Hi Smith2006! Welcome to wikipedia! It looks like you've already gotten started editing. That's great! It's always good to see a newcomer start contributing early. I have some links you may find helpful:

• Help with page editing
• Writing a great article on Wikipedia
• Wikipedia's manual of style
• The village pump, a place to ask questions about wikipedia
• IRC channels for Wikipedia, where you can talk live to other Wikipedians
• The Votes for Deletion Page, where articles are decided to be kept or deleted
• The village pump, where you can ask general questions and get help with using Wikipedia
• The recent changes page, helpful for reverting vandalism

Don't worry about being perfect—few of us ever are. If you don't have much to do, you can take up a task.

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

Wikipedians have a policy of never biting the newbies, so please don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talkpage or ask another wikipedian a question. If you need help right away, type {{helpme}} on your user page and someone should arrive shortly to help you. Have fun editing, and BE BOLD!!!!!--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carissime frater in Christo,

You write: "The claims made by you about the validity of the Ngo Dinh Thuc consecrations". What claims did I make? I was careful to point out that the Holy See had made no declaration about the validity. It only said it said it would treat those involved as in the state they were in before. The Holy See did say that. So what have I done wrong? Oremus pro invicem. Lima 20:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have uploaded a few pictures saying you are the creator of them. Were you really at Bishop Thuc's Mass in 1982, and also at that traditionalist ordination listed as 2002? Also, the Roman Catholic Church article is about the Church as a whole. The particular ordination picture looks nice and has a place somewhere (if it's yours to give), but it does not represent very well the face of the Church today. I don't push to have Eastern Catholic pictures there. Gimmetrow 14:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take some offense at your insinuations about my motives. Gimmetrow 14:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, Fontgombault is part of the Church. Let me put it this way - would you think it appropriate if I put in a picture of an Eastern full-immersion baptism and confirmation of an infant, and just referred to it as "confirmation"? Gimmetrow 15:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then that identifies our difference. I would not find it appropriate to display a picture of Eastern infant confirmation and just refer to it as "confirmation" because I think that would misrepresent the majority Roman Catholic practice in the main RC article. It *would* be appropriate in the specialized confirmation article, where it could be given appropriate context as a custom in particular communities. I'm not sure what you mean by saying "Fontgombault is in the Latin rite Catholic Church" - we're talking about the Roman Catholic Church article. Gimmetrow 20:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you put antiques on display, it is only right that they be accompanied by an explanation, as you yourself have now begun to provide. The first explanation with which I accompanied your picture was incomplete: I must improve it. Oh, by the way, "show", not "elevate" is the word in the Tridentine Roman Missal: "Quibus verbis prolatis, statim Hostiam consecratam genuflexus adorat: surgit, ostendit populo, reponit super Corporale ..." Lima 04:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please prove those acolythes kneeling int he Bohermeen pictures are priests. They are old acolythes. In 1950s Ireland, I was in my late teens and early twenties and neither then nor before did I ever see anything but young boys of elementary-school age (like the two in the picture) acting as altar servers in parish churches. On the occasion of the bishop's annual or, in some cases, biennial visit to the parish, children who would have left primary school before his next visit were confirmed; that's why the two altar boys are slightly younger than the confirmands. I don't need to prove the men kneeling at the altar rails were priests. If Smith2006 ceases to claim they were part of a normal Sunday congregation, I will cease to state what they were. The bishop is kneeling. Normally Confirmation is conferred at a Mass celebrated by the Bishop. Yes, though still not obligatory, that is normal now, one of the improvements made in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. It was not always so. So why are you constantly reverting my editions? Constantly removing my comments? I can't think why, unless perhaps (if the statement is true) Smith2006's editions and comments are constantly erroneous. Is Roman Catholicism your monopoly? Certainly not, not is it Smith2006's. Kind regards, Smith2006 14:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Warm good wishes to Smith2006. Lima 15:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must apologize, not for the first time, to Gimmetrow for not having taken his observations seriously enough. I really am sorry, and have no sufficient excuse. The candles he refers to, and to see which I inexcusably failed to take the trouble to look again at the picture, are certainly the candles that used to be put out for Benediction or for the Quarant'Ore (Forty Hours) devotion.

On the other hand, the girls are not wearing a mantilla. Irish women wore hats to Mass, not mantillas, which they looked on as a Spanish custom and would sometimes bring back from a visit to Spain as a curiosity. (The mantillas that I saw brought back were always black, not white, and, if I remember right, shorter than those on the girls in the picture.) So who are the girls? Members of some sodality, like the Children of Mary? I confess I have nothing concrete to propose. Were they perhaps dressed like that for a Eucharistic Procession to follow the Mass? I no longer hold to my previous hypothesis that it is a Confirmation Mass.

The two candlesticks for seven candles each are indeed yet another indication that this Mass was no ordinary 1950s Mass, and indeed that, even with such a plentiful supply of priests, Catholics in Ireland hardly ever experienced a High Mass. Lima 18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Smith2006! I've been working on bringing the Gregorian chant article, and have some thoughts about the recent edits you made to that page. When you get a chance, would you take a look at the talk page? I think you may be working with outdated information. Thanks! Peirigill 19:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do not own the Historical Eastern Germany article. Therefore please refrain from statements such as "Don´t touch my version." (see this edit[1]) The rest of the edit description is a personal attack against me. See the WP:NPA (No personal attacks) Wikipedia policy. For your information I'm not a Polish (or any other) nationalist. I'm just a proud Pomeranian who believes the heritage of both Polish and German people should be remebered in all the lands that changed hands between the two nations in their intertwined history. Your edit record shows a strong bias for making NPOV (seeWP:NPOV) and inflamatory statements on many issues related to German history. You also tend to add unsourced material whenever you think it can further your opinions (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). Please remember Wikipedia is for readers of any political views from all nations. Therefore we should try to present objective and unbiased facts and where a controversy exists, try to present the views of both sides in a non-inflamatory way. This is most of all an enyclopedia: a source of of objective facts. However in addition to that, I strongly believe it should be a place that heals old wounds, not re-opens them. Tschüss, from a ProudPomeranian 06:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it seems I have interfered with some of your recent edits including Szczecin, Gdańsk etc. I only wanted to let you know that I believe in you doing the edits in good faith and that if I reerted anything it was not intended as any POV pushing on my side either. Particularly, it would be interesting to have some more sourced information on what happened to Stettin in 1945, how it got into Polish hands, who gave orders and also about subsequential expulsions of the German inhabitants of the town. Would you have some verifiable sources about this ? --Lysy^talk 13:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss on the talk page before adding an unexplained NPOV tag to a featured article, removing images, or adding unreferenced text. The Pinchas Lapide figure is already sourced and in the "contemporary" section. As for the other things you wanted to add, you need a source. Please discuss on the talk page before making radical changes to an article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please enable you e-mail function?

How about signing here.

Your move request has been archived from the Requested moves page, because nobody was given the chance to comment on the talk page of the article. If you still want to move the article, please re-submit the request by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Steps for requesting a page move. Regards, Kimchi.sg 08:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, two things regarding [2]:

1. The edit in question was made in good faith, and so was not vandalism, so please don't call it that.
2. Non-registered editors have the same editing privileges as registered editors.

Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 21:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Luther page. I'd like to comment on your addition. Before the Reformation, there was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church. This is a term used after the Reformation to refer to those who remained loyal to the Pope rather than joining the Lutheran, Reformed or another Christian tradition. I just thought you'd like to know why I'll likely change it later today. Bob Smith --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is, the term is anachronistic. It did not exist before the Reformation. So it is inaccurate to call the church "Roman Catholic." Second, there was no monastic order in the West that was not "Catholic" at the time, so the term itself, if meant to refer to submitting to the authority of the Pope is redundant. It's like saying "an American US Marine." Finally, we are supposed to use printed sources to support our edits. Do you have a source that calls Luther a "Roman Catholic monk?" If not, let's simply drop the language.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Although it's not about winning in my book, just trying to keep things accurate. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the content of the article on the Martin Luther talk page -- if you can read past the vigorous debate over Martin Luther and the Jews. I'm trying to work on the rest of the article while that struggle goes on. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Smith, welcome to the Martin Luther page. Thanks for your participation and interest. You might want to check over Wikipedia's policy on documentation and source citation. You can see there is quite a lot of documentation for assertions and comments made on the Luther page, so when you post a statement, it is appreciated and often required that you provide a source for your comment. Wiki does not permit what it terms "original research" which really means statements that are not sourced. Have fun! If I can be of any assistance, let me know. Ptmccain 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently trying to get a Dutch military task force started, would you join us? From what I've seen on the Netherlands in World war II article, you could most certainly provide a (more than) worthy contribution.

If you're interested, and I hope you are, please drop a note at this talk page Cheers,  Rex  16:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you either update the image page or explain the source better? I am hoping you can show this is a public domain image, because I would like to be able to use it for other projects. Gimmetrow 17:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is still some confusion about the picture. If you took the picture yourself you can release it into the public domain, and then there is no need to mention "fair use". "Fair use" only applies to copyrighted images. So the first question is whether it is copyrighted or in the public domain. Where does the image come from? Did a friend of yours take the picture with a digital camera? Was it a photo print that you scanned? Did you grab it from a website and edit it? Gimmetrow 03:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a friend took it, then the image description should ideally be as clear as possible. For instance: "Taken by private individual (provide contact info) who releases it into the public domain." If it is certainly public domain, mentioning "fair use" is confusing. Gimmetrow 15:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, care to take part in the Germans article, specifically the usage of the term regarding Austrian and Swiss nationals of German ethnicity? I see you have a healthy historical perspective on issues related to Germany. P.S. Good work on reversing the Nazi-Christian cooperation myth. Let's not forget that the church doscouraged its faithful from voting for the Nazis, while entry into the SS had far greater chances of success when one didnt belong to any religious congregation, and had proof thereof. Ulritz 15:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your name on a number of Catholic articles, including traditionalists, and wonder if you could take a look at a new article that just popped up, Latin Mass Society of Australia. Reads like a personal essay by a member rather than an article, and it's not well written. Looks like they're more than Latin Tridentine advocates, with also a sedevacantist tinge, and not currently in good standing. Don't know if it's worth cleaning up, or is the organization really not worth noting? -- Fan-1967 03:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the author of this edit: [3]? (Curiously enough, it does not show up under your contributions.) If so, did you see this request: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Please may I have the E-mail of the person who wrote article?  --Lambiam^Talk 23:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed you added a dispute tag to the article on Extermination through labour, yet you did not start a dispute at the talk page. I took the liberty of removing the tag. //Halibutt 23:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per your request I added the references you requested and removed the tag. Hope that's ok with you. If you want more references - just google them up for yourself, there's plenty of books in Google Books as well. Your nearest library would also be of some help, just ask for any book on the German WWII concentration camps. //Halibutt 06:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Albert Forster.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I basically agree with your comments on Danzig and other formerly German places in present-day Poland. I fought the Polish ultra-nationalists long and hard on these issues last year but eventually concluded they weren't amenable to reason. The explanation I've heard from others is that the Poles have internalized 50 years of their own propaganda about the so-called "recovered territories" into a mystical belief that Poland has a sacred right to all the territories east of the Oder-Neisse in perpetuity, and that the Germans were merely "occupying" them for six centuries. (Never mind that if you go back far enough, the Poles weren't there, either. Never mind that at one point the Goths lived in the Vistula Delta. Never mind that the human rights of all the Germans in those territories in '45 were systematically and savagely violated — they were all "Nazis" anyway).

The thing that makes Polish nationalism so intractable is, it's the Poles' personal identity, along with their peculiarly intense brand of Catholicism. The two are, I think, mystically bound up together.

Poles seem to have a kind of eternal-victim complex. ("Poland is not lost forever ...") That may be understandable given the history of Poland in the last three centuries. And one must keep in mind that the Germans were indeed arrogant, brutal and savage in their occupation of Poland during WWII. But it's time for the Poles to grow up and become a normal nation in a normal Europe -- as I think the Germans largely have. In Germany, people who stridently declare that Gdańsk, for example, will always and forever be "Danzig" are a small minority on the lunatic fringe of society. In Poland their counterparts in nationalism seem to be a mainstream majority.

Before I go, let me say that I'm not anti-Polish. I lived in Poland for about half a year and liked many Polish people I met. BTW, I also spent some time in Nederland, many years ago.

Tot ziens!

Sca 12:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. It strikes me that the nationalism of present-day Poland may also be conditioned by the almost total homogeneity of the population, which formerly was much more diverse. (Thank you, Adolf!) It's too bad Poles can't appreciate some positive aspects of Deutschtum in their own history; Cf. the Wiki wrangle over Copernicus's ethnicity.

Sca 13:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they use the Kashubian claim to try to make out that Gũnter Grass is not wholly a 'German' writer. Sinnlos! BTW, Grass is a particular enthusiasm of mine; I contributed a bit to the Wiki entry on him.

It has struck me that most of Poland's larger cities are ex-German cities and some of them, notably Gdańsk and Wrocław, show in their restored sections the German/Prussian architectural heritage — as do many other places in Poland, such as Olsztyn.

It's been 10 years since I visited Gdańsk, but at that time one could not find a single reference in a museum, public building or tourist brochure to the city's German past, which I find culturally tragic and dishonest. It's different in Kaliningrad, where the Russians have come round to making quite a point of the city's Prusso-German history (see the first photo on my user page). I suspect this is because the Russians conquered Königsberg on their own in '45 — a fact they're immensely proud of, alas — while the Poles, unfortunately, were soundly beaten by the Germans and only acquired the ex-German cities at the hands of the Soviets, who also occupied Poland in their turn. Also, the Russkis want German tourist euros.

As to Poland's homogeneity: I'm no authority, and I do know that there remains a rather small ethnic-German population in the district of Opole/Oppeln in Upper Silesia, where ethnicities long were mixed — or flexible depending on the poltical winds. (Modern example: Miroslav Klose). But my understanding is that most of the million or so Germans remaining in Poland after the expulsions were allowed to emigrate in the '70s and '80s as a response to Ostpolitik and West German economic aid. Also, I understand that the Polish-speaking Masurians, who were culturally Germanized (and voted for Germany in 1921), were mostly expelled after the war, along with the Germans. I don't know about the Ukrainians you mention. Obviously, the Jews are all but gone, and most of prewar Poland's Belorussians and Lithuanians were in areas gobbled up by Uncle Joe in '39 in his deal with Onkel 'Dolf. All this leads me to believe that Poland today is maybe 97 percent Polish — and 94 percent Catholic.

Sca 14:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed in Kaliningrad that they make a beer called Ostmark (Остмарк). And the Russians also use the word Kartoffel for potato — as do the Poles! Perhaps the three groups could gather together under the sign of the lowly tuber — for which my state, sadly, is famous.

Sca 15:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, I know about you Dutch and aardappels.

Sca 16:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err... in addition to Sca's outrageous generalizations about the Polish people above (ever imagined anyone making the same set of remarks about, say, Dutch or Jewish people?), a small hint at the end of the page. First of all, people hardly believe in the recovered status of the recovered territories. It's merely a short-cut name, much easier to pronounce than parts of western Poland that used to be part of Germany between 1871 and 1945, and parts of various states prior to that date. Also, I don't think there is a single Catholic among our small Polish wiki community here. And certainly not among those whom Sca contacted. Anyway, sorry to interrupt and feel free to contact me if you want to know the other side of this story as well :) //Halibutt 06:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I was born and raised in the capital. As all capitals in the world, the culture, traditions and even language of Warsaw differs from what is typical to the rest of the country. I never lived in the west of Poland and, frankly speaking, although I find the city of Wrocław fascinating (mostly thanks to great novels and short SF stories by Andrzej Ziemiański), what used to be Lwów is much closer to my heart than what used to be Breslau. I feel better in what used to be a Polish city that is now inhabitted almost exclusively by Ukrainians, than in a city that used to be a German city and now is inhabitted almost exclusively by... the descendants of those who lived in Lwów until 1945. But perhaps it's just me.

As to religiousness of my colleagues and friends, as I said Warsaw is different and I admit my friends might not be typical to the rest of the country. However, among us there's barely a trace of a "typically Polish Catholicism". As to me personally, my parents raised me in a liberally Catholic surrounding, baptized me and sent me to first communion and all. However, as intellectuals, they never were to religious themselves and never applied to the blindly-religious group, who went to the church to whisper some pre-prepared formulas. Likewise, as soon as I grew up, I started searching my own religiousness and spent lots of time in churches of many denominations, including the synagogue . Eventually I'm a believer, but I don't subscribe myself to any rite in particular.

Most of my friends (young generation of people from Warsaw) have passed the same route. Some have swayed towards agnosticism, others ended up in a place I am now. That doesn't have anything to do with neo-leftist tendencies, rather with lack of oppression. Note that what is a typical Polish Catholicism is a religion of the oppressed. For centuries the church was the only all-national institution that was allowed to exist - and was crucial in preserving the Polish culture. As an interesting fact, the Protestantism served the very same role in the area of Cieszyn, where the official religion of Catholic Austria was confronted with Protestantism of local Poles. Then came the Commies and again the Catholic Church became a state within a state for all those who felt their country is under foreign occupation. You could not emigrate as the Commies would not give you a passport, but you at least had your local church, an island of relative liberty within the oppressive, totalitarian state.

Now then, after 1989 (I was 8 then) we don't have to go to church in order to listen to true history of our country. You have it at school, even more than you could ask for. We don't have to go to church to read banned books, as there are none. We don't have to go to church to reassure ourselves that our side is more numerous - as there is no "Them" nowadays. However strange it might seem, religion started to play only the religious role. Social, economic or political roles are now open to any organization. Hence I might say that I simply do not need the church.

Anti-religiosity is yet another issue. I don't think there is any among my friends. On the other hand there is a growing resentment against this or that priest who rides a very expensive car and so on. But that sentiment was here since middle ages and was only briefly suppressed during the communist times. //Halibutt 11:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]