of the world as synonymous with evil.

Oh my, Wikipedia has included a veiled POV statement, the end must be near. People actually think that Nazism is evil? I think this needs to be cited. This should be stricken from the article by Golbez. Pistolpierre 11:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"have been regarded as" != "is evil". and we won't be hearing from this chap again. --Golbez 12:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hitler’s portrait is gone?

What’s happening here? Why is his photo removed? I understand he is a very sensitive figure in the Western world, but as an Encyclopedia article, his portrait is necessary. --Gary Tse 10:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone earlier tried to fix it so that when the image got deleted for licence reasons there would be no problem. But someone insisted on this particular image and it then got removed by orphanbot who being a bot cannot get a replacement. Agathoclea 12:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The current picture is not licenced either. Agathoclea 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

To Gary Tse: What do you mean? There IS a photograph of Hitler in the introduction section of this Wikipedia article. Ah, maybe you are missing the propaganda picture that showed Hitler in a heroic pose and that was placed in this article prior to the current one? Now, it was high time that this propaganda picture was removed from this encyclopedia. If you like it all that much, you will certainly find it somewhere in the Internet for your personal satisfaction. But don't expect it to be ever inserted again into a serious work like the Wikipedia. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (03072006)

Haham

Please stop periodically coming here trying to remove the # of Jews killed. If this continues, higher dispute resolution will be required, but rest assured, you will not get your way. --Golbez 18:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's extremely poor form and veering on simple lying to make a controversial edit on the 27th with only a "see talk page" summary, when your last edit to the talk page was on the 24th. This shows deception and a lack of willingness to compromise. Please, just stop. --Golbez 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think so. --Golbez 22:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protect?

Surely, considering the recent spate of vandals by IP's, this should be Semi-Protected...? --Killfest2 09:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC) I agree. I always see it being reverted in the recent changes page.--andrew 16:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Horrible photo

Cant we find something more representative...stately? Here he looks like a backroom revolutionary from the 1920s, though it might be from 33 or 34. 83.5.213.97 05:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The one that had been there forever is much better. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits in "Legacy"

WP is a free encyclopedia, and if you chose not to register, you can edit as IP.

Nice theory. Does anybody really read the IP edits, or are they all deleted without any other thought? I chose not to register.

In Legacy, it is said that Bavaria (to be more precise, the minister of the finance there) holds the copyright on "Mein Kampf". This is contested; furthermore, there is "Hitler's second book", published by Weinberg from the US, did not have "copyright problems".

It is said that in Germany, it is illegal to display swastikas. Also wrong. There was a popular T-Shirt in the 90s with a swastika being thrown into a trashcan; there also are swastikas galore on the cover of Turtledove's book "In the presence of mine enemies". It is true that in the young federal republic, period photos were edited to delete the swastikas; this is no longer the case. It is forbidden to show symbols of the dictature (also the SS runes, and so on...) uncommented or to glorify the Nazis (like, eg, the english prince some years ago). To display a swastika for demonstration purposes, as a symbol of other cultures (indian mythology, kanji ethymology, .......), or in a way that it is clear you do NOT sympathize with the Nazis, is possible. (eg, Swastika in trashcan, or the TIME-like austrian newspaper "profil" had a series with a swastika in a crosshairs as its symbol).

Some time ago, I got the information about Hitlers family and what happened to them. I wrote it into the wikipedia to have it handy and to share it with other people. Obviously, it got reverted; as I wanted to check something today, the information was no longer in the article.

Perhaps you could write what kind of contribution is wished by the wikipedia, and what not. But please, correct the abovementioned factual errors regardless of the criteria. --85.181.29.81 04:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear 85,

the Bavarian finance department does hold the copyright for MK, as well as all other possession of Hitler.
the display of a Nazi Swastika and other symbols deemed anti-constitutional is illegal. That many anti-Fascists use the swastika in such contexts is another matter, and in doing so they are putting themselves in danger of being prosecuted, as the aim is not always that clear. Just recently such a case was considered by a court (I don't know more right now.)
And yes, we actually read edits by IPs. I think they are read even more than those by regular editors. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives