Windows66

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Windows66! Thank you for your contributions. I am George8211 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! George8211^{what did I break now?} 17:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the welcome I hope stay around and contribute good edits to Wikipedia!--Windows66 (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hitler

Hitler's parents were cousins and his grandparents were both descended from Hitlers. That is inbred. Pistolpierre (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

His parents were first cousins once removed, not just normal cousins (one parents brother or sisters children), you can see his family tree here, this of course presuming Georg Hiedler was his paternal grandfather. His family on both sides were descended from Hitler's after his great-grandparents, the area Hitler's family origin from interbreeding was very common and had happened for years but for you to state his family were "seriously inbred" is beyond a joke and is far to far fetched. Plus, all the information regarding his family tree can be found on the article Hitler family.--Windows66 (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You are admitting that Hitler was inbred. What difference does it make if inbreeding was very common? Pistolpierre (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the definition of "inbred", certainly his parents were closely related and his paternal grandfather and maternal great-grandfather were brothers. However, it was very common back then and does not qualify as "seriously inbred" as you make out.--Windows66 (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because inbreeding was common amongst Austrian rural peasants doesn't change the fact that they were inbred. I will let the matter drop since it is obvious you don't think having close relatives breeding with each other qualifies as inbreeding. Pistolpierre (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobody denies that Hitler's parents were related and in fact so closely related they needed to seek extra permission to be married. But what you said was "seriously inbred", yes they were inbred but not seriously inbred as you make out as say father and daughter incest.--Windows66 (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

He was inbred enough for William Shirer to mention it in the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Pistolpierre (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I never denied they were inbred but they most certainly not seriously inbred.

What is the quote from Shirer's work?--Windows66 (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

He simply states that Hitler's parents were cousins who needed special permission from the Church to marry. He then says that the name Hitler and variants of it are in his grandparents lines. Pistolpierre (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you give me the exact quote? I also am aware of this and I already told you this myself. I even linked you to a family tree of Hitler.--Windows66 (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"The name Hitler appears in the maternal as well as the paternal line. Both Hitler's grandmother on his mother's side and his grandfather on his father's side were named Hitler, or rather variants of it, for the family name was variously written as Hiedler, Huetler, Huettler and Hitler. Adolf's mother was his father's second cousin, and an episcopal dispensation had to be obtained for the marriage." He then says that in that part of Austria, "intermarriage is common, as is the case of Hitler's parents, and illegitimacy is common". Pistolpierre (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

So you verified what I said and that they were not 'seriously inbred' as you made out to be, congratulations. What is the relevance of this anyways?--Windows66 (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Inbred is inbred. There are degrees. Hitler's parents were not supposed to be married. The Church allowed the marriage. Why do you have a problem with me saying Hitler was inbred? Pistolpierre (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It comes in degrees and you stating that first cousins once removed is "seriously inbred" is far-fetched. His parents were supposed to be married they just had to ask permission that is all. The church allowed the marriage so there you go it was done legally. Because he was hardly 'inbred' but his family were closely related.

Why does this matter anyways?--Windows66 (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It should be obvious. Hitler was a psychopath. He was a raving lunatic. He was inbred. There is a correlation there. I will let the matter rest but I don't think it is a stretch to call him inbred. Google "Hitler inbred". A lot of people believe this. Pistolpierre (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand and you are clearly NOT listening to what you are being told. Talk pages are not used to discuss peoples personal opinions or anything of the kind but rather to discuss problems with articles and so forth. If you want to label Hitler a psychopath and a raving lunatic then by all means do but not on my page as there is no reason for this. I am not willing to discuss my opinion on you or your comments on Hitler, please refrain from typing any more on my talk page unless absolute necessary, goodbye.--Windows66 (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think I bother to post on your talk page? I am trying to improve the article. The article already says Hitler was a psychopath. Pistolpierre (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Not quite, there is a mention of an author of a book who described him as "neurotic psychopath". Anyhow, talking on my talk page is not going to improve the Hitler article so discuss on Hitler's talk page, thanks.--Windows66 (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

What is ridiculous?

How is it ridiculous to point out that Wikipedia is undercounting 500,000 victims of the Holocaust? Pistolpierre (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This has been talked about on the talk of the Hitler article, why do you feel the need to create a section on here to discuss it? If you are able to provide several sources for your suggested number then go for it and feel free to post your opinion on the section you created on the talk page of Hitler. I am not here to discuss it here when it is already being done so on that much, you can now kill two birds with one stone and remain to post here.--Windows66 (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Windows66. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 18:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nuremberg Laws may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[File:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, thanks for sorting it out for me.--Windows66 (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion on indenting

Hi Windows66. Sorry if it seems like I'm following you around everywhere you go, but actually I'm not! We both have an interest in Nazi topics, and I've already brought some of our most important articles on the topic to Good Article status and hope to do more. I have watch-listed those articles to keep an eye on them, plus I am monitoring some other articles because of disruptive editors that I have encountered in the past. So I expect we will be seeing a lot of each other!

The reason I am visiting your talk page today is because I would like to suggest that you read Wikipedia:Indentation, an essay that describes talk page conventions as to how we use indentation of our posts to make it clearer who is replying to who. If you have any question about this practice or anything else, please let me know, and I will try to help. Thanks for joining Wikipedia, and thanks for the work you have accomplished so far. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Haha it's no worries Diannaa I don't think that! I do have other topics I like to gain info on and edit articles related to such but I like to edit on stuff I know about and I am more interested in, I see you also edit similar articles so of course we will bump into each other and that is no problem. I am busy reading about indentation (I take you made this due to the discussion atm on the Nazi Germany article), this is no problems... thanks for helping me I appreciate it greatly. Thanks for welcoming me to Wiki and my work so far, you too!--Windows66 (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring policy

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

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Please, stop trimming Wikipedia from valuable information.

Hello. I have been following your edits for some time. I come from Poland. I see you have been recently damaging many information about Poles during the Holocaust and generally WWII. You are constantly persistent in wiping all the data connected with the German Nazi racial hierarchy and Poles discriminated along with the Jews and Gypsies. Why are you doing this? I agree, Poles were seen as Aryans, but not pure. They were the "lower-class" Aryans, and, eventually - the "Slavic subhuman" which was analogical to the "Jewish subhuman". Why are you trying to prove that Poles were not persecuted on the racial surface at all? You delete all the valuable data about Racism against Poles. Why is this so important to you to delete it all? I see you are attacking User_talk:Yatzhek by persuading other users to give him warnings without a strong reason, while you can freely continue this degradation of the Polish struggles, racism against them, and Nazi propaganda. At one point I must disagree with Yatzhek, Poles were Aryan, but I also disagree with you my friend, because Poles were not "pure" Aryans and Germans saw them as "not pure enough". The "eastern masses" theory is a fact. If you continue trimming Wikipedia from some specific and sourced information, I will warn the Wikipedia administration about your detrimental edits. 91.218.158.26 (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems quite apparent now that you are also the user Yatzhek. I have no removed anything from the article Anti-Polish sentiment which can be shown in the history of edits here. The reason I am removing it from the Black people in Nazi Germany article is because it does not belong there and is not correct because no "racial theory" was used against Poles.--Windows66 (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

i have been watching your argument with "yatzhek" for quite a while. as far as I see, the user "91.218.158.26" said that you are removing things from other articles that are a b o u t racism against poles, not the article itself. besides, i have noticed that you groundlessly accuse the user "yatzhek" and arrange things your way to ban everyone who is on your way. listen mate, i will not tolerate this kind of behaviour on wikipedia. i must point our one thing; in fact the edit by "91.218.158.26" in the article Black people in Nazi Germany is quite reasonable that's why i am reverting it to the previous state. greetings from czech republic.

78.8.118.133 (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason its being removed is because it simply does not belong in the article of Black people in Nazi Germany. Black people were discriminated on the grounds of race and were mentioned in the Nuremberg racial laws - Poles were not. I don't want to have anyone banned that do not agree with me but when I get accused of being a white supremacist, a racist, anti-Polish and a Holocaust denier then yes I do want action taken.--Windows66 (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Windows66 -- Poles were also called a "race". Here, a real and wide-known quote:

"Thus, for the time being only in the east, I put ready my Death's Head units, with the order to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of the Polish race or language. Only thus will we gain the living space that we need. Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?" - from "The Obersalzberg Speech" by Adolf Hitler -

why it does not belong to the "Black people in Nazi Germany" article?? You are confusing words prejudice with racism and persecution with racial laws. it was stated in the article that this type of prejudice or repression against Blacks was similar to the one which Poles were facing in the form of Antipolonism in the Germany during the Nazi rule. What's wrong about that? Wasn't that true? It certainly is and you are denying it by deleting it and i support Yatzhek at this point. I disagree with this Wikipedist only about Poles being non-Aryan. And, no, you was not accused for white supremacism, antipolonism and Holocaust-denial. you make a big problem about it and a large scandal, while as i see you was just asked about it or speculated about it to get some information about you, not accused for it. a supposition and a question differs from a affirmative sentence my friend. 91.218.158.26 (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You might want to check the authenticity of that quote.

From the same article:

Three documents grouped together during Nuremberg Trials which were containing Hitler's speech on 22 August 1939 (1014-PS, 789-PS,and L-3,) and only the document L-3 contained Armenian quote of the Hitler's speech. Documents 1014-PS and 798-PS were captured by the United States forces inside the OKW headquarters but these documents did not contain the Armenian quote. On May 16, 1946, during the Nurnberg War Tribunals, a counsel for one of the defendants, Dr. Walter Siemers requested from the president of the trial to strike out the document 1014-PS, but his request was rejected by the president. Document L-3 was brought to the court by an American journalist, Louis P. Lochner.

According to Louis P. Lochner, while stationed in Berlin he received a copy of a speech by Hitler from his "informant", which he published (in English translation) in his book What About Germany? (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1942) as being indicative of Hitler's desire to conquer the world. In 1945, Lochner handed over a transcript of the German document he had received to the prosecution at the Nuremberg trials, where it was labeled L-3. Hence it is known as the L-3 document. The speech is also found in a footnote to notes about a speech Hitler held in Obersalzberg on 22 August 1939 that were published in the German Foreign Policy documents.

When asked in the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal who his source was, Lochner said this was a German called "Herr Maasz" but gave vague information about him.

The Times of London quoted from Lochner's version in an unsigned article titled The War Route of the Nazi Germany on November 24, 1945. The article stated that it had been brought forward by the prosecutor on November 23, 1945, (i.e. the previous day), as evidence. However, according to the Akten zur deutschen auswärtigen Politik (ser. D, vol. 7, 1961), the document was not introduced as evidence before the International Military Tribunal and is not included in the official publication of the documents in evidence. Two other documents containing minutes of Hitler's Obersalzberg speech(es) had been found among the seized German documents and were introduced as evidence; neither, however, contains the Armenian quote.

See The Obersalzberg Speech. The translations of the alleged quote vary the word race to heritage, descent, ancestry, etc. Poles were never once labeled a race.

Poles were never considered a separate "race" by the race laws of the Third Reich whereas the Jews, Gypsies and blacks were and were non-Aryans; this was not the case with ethnic Poles. In fact, although not 100% certain but I've never found Poles be described as a race by Nazi propaganda either (although I could be wrong - but I don't think I am).--Windows66 (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I was not accused of racism, anti-Polish, white supremacy or Holocaust denial? See this.--Windows66 (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I simply don't understand your persistance and intensity of your changing and wiping everything which is connected with Poles seen as lower-class people ("subhuman", along with Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, Serbs and most of other Slavic people), and I guess you wish Wikipedia was free of information concerning the Nazi persecution of Poles in the racial context, all you would leave is the political context which is highly biased. I don't understand how can you simply deny the fact, that Poles, as well as most of the Slavic people, were also persecuted in light of their racial origin as Slavs. You denied racism against Poles by blocking me to write not even a full sentence about it as a similar phenomenon to the persecution of Blacks in Nazi Germany, when you said it is "not the same" and that "Poles were Aryan". You forgot, that "Aryan" didn't mean "ubermensch". You claim that Hitler and the Nazis seen Poles and all other Slavs as pure Aryans such as Germans and the Germanic nations, and that Slavs were way above Gypsies in the racial hierarchy. This is a lie, while Gypsies were Aryan too, Hitler was terrified by the thought that the amount of Aryan blood in Gypsies could be even higher that in Germans themselves. Anyway, I saw your contributions and realised you search for information about persecutions of Poles by Nazis, delete some things (even with sources given) which are about Poles being treated similarily to Jews and Gypsies, and that's why I speculated on your antipolish views. But, as I said before, if you will let it go and stop your neverending attacks and spying me, I will let it go either and never again write you a single word. Since I gave you a hand to make peace, all I do is defending myself as you continue to attack me by posting me new messages as well as by convincing other users to give me warnings. Just STOP. I had enough. Please. Yatzhek (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh give up will you. I've yet to find any evidence of the Poles being labeled as untermensch, I know of no evidence to support this. Slavic people were not targeted because of their racial origin, by the Third Reich all Europeans including the Slavic people were racially the same (this is by the law - comments of "Asiatic" "Mongols" was sometimes used against the Russians though). You might want to come to terms with the brutality the Poles and Poland suffered was nothing to do with Poles being Slavs but rather that Poland/Poles refused to accept Hitler's terms of being an ally against the Soviet Union and also the conflicts and debates regarding territory. I never denied that Poles suffered racism during the war and they did with German nationalist slogans posted all over occupied-Poland with "Only for Germans" and the alike. But racially as in race not ethnic group the Poles were not targeted despite what some historians and authors like to say. I think you need to read the race laws in regards to the Gypsies. Gypsies were considered to be too racially mixed and non-Aryan. Gypsies were NOT Aryan by the Nazis. See Porajmos Aryan racial purity, The Gypsies were seen as originally Aryan peoples but were mixed with non-Aryan peoples and were racially mixed non-Aryans. Please give me some evidence of where I delete things that are backed up by sources. I've never even mentioned "ubermensch" in any of our discussion, perhaps YOU should understand 'Aryan' and 'UNTERMENSCH' are also separate concepts and not always racial, for example the communists were regarded as untermensch yet that could even mean a German communist. I've not attacked you, I have just made an investigation as to the random IP addresses that appear to be your sock puppets hence why I reported you. Spy on you? Get real, this is Wikipedia its open to everyone and I'm in my right to see your contributions just like you can to me as well, what is the problem? Convincing others to give you warnings, haha....don't break the rules and then you won't get warned you didn't just accuse me of being anti-Polish (which is a violation anyways) but also of white supremacy, racist and Holocaust denial and you're whining that you got a warning, don't say such stupid things in the first place then.--Windows66 (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. Regardless your personal attacks on me, just to the main topic - You have stated that there is no evidence that Poles were untermenschen. Here, just one out of hundrens - found after a few seconds of searching: http://web.archive.org/web/20110409034704/http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm

The category of sub-human (Untermensch) included Slavic peoples (Poles, Russians, Serbs, etc.) Gypsies and Jews. TOP

"To avoid mistakes which might subsequently occur in the selection of subjects suitable for 'Germanization,' the RuSHA [The Race and Settlement Head Office] in 1942 distributed a pamphlet, The Sub-Human, to those responsible for that selection. 3,860,995 copies were printed in German alone and it was translated into Greek, French, Dutch, Danish, Bulgarian, Hungarian and Czech and seven other languages. It stated:

The sub-human, that biologically seemingly complete similar creation of nature with hands, feet and a kind of brain, with eyes and a mouth, is nevertheless a completely different, dreadful creature. He is only a rough copy of a human being, with human-like facial traits but nonetheless morally and mentally lower than any animal. Within this creature there is a fearful chaos of wild, uninhibited passions, nameless destructiveness, the most primitive desires, the nakedest vulgarity. Sub-human, otherwise nothing. For all that bear a human face are not equal. Woe to him who forgets it." 1 The Nazis acknowledged that among the sub-humans, (especially among their leaders) there were those few who had obvious traces of Aryan-Nordic ancestry; however, it was decided that most of these people would have to be destroyed in order to leave the inferior races without leadership. It was possible that some of these superior people could be "germanized" -- but if not, one should at least preserve the good blood in their children. By this logic, many thousands of Polish children were subjected to a racial test. Those who had what Nazis defined as "Aryan" characteristics -- such as blue eyes, blond hair, a properly proportioned head, good behavior and above average intelligence -- were kidnapped from their parents and shipped to Germany for ultimate adoption by appropriate German families.

— Selections from Janusz Gumkowkski's and Kazimierz Leszczynski's publication "POLAND UNDER NAZI OCCUPATION"

The authors gave sources and wrote this book in a highly neutral and objective manner. AND NOW... I have two questions for you.

• First one: As it is stated in the above quote, only those Polish CHILDREN, who had the features which Germans considered "Aryan", were taken away from their families and sent to Germany for the German adoption in order to Germanise them. There was some mercy only for them and the people of "Aryan look" and not for other Slavic Poles (2 millions of whom were killed during the Holocaust). Now if all the Poles were considered Aryan, then I goess there wouldn't be no hundreds of thousands of Polish children murdered by the Nazis and these 2 million deaths of ethnic Poles. What do you think about that?
• Second question from me to you:

German planners had in November 1939 called for "the complete destruction" of all Poles. "All Poles will disappear from the world"

— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#Non-Jewish

Poles as Slavs were the main victims of Nazism in Europe during the World War II, right after the Jews and Gypsies. Do you agree with that? Thank you.

Yatzhek (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks? No I just find it hilarious how you're still commenting on a topic created by the IP 91.218.158.26, not you by any chance no?

The website regarding the Subhuman pamphlet and including Slavs such as Poles is one person's opinion not an actual speech or document from a Nazi calling Poles "untermenschen". Nowhere in that pamphlet says any Slavic ethnic groups nor is Slav/Slavic/Slavs mentioned. Can you provide a speech or document calling Poles untermenschen (which is what I asked in the first place)? The children taken away were presumed to be of German (or at least Germanic) descent because of their Nordic-Aryan appearance not just "Aryan" (no such physical appearance of a typical 'Aryan' existed or exists), don't confuse Nordic with Aryan. You seem to think all the people killed in the Holocaust were for their racial origins, this is not the case. All ethnic Poles were indeed considered Aryan by the Nazis and the term 'Aryan side' was used on the side of ethnic Poles throughout all the brutality and murdering of ethnic Poles. Just because Poles were killed by the Nazis does not mean they were not Aryan, how are you even confusing the two - the first people placed into the concentration camps and killed were German communists, does that mean they were not Aryan too neither?

I do not agree that Slavic people as a group were the main victims after Jews and Gypsies.--Windows66 (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not their personal point of view. They wrote a book which is a historical book, supported by many other existing sources.

Anyway, By your last sentence you just proved you are uneducated. I dont mean to attack you now, I am just telling the fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#Victims_and_death_toll

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims

I have warned the administrators about your detrimental actions [1].

Yatzhek (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because its a historical book does not mean its a fact, check the pamphlet yourself and you will find no such words as Slav/Slavs/Slavic exist in the pamphlet. Your link does not prove that Slavs were after the Jews or Gypsies, not all the POWs in Soviet territory for example were Slavs. Not to mention the extermination towards Jews and Gypsies did not exist towards Slavs. You call me uneducated yet previously you said the Gypsies were not going to be exterminated and that they were Aryans (*shakes my head*).

So hold on, you want to ignore me from now but have now just opened up a report against me, you are just giving yourself away more and more...--Windows66 (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I know that a historical book is not a "holy grail", but it is supported by numerous sources. The authors give their neutral point of view tightly based on the original sources which you probably didn't take the trouble to check. By Slavs I mean mostly Poles, as Poland was the main aim of Hitler's attack, and Poles were one of the most oppressed nations during the Nazi occupation, it was based on racial doctrines, not only political plans.

If it was only a strategy free of anti-Polish racism, then why there were such things like these on the right side: =============>>>

German warning in occupied Poland 1939 - "No entrance for Poles!"

File:I was kind to the Poles1.jpeg

A German girl punished by shaving her head for good relations with Poles, holding a sign: "I am the biggest pig in the village. I was kind to Polish people."

You lie, because I did never say that Gypsies were not to be exterminated. It's a lie. I said, they were to be exterminated patrially, while Hitler knew that they are the native speakers of Aryan language and their heritage is mostly Aryan (Indo-Aryan to be precise). The Nazis were fascinated in Southern Asia because it was the homeland of pre-Aryans. They even "borrowed" a swastika symbol from the Indo-Aryan culture (this comes from Sanskrit, an Indo-Aryan language), a culture from which Gypsies orginate. Hitler even made a list of those Gypsies who had some, what he called, "Germanic" features, were tall and had lighter skin, in order to make them untouchable. He just wanted to appear as a man who knows what he's doing, but unfortunately, he turned out to be completely lost in his own ideologies. In case of Slavs, he didn't bother to measue their skulls etc. Only when someone was really tall, athletic body type, blonde straight hair, sky-blue eyes, small lips, prominent chin, narrow straight nose and distinctly long-headed (dolichocephalic), maybe such a person could have a chance to be treated better that other Poles. Slavs were rather round-headed, and in case you didn't know, it was the shape of the skull and facial features like noses, lips, cheekbones and chins were the main things Nazis were crazy about in their racial ideology. Jews and Gypsies were likewise round-headed. As I said before, I never said Gypsies were not to be exterminated. And, after reading the sources including the Holocaust statistics, do you still believe Slavs (mainly Poles) were not the main victims of Nazism during the WWII, right after the Jews and Gypsies? PS - I wanted to make peace with you yesterday, even gave you my hand as the first one, you rejected. I still would like to make peace, however, I still want to know some more about your views on the persecution on Poles (and other Slavs) during the WWII, and I want to clarify some issues, trying to understand your theories. That's all I can say. Yatzhek (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Please explain to me how our personal opinions which disagree to agree obviously even contribute help to any article. Talk pages are not meant to be used as a way of communicating with each other on an argument scale.

Okay firstly, there is numerous of historical evidence which support Poles were also regarded as Aryans.

Walling-off Świętokrzyska Street (seen from Marszałkowska Street on the "Aryan side")

The picture showing a woman punished for having sexual relations with a Pole is because AFTER the war sexual relations with ALL foreign slave labor workers was forbidden as "forbidden contact" and was extended into the Rassenschande "race defilement" law. I am well aware hundreds of Poles were executed for their sexual relations with Germans, this applied ONLY to laborers. The 'Aryan side' in the ghettos used for ethnic Poles was still used throughout the war, so please provide evidence that Poles were seen as only half-Aryans as you keep stating.

Hitler's plans against Poland was not based on racial doctrines, it was based on territorial conflicts and Poland's pre-war refusal of his peace offers. I've read that website before, you seem to confuse Nordic with Aryan, I am well aware of the Nazis Germanization of ethnic Germans who were Polonized (according to their doctrine). The "No entrance for Poles" was after the Nazis started to occupy the country Poland and were Germanizing many areas and it was for Germans only hence the German nationalist slogans "Only for Germans". You did say Gypsies were not meant be exterminated, see [2].

Please provide me a source that Hitler made a list for Gypsies to be spared from Nazi persecution.

Slavs and skull shapes? Oh really:

"In attempting to scientifically prove the racial inferiority of Slavs, German (and Austrian) racial scientists were forced to gloss over their findings which consistently found that Early Slavs were dolicocephalic and fair haired, i.e. "Nordic", whist the South Slavic "Dinaric" sub-race was often viewed favourable."

Listen, I've told you time and time again and I will keep telling you; stop with the rhetoric questions we are not here to discuss one's opinion. This has completely drifted of from the edit on the article I reverted which was not supported by any sources. We are not here to discuss Holocaust victims, we are not here to discuss mine OR your opinions on Nazi persecution, main victims, Slavs persecution or anything... that is not what talk pages are here for... please see Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor..--Windows66 (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Your personal views strongly influence the ideas that you're trying to push through and put them on Wikipedia. Sure, there is a lot of sources saying that Poles were Nordic, NOT Aryan. You totally confise NORDIC with ARYAN and there was a huge difference. The translations from German into English and from Polish into English were often with mistakes. All you know about the war is from the TRANSLATED sources. It makes me wonder how come you trying to teach me what happened in my own country where I live and to my own people, while the members of my family experienced it, and many didn't survive. They were mostly ethnic-Polish, but some were Jewish from my father's side. I know everything from the first hand. Poles were "untermensch" - this you can not deny. Germans treated Slavs as a worse type of human beings. Every person from every Slavic nation will say it to you if you ask. Germans seen ALL the round-skulled and short-headed people as subhumans. I repeat - the "Aryan side" was called so only because Poles were the native nation of this place in Europe called Poland, but were not considered Fully Aryan, only partially Aryan, as some of the Poles (as well as some of the Slavs, even Serbs, Macedonians or Bulgarians) had some Nordic features. All Aryans were Nordic, but not all Nordics were Aryan for instance a Nordic German was Aryan, but a Nordic-looking Pole or a Nordic-looking Jew or a Nordic-looking Serb wasn't treated as a full-Aryan mostly because of ethnicity, and so, the Aryan-loooking Slavs (mostly children) had to be Germanised in order to be seen as full-Aryans. - this is basically it. However, Gypsies were the ONLY exception from this rule racially, but Hitler ignored it and killed them anyway, but for instance the Japanese were an exception politically (Hitler's plan was to make political friends with the Japanese so he gave them the title of honorary-Aryans).

The girl on the picture is not punished for sexual relations, but simply for good relatinons with Poles, for being kind and polite to them, as a lower-class ethnic group. The similr situation was back in the days in America - if she, a White girl, sympathized with Blacks and was hanging out with them, she would be called a "niggerlover" and humiliated in a similar way. It all the same type of prejudice. In every case where race is involved it looks basically the same.

My quote about the Gypsies: "During the WWII no other ethnicity beside Jews was planned to be totally exterminated, even the Gypsies were not. " --- Firstly you say I have no problem with English and now i see you dont understand what Im saying. I clearly said "During the WWII no other ethnicity beside Jews was planned to be totally exterminated, even the Gypsies were not (planned to be totally exterminated) - I meant NOT TOTALLY, because the plan was to exterminate them partially as Hitler was conscouos of their pre-Aryan heritage and death omitted many of them. Nonetheless, around half-a-million Romani were killed, along with two million Poles and six million Jews, and hundreds thousands of other ethnic groups.

I am not trying to attack you or nothing like that. From now on I am just trying to exchange my thoughts with you, that's all. Yatzhek (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This is like typing to a brick wall, don't you get that talk pages are not to be used as personal opinions? Provide me some evidence that Poles were viewed as only "partially Aryan", "half-Aryan" or "not fully Aryan". I get you're trying to catch me out by saying about your family etc but its not going to work, this is not the place to discuss your family's ethnicity nor their history.

Okay this seems not be sinking in, can you provide sources that Poles and Serbs were not viewed as fully Aryan?

"Ziemie zajęte przez Niemcy zostały częściowo włączone do III Rzeszy, z pozostałej części utworzono Generalne Gubernatorstwo (GG). Władze niem. wprowadziły podział ludności na Żydów i tzw. aryjczyków (m.in. Polaków), odmiennie traktując obie grupy (Żydów pozbawiły elementarnych praw ludzkich);" what means: "Terrains which were taken by the Germans were being gradually incorporated to the Reich, from the other parts General Government (GG) was created. German authorities introduced a segregation of people on Jews and so-called Aryans (mainly Poles), and both groups were treaten differently (Jews were deprived of basic human rights)." I don't see why you refuse to accept Poles were regarded by the Germans but still did suffer which is something I never denied.

We are not here to discuss the Japanese, I am well aware the status of the Japanese.

Gypsies (Romani people) were NOT Aryan. They were subject to the Nuremberg Laws, they got stripped of their citizenship and were forbidden to have sexual relations and marriages with Aryans.

Please provide some sources that state Hitler spared some Gypsies.

What makes me really laugh is all you type to me is your own thoughts, none of it is backed up by any sources. Please provide me English or Polish (since you claim to be Polish) that Poles (and Serbs - if you wish) were not viewed as Aryan but only not fully, partially or half Aryans.

"I repeat - the "Aryan side" was called so only because Poles were the native nation of this place in Europe called Poland, but were not considered Fully Aryan, only partially Aryan, as some of the Poles (as well as some of the Slavs, even Serbs, Macedonians or Bulgarians) had some Nordic features." - source please?

Lets get real, the 'Aryan side' was used to separate the native ethnic Polish population from the Jews. Ethnic Poles WERE regarded as fully Aryans and were even used as examples of Aryans in the Ahnenpass.

"From now on I am just trying to exchange my thoughts with you, that's all." - NO! Talk pages are not here to discuss each other's thoughts on articles or matters. I linked you before to the guide lines of talk pages, read and obey them.--Windows66 (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Firstly - what is the source of the quote you gave here? Secondly - OK, so you believe all Slavic people were Aryan. Good. You have the right to think so. As many people, as many views. But, you can never deny that they were not called "untermensch". The Aryan/non-Aryan classicifation was a totally separate thing from that, and you seem to confuse these things. "Subhuman" didn't only mean "non-Aryan". Of course, non-Aryans were automatically "untermensch" but this term also meant the cultural aspects, not only racial aspects. It was a Germanic philosophical notion describing a human who lacks intelligence, who is aggressive, who is strong, hard-working, but very stupid, down-to-earth, and the main point - who is a "threat" to the Germanic culture. This is how Germans seen Slavs (especially Poles and Serbs, sometimes Russians and people coming from their republics). It is believed however, that it was also based on their ethnicity as Slavs, but this is the point we can't agree about. I will tell you more, even some German individuals were called by this term . "Untermenschen" were also those Germans who sympathized with Poles (or other Slavs), who liked Slavic culture, or who secretly supported socialism - this term described all the people who didn't fit to Hitler's views. Now, You have your views, I have mine. I respect it, even though i do not agree with you. Yatzhek (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I've never confused untermensch with non-Aryan.

For about the 10th time - Can you provide me a source that Poles were only regarded as partially Aryan? - you seem to be ignoring this, its all good for you to type it but one thing you lack is the source to back this up.

Please provide me a source that states Germans who sympathized with Poles and other Slavs were regarded as untermenschen subhumans.

Stop typing to me text without any sources, unless you're going to provide sources for what you have just stated then don't bother replying.--Windows66 (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/English Patriot Man, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Tobby72 (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Windows66 listen to me for a while, the User:Tobby72 has highly academic knowledge and his contribs are submitted from a perfectly neutral point of view, which is not the thing to be said about you. you accuse everyone of sockpuppetry, as i said - exactly like a crazy cowboy, shooting all around himself yelling in a rage. first of all - you have to learn politeness. second step - you have to learn history. Now check if i am a sockpuppet of tobby72, yatzhek or dozens of other users who you don't agree with... 91.218.158.26 (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It's kind of obvious that this random IP is a sockpuppet, it is seriously not rocket science. You may also want to check Wikipedia rules and avoided personal attacks. Don't accuse me of not knowing history or not being polite when one can see I have created a discussion in the talk pages of the debated articles and comment on the text not the personal putting the text and I also post from a neutral point of view without accusing people of such and such.--Windows66 (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

He was accusing everyone of sockpuppetry, he accused me as well (of course his accusations turned out to be false), while meanwhile I see that he is a sockpuppet himself. What a pathetic man. English nationalist. Now, please Wikipedia, have a closer look at his nationalistic, racist, anti_Polish contributions including holocaust denial, omitting and diminishing the suffering of the Polish nation during the World War II, removing valueable information from Wikipedia, vandalism. Windows66, you filthy sockpuppet, the destroyer of Wikipedia. 91.218.158.26 (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

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

Windows66 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't actually even know how or where to begin with this or even why it has resorted to this in the first place. I am not a sockpuppet of the the banned user English Patriot Man. I fail to see how the duck test can even apply here simply because I have used some arguments for the debate that occurred in which that banned user English Patriot Man used and which is still available in the talk pages of the related articles. All of what I have put into articles or talk pages are sourced. You can check my contributions and see that I have well documented and sourced text to talk pages, this all started because one user was failing to cooperate with me on a talk page and on their own page, in this course other users seemed to have took this persons side who accused me of Holocaust denial, a white supremacist, being anti-Polish/racist - why has this user not been banned? I removed text from articles which is not true or is poorly sourced, I did not just simply remove this but also created talk page after talk page to have cooperation with other users in respect to my removal of the text. Other users used the same arguments for me before and after this banned user, I don't get why I am being penalized for doing so when in fact what the banned user says is the truth, the Poles were placed into the Aryan side of ghettos and were used as examples of an Aryan by the Nazis in the proof of Aryan descent Ahnenpass. Just because one person in particular (User:MyMoloboaccount) has accused me time and time again and showed the so-called evidence does not make me a sock puppet. Check my IP, I am not on a proxy or vpn or anything else hidden I am a genuine person on the correct IP. Even when making such new sections on talk pages a personal attack was used against me by Tobby72 "Thanks. He's pretty insidious. These false accusations are very easy to make." I love to see how a user can identify my gender, I could be a female - it is not any of they business. None of my edits have been in un-sourced or a personal attack to anyone yet when I defended my right to removal of some text I was personally attacked on more than one occasion, this user then has proceeded to user random IP's against me (you can see my talk page for an example of this) and yet this user has not been banned. I do not understand why I have been banned by you Someguy1221 when I have not broken any Wikipedia rules and I am not happy with this decision at all.

Decline reason:

Given the evidence, I wouldn't feel comfortable unblocking at this point. slakr^\ talk / 10:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

---

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

This is ridiculous. I mean look at User:91.218.158.26 recent edit onto my talk page, can you please tell me where I have been; anti-Polish, racist, white supremacist or denied the Holocaust?

"He was accusing everyone of sockpuppetry, he accused me as well (of course his accusations turned out to be false), while meanwhile I see that he is a sockpuppet himself. What a pathetic man. English nationalist. Now, please Wikipedia, have a closer look at his nationalistic, racist, anti_Polish contributions including holocaust denial, omitting and diminishing the suffering of the Polish nation during the World War II, removing valueable information from Wikipedia, vandalism. Windows66, you filthy sockpuppet, the destroyer of Wikipedia."[3]

Look at the Ahnenpass article and User:MyMoloboaccount recent "reverts" and "edit", see [4], now what the user has done is rather quite sly to say the least, he has inserted an unreliable source Nursing History Review, Volume 12, 2004 page 130 (which would not count as a reliable source WP:V) to confirm "The Germans aspiring for the document had to prove they didn't descent either from Jews or Slavs" and NOT removed my two added sources which stated "Arischer Abstammung ist demnach derjenige Mensch, der frei von einem, vom deutschen Volke aus gesehen, fremdrassigen Blutseinschlage ist. Als fremd gilt hier vor allem das Blut der auch im europäischen Siedlungsraume lebenden Juden und Zigeuner, das der asiatischen und afrikanischen Rassen und der Ureinwohner Australiens und Amerikas (Indianer), während z.B. ein Engländer oder Schwede, ein Franzose oder Tscheche, ein Pole oder Italiener, wenn er selbst frei von solchen, auch ihm fremden Blutseinschlägen ist, als verwandt, also als arisch gelten muß, mag er nun in seiner Heimat oder in Ostasien oder in Amerika wohnen oder mag er Bürger der U.S.A. oder eines südamerikanischen Freistaates sein.

Aryan is thus the one man who looked free from, the German people, strange racial impact is blood. Deemed to be a stranger here, especially the blood of the living room and in the European settlement of Jews and Gypsies, the Asian and African breeds, and the aborigines of Australia and America (Indians), while, for example, a Swede or an Englishman, a Frenchman or Czech, a Pole or Italian, if he is free of such, even that is foreign blood strikes, when used, must therefore be considered severally liable, he may now live in his home, in East Asia or in America or he likes a U.S. citizen or a South American Free State be." but rather changed this sneakily to "Thee Ahnenpaß was given out to citizens of other countries" which does not at all make any sense nor is what the sources say.

This is one example, check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MyMoloboaccount for all of MyMoloboaccount so-called "clean ups" which in reality are just the users one-sided unconfirmed biased notion that the Slavs were "non-Aryan" and "subhumans" (which is not even given by the sources at the end of these implied concepts in the articles he/she has edited). Of course MyMoloboaccount doesn't like to admit that Slavs were regarded as Aryans and even Nazi documentation confirms this and not the unreliable/unverified view they were not and when showed evidence that shows the true reality that they were seen as Aryans he/she just ignores this and deletes the text in the articles.

Look at how I was ganged up on the reporting of user Yatzhek and the user was even issued a warning for personally attacking me, and to talk about edits with similar kind of text how about this:

Tobby72: "German warning in Nazi-occupied Poland 1939 - "No entrance for Poles!""

MyMoloboaccount: "German warning in Nazi-occupied Poland 1939 - "No entrance for Poles!"],under Nazi occupation Poles as "subhumans" were not allowed to enter premises were Germans "master race" were allowed]"

What really makes me laugh is that anybody can read a book and see Slavs were seen as Aryans, why is this nonsense allowed on Wikipedia - it is supposed to be based on truth and reality not a one-sided unconfirmed view point of a person who does not like to admit these facts.

But yeah I remain banned because I've been accused of being a sock puppet despite the fact you can look into my history and see I've not broken any rules on Wikipedia and yet users like MyMoloboaccount distort facts and get the upper hand after opening a few sections on moderators talk pages on Wikipedia whilst failing to discuss with me, one sided no huh???--Windows66 (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The so-called "non-Aryan Slavs" is nonsense, even as of 2007 (as far back as I can see on Wikipedia) other users challenged this notion:

"Slavs and other ethnic groups were considered to be Aryans. Eg. in occupied Poland, an official name for the parts of the cities inhabited by Poles was "the Aryan part" whereas Jewish parts were called "ghettos". The main ideologist Alfred Rosenberg classified Slavs as Aryans, but Slavs, Finns, or Italians... there were no ethnic group equal to Germans, who were the most Aryan nation in Europe."[5]

There is no evidence Slavs were non-Aryan. For me to say this should not result in me being banned as a sock puppet, as you can see; other people use the "Aryan side" as example in Poland for Poles being regarded as Aryan.--Windows66 (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Another example of manipulated and false text by MyMoloboaccount is the recent edits in the Racial policy of Nazi Germany article, see [6] [7] [8]

such nonsense should not be allowed and should be removed, the text is not even supported by any of the sources given neither its just a biased edit. Slavs were viewed by some Nazis as inferior (something I never even disputed) but they WERE Aryans and the adding of "non-Aryans" and claims that the Ahnenpass made one prove to be of non-Slavic descent is utter garbage.--Windows66 (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

And also the User:Yatzhek has contradicted himself time and time again and is now I think is talking to himself on a proxy (absolutely hilarious!), see [9] [10] [11] [12] - AGAIN labeling me as a "racist anti-Polish" person, despite the fact I've never even revealed my ethnicity (I could be ethnically Polish, it is irrelevant).

ALSO Yatzhek is not telling the 100% truth, when debating about Poles being Aryan he stated that his family were "mostly ethnic-Polish, but some were Jewish from my father's side"[13] and is now claiming to be 1/4 of black African origin[14] - it does not take a genius to work out this person is playing games with Wikipedia.--Windows66 (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps if people like User:MyMoloboaccount and User:Yatzhek would not assert opinions as facts and actually looked at the factual evidence that supports the view Slavs were regarded as Aryan but were inferior then perhaps more articles such as the master race, Racial policy of Nazi Germany and the Ahnenpass would have more neutral points of view fairly.--Windows66 (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

And yet again the sabotage of articles by User:MyMoloboaccount continues on the articles on Nazism and race, and Volk ohne Raum. It's rather quite a shame and ridiculous that a user who is not even willing to discuss on talk pages about their edits (only when it suits he/she then I see new sections and replies on talk pages) but rather to maliciously continue and manipulate articles with tedious and false edits is allowed to do so.--Windows66 (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Are people not starting to actually see the damage that User:MyMoloboaccount is continuing to do to articles with edits that are excluding verified text with his/her own manipulated version of things to suit their own agenda, see Aryan race, Nuremberg Laws, Racism in Poland, Occupation of Poland (1939-45), Ahnenpass (again). Now you see, the user is being rather sneaky about this under the notion of "cleaning up sockpuppet edits" whereas on the contrary the user is pushing his own agenda which is not in accordance with the WP:NPOV in the slightest. Opinions do not equal facts.--Windows66 (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I mean even look at this "against Germans who tried to exterminate Polish nation" - this is a personal opinion NOT a fact and not all Germans were even Nazis (nor were all Nazis hostile to Poland, even Hitler himself up to 1938 wanted an alliance with Poland against the Soviet Union), this is an agenda being pushed into articles and all these tedious and unverified text should be removed from all the articles above. WP:NOTTRUTH WP:VERIFY WP:ASSERT - everything this user has edited in these articles can be refuted by verified sources and text which has already been done but the user is not willing to accept this since it goes against his/her agenda and view of things, absolutely ridiculous how such things can even remain in articles.--Windows66 (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

5 days later... even more tedious edits, see [15], [16], [17].

Why is the user allowed to get away with such edits?--Windows66 (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)