text:
Flensburg Government

The Flensburg Government (Flensburger Regierung), also known as the Flensburg Cabinet (Flensburger Kabinett), the Dönitz Government (Regierung Dönitz), or the Schwerin von Krosigk Cabinet (Kabinett Schwerin von Krosigk), was the rump government of Nazi Germany during a period of three weeks around the end of World War II in Europe. The government was formed following the suicide of Adolf Hitler on 30 April 1945 during the Battle of Berlin. It was headed by Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz as Reichspräsident and Lutz Graf Schwerin von Krosigk as the Leading Minister. The administration was referred to as the "Flensburg Government" because Dönitz's command relocated to Flensburg in northern Germany near the Danish border on 3 May 1945. The sports school at the Mürwik naval academy was used as the government headquarters.

At the time of its formation, forces loyal to the Nazi regime still held control of most of Austria and the Sudetenland, which was annexed by Germany in 1938. They also still controlled most of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia which was partially annexed in 1939 when the remainder of Czechoslovakia was occupied, although after Hitler's death those Czech lands still occupied were effectively controlled by the SS with little meaningful oversight from Flensburg. Furthermore, the German military continued to occupy other non-German-speaking territories in disparate and isolated locations across Europe, such as Denmark, Norway, the Atlantic pockets in France and the British Channel Islands. However, in addition to losing most of its wartime conquests by this point, German forces had already been driven out of the vast majority of Germany's post-Anschluss territory, in addition to Luxembourg as well as the Polish and French territories Germany had either annexed or placed under direct German administration in the early stages of the war. Due to the rapid Allied advance, the Flensburg government's nominal civil jurisdiction at its formation was essentially limited to those parts of Austria and the Sudetenland its forces still controlled as well as a narrow wedge of German territory running from the pre-1938 Austrian and Czechoslovak borders through Berlin to the Danish border. From 25 April 1945, these lands were cut in two by the American advance to join with Soviet forces at Torgau on the Elbe.

Upon the capitulation of all German forces on 8 May, the administration headed by Dönitz and Krosigk ceased to meaningfully function as a national government. For about two weeks after the surrender, it was for most practical purposes ignored by the Western Allies as well as neutral states and Japan. In the absence of direct military intervention within Flensburg itself, the ministry there continued to regularly meet and conduct what business it could. Finally, due to factors including pressure from the Soviet Union, on 23 May British troops arrested the entire cabinet as prisoners of war and thus effectively dissolved the last surviving legal remnants of the Nazi regime. This dissolution was formalised by the four Allied Powers on 5 June 1945, who at that time formed the Allied Control Council to co-ordinate the civil administration of Allied-occupied Germany.

Formation
Once it became apparent that Hitler intended to stay and die in the besieged city of Berlin, effective overall command of German armed forces was exercised through the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW), the German Military High Command, which had relocated to Rheinsberg. Anticipating that German-held territory would be split, separate military and civilian commands had provisionally been established on 15 April; under Field Marshal Albert Kesselring at Pullach for forces in the south and west, and under Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz at Plön for forces in the north and east; but then Hitler had stalled on transferring executive military authority to them.

On 27 April Wilhelm Keitel and Alfred Jodl, of the Army High Command, met at Rheinsberg with Dönitz and Heinrich Himmler to discuss the war situation now that the fall of Berlin could not be averted. Himmler took the chair as the acknowledged deputy Führer and, since the disgrace and dismissal of Hermann Göring, Hitler's expected successor. As they were leaving Rheinsberg on 28 April, Himmler asked Dönitz to confirm that he would be willing to serve in a successor government that Himmler might form. That day however, the British and Americans published Himmler's secret proposals for a separate peace in the West (which they had rejected), to which Hitler reacted by dismissing Himmler from all posts and ordering his arrest for treason. Telegrams sent by Martin Bormann on 29 and 30 April informed Dönitz of these developments and of Dönitz's own appointment as Hitler's successor.

With both Göring and Himmler removed from the succession, Hitler in his political testament had named Dönitz his successor as President and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, and designated Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels head of government as Chancellor. Appointing Dönitz as president had no legal basis, even under Nazi law. The chancellor was an appointed official, but the president was elected. Although the Enabling Act of 1933 gave Hitler the right to pass laws that were contrary to the Weimar Constitution, its Article 2 stated explicitly that the president's powers were to remain "undisturbed", which has long been interpreted to forbid any attempt to tamper with the presidency. After the death of president Paul von Hindenburg in 1934, Hitler appropriated the president’s powers for himself in accordance with a Law Concerning the Head of State of the German Reich passed the previous day. However, in 1932 the constitution was amended to make the president of the Reichsgericht (High Court of Justice), not the chancellor, acting president pending new elections. Nonetheless, the Enabling Act did not specify any recourse that could be taken if the chancellor violated the Article 2, and no legal challenge was ever mounted. Goebbels committed suicide in the Führerbunker on 1 May. The same day Dönitz accepted the offices of Supreme Commander and Head of State in separate broadcast addresses to the German armed forces and to the German people. Residual ministers of the Hitler cabinet, who had fled from the fall of Berlin to join Dönitz at the Wehrmacht barracks near Plön in Holstein, resigned the next day. Suspecting that Bormann might also have escaped from Berlin and be intending to seize power, Dönitz met with Hitler's former Finance Minister Lutz Graf Schwerin von Krosigk and asked him to constitute a new Reich government.

Schwerin von Krosigk's cabinet first met in Eutin, to which he and his ministerial staff were evacuated, on 2 May. Later on 2 May, and in view of the rapidly advancing British Second Army forces which were approaching Lübeck, Dönitz met Schwerin von Krosigk, Paul Wegener, Himmler, and Keitel to discuss the urgent necessity of a further relocation. Himmler argued for a move to Prague, then the last major central European capital city in German hands, and closer to advancing American forces with whom he hoped to negotiate personally, but Dönitz refused to sanction any move outside the borders of Germany. Moreover, the political situation of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was highly unstable. Dönitz decided instead to proceed to the Mürwik naval academy in Flensburg near the Danish border. The cabinet met in the sports school of the naval academy; while administrative offices and accommodation for the various ministries were established on the liner, moored in Flensburg harbour. The German High Command, which moved from Rheinsberg to Neustadt in Holstein two days before, then also relocated to Flensburg, while the SS leadership had been gathering at Flensburg since 28 April.

Cabinet
Three ministries were abolished outright (Air Ministry, Occupied Eastern Territories, and Public Enlightenment and Propaganda). While retaining some members from the previous Hitler cabinet and Goebbels cabinet, Dönitz dismissed three ministers (Bernhard Rust, Alfred Rosenberg, and Otto Georg Thierack). Other former ministers, such as Walther Funk (Economics) and Wilhelm Ohnesorge (Postal Affairs) also found themselves without new positions. The new government consisted of the following people:

Dönitz avoided including prominent Nazi leaders in his cabinet other than Speer, but included several serving officers in the SS and others who were closely involved in formulating and prosecuting the genocidal policies of the former regime. Herbert Backe was the author of the Hunger Plan of 1941, a deliberate strategy for mass elimination by starvation of Soviet prisoners of war and 'surplus' Soviet urban populations. Speer's deputy in the Economics and Production Ministry was Otto Ohlendorf, who had personally directed the murder of hundreds of thousands of Jews and Communists in occupied Soviet territory. Wilhelm Stuckart was a participant at the Wannsee Conference of January 1942, when the administrative responsibilities for the "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem" were agreed upon. Otto Ohlendorf had transferred across directly from directing Himmler's office as Reichsführer-SS; and overall, of 350 staff working in the offices of the Flensburg government, 230 had been members of the SS or other security services. Dönitz's cabinet picks were clearly circumscribed by who was available. Otherwise, and in spite of his subsequent claim that his government was 'unpolitical', the most consistent characteristic of those chosen was a virulent opposition to Bolshevism, and a determination to ensure that the revolutionary events in Germany attending the Armistice of 1918 would not be repeated in 1945. As Dönitz did not then intend any surrender to the Soviets or Poles and continued to identify "Jews and profiteers" as enemies of the German people, he had little compunction over including in his cabinet men who had participated in the killing of Slavs and Jews.

For the first few days the post of Minister of the Interior, previously held by Himmler, was kept vacant. Himmler had been condemned as a traitor, dismissed from all functions and ordered to be arrested in Hitler's political testament. Dönitz did not want Himmler's name associated with his new government. However, Dönitz feared that any move against Himmler would alienate the SS, a force that was personally loyal to its commanding officer. Following Hitler's suicide, the SS remained armed, powerful, and skeptical of the Führer 's allegations against Himmler. A further complication to Dönitz's authority to replace Himmler was that Hitler's aforementioned testament had explicitly named a successor to Himmler, Paul Giesler, whom Dönitz detested at least as much as Himmler. Dönitz tacitly set Hitler's instructions aside and continued to see Himmler on a daily basis without according him any formal appointment. It was only on 6 May 1945, while final negotiations were in prospect for a capitulation to US General Dwight D. Eisenhower in the west, that Dönitz dismissed Himmler from all his posts, and appointed Stuckart in his place.

Armed Forces High Command
Dönitz had hoped to be able to appoint Field Marshal Erich von Manstein as Commander in Chief of the Army and Chief of the OKW, to which the Army High Command (Oberkommando des Heeres) had been subject since 28 April 1945, but he could not be contacted on 2 May, and so Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel was kept in the post; and in this capacity Keitel signed the act of surrender for the German High Command in Berlin on 8 May. A further factor favouring the continuation of Keitel as Commander in Chief was the support for him of General Alfred Jodl, the Chief of Operations Staff of the Wehrmacht, whose retention Dönitz recognised as essential. Jodl was to represent Dönitz in negotiations with the Allies in Reims, France. Admiral Hans-Georg von Friedeburg was appointed to succeed Dönitz as Commander of the Kriegsmarine and was promoted by Dönitz to the rank of Generaladmiral on 1 May. The Air Force had largely been destroyed or grounded due to lack of fuel, so no new appointment was made. Field Marshal Robert Ritter von Greim remained as Commander of the Luftwaffe.

In spite of its repeated relocations, the Armed Forces High Command continued to function, its organisation and structures having been maintained. But the same was not true of any other arm of government. Starting in March 1945, the staff of the various ministries were evacuated to resort hotels in the Bavarian and Austrian Alps – chiefly in the region of Berchtesgaden, leaving only the ministers themselves in Berlin. On 13 April, the remaining foreign embassies and the diplomatic corps were evacuated to Bad Gastein. Finally on 20 April all the ministers and their personal staff were ordered to make their way southwards; but as by then the roads had been cut and there were insufficient transport aircraft available, several ministers (like Schwerin von Krosigk) had perforce headed north instead. Thus the government of Germany was, at the death of Hitler, split over six centres. The Propaganda Ministry, the personal fiefdom of Joseph Goebbels, had remained with him in Berlin, as had the Nazi Party Chancellery under Martin Bormann; while the Luftwaffe High Command had relocated to Berchtesgaden, having been until his abrupt dismissal on 23 April the counterpart fiefdom of Göring. Himmler had retained his personal powerbase in the offices of the SS and security apparatus, which was established in Lübeck in the north and then relocated to Flensburg. Other government ministries and ministers were then variously located at Berchtesgaden and Dönitz's headquarters in Plön. With the Armed Forces High Command also located in the north – although many OKW personnel had gone south – there was, in consequence, no semblance any longer of a German central government, and most of the members of the cabinet lacked any support staff from their nominal ministries.

Actions
Dönitz's initial priority was to open communication with the commanders of German armies, and to establish with them their acknowledgement of his new authority as the sole Supreme Commander of all German forces. He also sought their agreement with his overall policy of negotiating successive partial surrenders with the Western Allies, while maintaining the war against Soviet forces in the east. Key to this was sidelining Himmler, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Alfred Rosenberg, and other former Nazi grandees who had fled to Flensburg, but whose continued participation in government would preclude any negotiation with the western Allies. Dönitz's intentions in this were, if possible, to split the Allies, and to offer German military units as components of a common anti-Bolshevik front. Failing that, he sought to save as many German soldiers as possible from Soviet captivity by ordering units in the east to retreat westwards and surrender to the British, Canadians, or Americans and by redoubling Operation Hannibal, the maritime evacuation of units trapped on the Baltic coast. At Dönitz's urging, Keitel and Jodl attempted to direct what was left of the Wehrmacht towards these goals. On 2 May, Dönitz obtained pledges of allegiance from the commanders of German armies in Norway, Courland, East Prussia, and Bohemia; these pledges were made to him personally as Supreme Commander, and not as Head of State in a forthcoming government.

Otherwise, however, Dönitz's policies chiefly demonstrated continuity with the previous regime: the Nazi party was neither banned nor dissolved; Dönitz kept a bust of Hitler in his office; and the uniforms, insignia, and protocol of Nazi Germany were maintained, initially including even the 'Heil Hitler' greeting. Following a plea from Speer, on 2 May Dönitz rescinded the infamous 'Nero Decree' ordering scorched earth destruction of German infrastructure and industrial plants; but it was not until 6 May that counterpart destruction orders were rescinded for those territories remaining under German occupation, such as Norway. Moreover, neither summary courts for civil punishment, nor military discipline by summary courts martial were abolished, with military executions for insulting the memory of Hitler being confirmed even after the final capitulation on 8 May.

While the presence of SS leaders and their staffs in Flensburg had provided Dönitz with a source of personnel to support his government, otherwise they presented problems. In particular, the SS leadership had access to armed forces that were not under Dönitz's control, and remained firmly loyal to Himmler, whom Dönitz had surmised was personally unacceptable now to both the Western Allies and to the Wehrmacht. Dönitz handled the issue by stringing Himmler along for as long as he could with vague prospects of a possible function in the government. Once serious negotiations were underway for surrender to Eisenhower, Himmler and the SS apparatus had to be got out of the way. On 5 May 1945 Dönitz informed Himmler of his forthcoming dismissal, promising false papers and identities for him and his leading lieutenants if they removed themselves promptly. Himmler called his fellow SS leaders together for a last time that day, and advised them to 'dive down within the Wehrmacht '. By the next day they had fled.

This came too late for the concentration camp prisoners within the area who were now within Dönitz's nominal authority, while under the actual control of the SS. These had numbered around 10,000 when Dönitz assumed the presidency; mainly former inmates of the Neuengamme camp outside Hamburg, which had been shut down in preparation for the surrender of the city to the British. Between 16 and 28 April, the prisoners were moved eastwards and concealed by the SS in a flotilla of unseaworthy ships anchored in the Bay of Lübeck, where they then remained without food or medical attention. At the time, this action was opposed by Rear Admiral on Dönitz's staff, but when the Flensburg government came into being, Dönitz made no attempt to free the prisoners, and his government avoided any subsequent acknowledgement that they had known they were there. On 3 May 1945, the prison flotilla was sunk by the Royal Air Force in the mistaken belief that the ships were being prepared to evacuate leading SS personnel. Over 7,000 prisoners drowned, mainly on the former liner Cap Arcona.

Partial capitulations in the West
On 2 May, while still at Plön, Dönitz was surprised to learn that German forces in Italy had surrendered unconditionally to the Western Allies. The capitulation was negotiated without Hitler's knowledge or consent, and signed at Caserta on 29 April, but it did not come into effect for three days. While Hitler was still alive, Dönitz followed absolutely his commands to fight on to the last on all fronts. However, he now realized that the Wehrmacht 's position in the West was untenable. He believed that surrendering German forces only to the Western Allies could present opportunities to split the British and Americans from the Soviets. Thereon he assumed direction of further German surrender initiatives, exploring opportunities for partial surrender in the West. In the East, however, he continued to order German armies to fight on. On 2 May, he tried unsuccessfully to countermand the decisions of the German commander in Berlin to surrender their forces to the Soviets; and on 3 May, issued orders to the besieged defenders of Courland and Breslau to maintain their resistance.

On 3 May Dönitz sent Admiral Hans-Georg von Friedeburg, his successor as naval commander in chief, to the headquarters of British Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery at Lüneburg, with an offer to surrender the German forces in northwest Germany, together with the remaining elements of Army Group Vistula. Montgomery informed Friedeburg that he could not accept the surrender of forces fighting on the Eastern Front and that consequently Army Group Vistula would have to surrender to the Soviets, although British forces would accept the surrender of any German soldiers fleeing westwards. He proposed instead, following discussions between Eisenhower and the British government, that he would accept the surrender of all German military forces in Northwestern Germany, Schleswig-Holstein, the Netherlands, and Denmark, including naval forces and warships in those areas. Friedeburg asked for 48 hours to consider this; Montgomery allowed him 24. The proposed inclusion of Denmark, and the German warships operating there, initially alarmed Dönitz, who wished at all costs to maintain Operation Hannibal, evacuating German troops across the Baltic to Danish ports; but on consideration, he reckoned he might secretly evade the obligation to surrender these ships if they were at sea on the date the surrender came into effect. Furthermore, as it was unlikely that Montgomery would promptly be able to deploy British forces to the Danish islands under German occupation, especially Bornholm in the central Baltic, there was every possibility that the evacuation proceeding there could continue in total disregard of the agreed surrender terms. Consequently, authorised by Dönitz, Friedeburg returned on 4 May and signed an instrument of surrender for all German troops and ships in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Northwestern Germany. This was accepted by Montgomery on behalf of Eisenhower. This 4 May surrender would become effective at 8:00 am on 5 May; so Dönitz ordered all ships involved in Operation Hannibal to undertake a covert final evacuation voyage, while also unilaterally ordering all U-boat actions to cease. One crew in the evacuation fleet refused to set sail; so Dönitz ordered the ringleaders to be arrested for mutiny, tried by summary court martial, and shot.

Also, on 5 May 1945, all German forces in Bavaria and South West Germany signed an act of surrender to the Americans at Haar, outside Munich, coming into effect on 6 May. Montgomery, always seeking to boost his own public standing at the expense of other Allied commanders, had arranged extensive media coverage of the 4 May signing. Montgomery had supplied Friedeburg with a prepared German text of the surrender documents, however, because both this and the English text had explicitly stated that only the English version was to be considered authentic, Montgomery apparently deemed it unnecessary to issue the German text to the press. Dönitz and Krosigk quickly realised this oversight and promptly broadcast their own, doctored, German version which differed significantly from that signed - specifically, the warships in the Baltic were not included nor was the territory in Schleswig around Flensburg itself; and especially, the surrender was described as a 'truce', not a capitulation. As was Dönitz's intention, this broadcast exacerbated Joseph Stalin's suspicions of the partial capitulations, especially as the greater parts of the 3rd Panzer Army and 21st Army had indeed been able to surrender to the British and Americans, rather than the Soviets. Realising this, Eisenhower determined that no further partial capitulations would be negotiated.

The capitulations at Luneberg and Haar could do nothing, however, for the bulk of the German forces in Army Group Centre, fighting the Soviets in Bohemia and Saxony. On 4 May Dönitz, together with Karl Frank the Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, conceived of a device whereby Army Group Centre might be able to surrender to General George S. Patton's American forces, who had been entering the Sudetenland areas of former Czechoslovakia from the west, and approaching Pilsen. Dönitz proposed that Frank should dissolve the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and resign in favour of a puppet Czech government, who would then declare Prague an open city and invite the Americans in. Patton's virulent anti-communist views were well known to the German leadership, who reckoned that with Patton in Prague it would become much easier for Army Group Centre to negotiate surrender terms with him while maintaining their resistance to the Soviets, if possible dragging the US and Soviet armies into direct confrontation. Frank had hopes that "we can engineer a disagreement between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union even more serious than that of Poland". The ploy was proposed as being put into effect on 5 May, but was overtaken by the outbreak of the Prague uprising on that date; and over the succeeding three days, far from surrendering Prague as an open city, SS forces launched a savage response to the insurgents, with brutal reprisals against Czech civilians and widespread destruction in central Prague. Orders to fire-bomb the whole of the Old Town were only averted due to lack of fuel for Luftwaffe bombing units. Alerted to the German machinations through intercepted Ultra signals, Eisenhower ordered Patton to stand still in Pilsen in spite of ever more desperate calls for help from the insurgents. Prague was finally relieved by Soviet Marshal Ivan Konev's forces on 9 May 1945.

General capitulation on all fronts
Following the success of the two partial surrenders of 4 and 5 May, Dönitz instructed Friedeburg to go to the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) to negotiate with Eisenhower terms for a general surrender of all remaining German armies to the Western Allies. Since Friedeburg's meeting with Montgomery, Eisenhower's opposition to accepting a German surrender that excluded the Soviet Union was made clear to the German High Command, but Dönitz hoped to change his mind.

On the next day, 5 May, Friedeburg arrived at General Eisenhower's headquarters at Reims, France, but learned that Eisenhower was resolute that only a total surrender on all fronts to all the Allies could be discussed. Jodl arrived a day later, ostensibly to sign such a general surrender. Dönitz had instructed him to draw out the negotiations for as long as possible so that German troops and refugees could move west to surrender to the Western Powers. Eisenhower made it clear that the Allies demanded immediate unconditional surrender on all fronts. When it became obvious that the Germans were stalling, Eisenhower threatened to close the western front to all surrendering Germans from the east. Had this happened, German soldiers attempting to cross the line to surrender would be fired on and all subsequent surrenders would have to be to the Soviets. When Dönitz learned this, he radioed Jodl full powers to sign the unconditional German Instrument of Surrender at 1:30 am on the morning of 7 May. Just over an hour later, Jodl signed the documents. The surrender documents included the phrase, "The German High Command will at once issue orders to all German military, naval and air authorities and to all forces under German control to cease active operations at 2301 hours Central European time on 8 May and to remain in the positions occupied at that time." The Western Allies had a unified command structure, and formed a single expeditionary force, the "Allied Expeditionary Force". US Army General Walter Bedell Smith (Eisenhower's chief of staff at SHAEF) signed on behalf of the Western Allies, and General Ivan Susloparov (the Soviet liaison officer at SHAEF) signed on behalf of the Soviets. French Major General François Sevez signed as the official witness.

Although Eisenhower had sought to keep General Aleksei Antonov of the Soviet High Command fully informed of the progress of the surrender negotiations, no confirmation was received from the Soviets that the text of the Act of Military Surrender was acceptable to them, or that Susloparov was empowered to sign it. Accordingly, Eisenhower extracted from Jodl an additional signed undertaking that the Chief of the OKW and the Commanders in Chief of all three German armed services would attend in person and sign a "formal ratification" of the Act of Military Surrender, at a place and date to be specified. Some six hours after the signing, a response came from Antonov that the terms of surrender were unacceptable and that Susloparov could not sign it. Eisenhower promptly agreed and undertook to attend together with the rest of the SHAEF for the definitive signing in Berlin two days later. Antonov's response also noted that Friedeburg was referring matters back to Dönitz over the radio; and that Dönitz, in direct breach of the signed surrender terms, had still not issued orders for German forces in the east to remain in their positions, but was instead instructing them to continue their resistance and flee westwards. Antonov stated that, while the internal discussions of the German military in no way obligated the Allied Powers, Jodl's signature could not be accepted as valid if he was signing as Dönitz's representative, since Dönitz himself was clearly acting in bad faith. He proposed that the definitive act of surrender should make it clear that the Commanders in Chief of each of the German armed services were, in signing it, surrendering their forces on the authority of the German High Command - and not as delegated by Dönitz or the purported Flensburg government.

A second, amended, instrument of surrender was accordingly signed at Karlshorst, Berlin, on 8 May shortly before midnight. Marshal Georgy Zhukov signed for the Soviet High Command, and British Marshal of the Royal Air Force A. W. Tedder signed on behalf of the Western Allies (Tedder acted as Eisenhower's representative at the Berlin ceremony, and signed "on behalf of the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force", in his capacity as Deputy Supreme Commander). French General Jean de Lattre de Tassigny and US Army Air Forces General Carl Spaatz signed as the official witnesses. The Allies had demanded that representatives of the German Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the High Command of the Armed Forces, sign the ratification of unconditional surrender, and that they should present full powers authorising them to do so on behalf of the German High Command. Complying with that demand, Dönitz issued a telegraphed communication from his "Supreme Commander Headquarters" (Der Oberste Befehlshaber Hauptquartier) granting the necessary full powers, and accordingly the second Act of Military Surrender was signed by Keitel as Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces and as acting Commander in Chief of the Army; by Friedeburg as the Commander in Chief of the Kriegsmarine, by General Hans-Jürgen Stumpff as Deputy Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe, as Field Marshal Robert Ritter von Greim, the Luftwaffe commander, had been injured. At the time specified, World War II in Europe ended. On 9 May, Dönitz issued orders to the German Armed Forces regarding the military surrender.

The text of the definitive surrender document signed in Berlin differed from that previously signed at Reims, chiefly in that, to the second article was added the words "..and to disarm completely, handing over their weapons and equipment to the local allied commanders or officers designated by the Representatives of the Allied Supreme Command"; which had the effect of requiring German troops facing Soviet forces to hand over their weapons, disband and give themselves up as prisoners. Otherwise neither the Reims nor Berlin surrender instruments provided explicitly for the surrender of the German State, because the draft surrender document prepared by the European Advisory Commission (EAC) was not used. Instead, a simplified, military-only version was produced by the SHAEF, based largely on the wording of the partial surrender instrument of German forces in Italy that was signed at Caserta. This definition of the surrender as an act of military capitulation side-stepped any Allied recognition of the German Government, or of Dönitz as Head of State. The question of the civil effects of the unconditional surrender was only settled later, when on 23 May the Allies decided to dissolve the Flensburg Government and on 5 June issued the Berlin declaration, proclaiming the direct assumption of the supreme governmental authority in Germany by the Allied Powers. The text of the Berlin Declaration was widely based on the EAC's draft instrument of surrender of Germany. The draft was reworked into a unilateral declaration with an extended explanatory preamble, that spelled out the Allied position that as a result of its complete defeat Germany was left without a government, a vacuum that the direct assumption of supreme authority by the Allies would replace.

Withdrawal of diplomatic recognition
During 1944 and 1945 countries that had been neutral or allies of Germany had been joining the Allied Powers and declaring war on Germany. The German embassies to these countries had been closed down, and their property and archives held in trust by a nominated protecting power (usually Switzerland or Sweden) under the terms of the Geneva Conventions. There were counterpart arrangements for the former embassies of Allied countries in Berlin. The United States Department of State had prepared for the diplomatic consequences of the war ending on the assumption that there would have been an explicit statement of unconditional surrender of the German state in accordance with the terms of a draft surrender text jointly agreed by the Allied powers in 1944. In the final days of April 1945, the State Department had notified the protecting powers, and all other remaining neutral governments (such as Ireland), that following the forthcoming German surrender the continued identity of the German state would rest solely in the four Allied Powers. The Allied Powers would immediately recall all German diplomatic staff, take ownership of all German state property, extinguish all protecting power functions, and require the transfer of all archives and records to one or another of the embassies of the Western Allies.

On 8 May 1945, these arrangements were put into effect in full, notwithstanding that the only German parties to the signed surrender document had been the German High Command. The western Allies maintained that a functioning German state had already ceased to exist, and that consequently the surrender of the German military had effected the complete termination of Nazi Germany. The protecting powers complied fully with the Allied demands: Sweden, Switzerland, and Ireland announced the breaking off of relations; consequently the German state ceased as a diplomatic entity on 8 May 1945. The diplomatic staffs of neutral countries still in Germany were thus recalled, while those of countries at war with the Allies were taken prisoner by the Allies.

Notably, Japanese ambassador Hiroshi Ōshima and his legation were among those taken into custody. Despite Ōshima's objections, he and his staff had been ordered by Hitler to leave Berlin for Bad Gastein in Austria, which resulted in them being captured by the US Army. Had they been permitted to remain in Berlin, any surviving Japanese diplomats would presumably have been quickly repatriated to Japan since they were not yet at war with the Soviet Union. The Empire of Japan, which after the German surrender was effectively the only remaining Axis belligerent, promptly denounced the German surrender and the Flensburg government and seized the German embassy in Tokyo and seven U-boats.

Henceforward, although the Flensburg government had a nominated Minister for Foreign Affairs, it had no access to the diplomatic assets of the former German state and was not accorded diplomatic recognition by any of the former protecting powers, the other remaining neutral countries or any of its erstwhile allies in the Far East (i.e. the Japanese Empire and the puppet regimes still functioning under its control). On 5 May Schwerin von Krosigk had dispatched Walter Schellenberg to Sweden as a personal emissary via Folke Bernadotte, hoping to establish diplomatic relations and to expedite a partial surrender of German forces in Norway. This mission was overtaken by the general capitulation of all German forces, and following 8 May all further approaches from the Flensburg Government to Sweden were ignored.

Former armaments minister Albert Speer suggested that after the surrender the Flensburg government should dissolve itself. Instead Dönitz and his ministers chose to continue in hope of presiding over post-war Germany as a provisional government. Even though they could exercise no direct territorial authority, the cabinet still met daily at 10:00 a.m. Various papers on post-war reconstruction issues were proposed to be prepared, but the Western Allies showed no sign that they might receive them. Otherwise much time was devoted to discussion of how far the symbols, medals, and insignia of the Hitler regime should be retained within the Flensburg headquarters.

Nazi war crimes
Some acknowledgement of Nazi war crimes became unavoidable. The departure of the SS leadership from Flensburg opened the way for the Dönitz government to offer its own version of how the murder squads, concentration camps, and killing facilities had come into being. Their response was that all these atrocities had been undertaken in secret, and entirely by Himmler and the SS. Dönitz and Jodl issued a joint public statement "that neither the German Wehrmacht nor the German people had knowledge of these things."

Allied perspectives
While it had been agreed amongst the Allies that the Flensburg government should be accorded no official recognition, Winston Churchill proved reluctant to toe the line. In his speech announcing victory to the British people on 8 May, Churchill specified that the surrender had been authorised by "Grand Admiral Dönitz, the designated Head of the German State". Equally, following the unconditional surrender, Churchill was instrumental in urging that the Flensburg Government should not immediately be closed down, saying that he could see "great advantages in letting things slide for a while". Churchill's attitude in this was conditioned by his concern that Soviet forces might seek to establish themselves in Denmark; and he saw the temporary continuation of the Flensburg government in territory under British control as establishing a bargaining counter for the British in any negotiations regarding Soviet intentions in the western Baltic, while also facilitating the disbanding of German forces.

Conversely, Soviet statements consistently characterised the Flensburg government as an anti-Soviet clique, pursuing a truce in the west only to maintain resistance against Soviet forces in the east. On 20 May, the government of the USSR made it clear what it thought about the Flensburg Government. It attacked the Dönitz Administration, calling it the "Dönitz Gang" and harshly criticised any idea of allowing it to retain any power. Pravda said:

"Discussions of the status of the Fascist gang around Dönitz continue. Several prominent Allied circles will deem it necessary to make use of the 'services' of Dönitz and his collaborators. In the British Parliament, this gang has been described as the 'Dönitz Administration'…. A reporter of the reactionary Hearst press has called the enlistment of Dönitz 'an act of political sagacity.' Thus a Fascist scribbler has seen fit to make common cause with Hitler's marauding disciple. At the same time, the Fascist press on both sides of the Atlantic has put it abroad that conditions in Germany in 1918, when German Rightists produced similar fairy-tales of impending chaos. Then, the intact German Army units were used for new adventures in the East, immediately after capitulation. The present campaign has similar objectives. Many reactionary circles around the Allies are opposed to the creation of a new Europe on the basis of the Crimea Conference. These circles consider the preservation of Fascist states and breeding grounds as a means of thwarting the democratic aspirations of all freedom-loving nations...."

Eisenhower tended rather to agree with the Soviet position (if not the reasoning behind it), suspecting that Dönitz and his cabinet could be a front, while the real German leadership, perhaps including Himmler, Bormann, and Hitler himself (whose remains were not then known to have been identified), remained operating behind the scenes, or otherwise plotting for their concealment and escape. With ill-disguised reluctance Eisenhower agreed to defer to the British view for a short period, but issued a clarifying statement that the continuation of the Dönitz government did not constitute his being recognised as a head of state "but only and temporarily under the instructions of the Allied Commanders to carry out duties concerning the feeding, disarming and medical care of the German Armed Forces."

Final dissolution of the Flensburg Government
On 12 May, US Major General Lowell Ward Rooks and his British deputy, Brigadier E. J. Foord, arrived in Flensburg and established their quarters in the passenger ship Patria, docked in Flensburg harbour, displacing the administrative offices of the Flensburg government that had been housed there. Their mission was to liaise with the Dönitz "acting government" (as it was then referred to by the SHAEF) and to impose the will of the victorious Allied Powers on the OKW. On 13 May, the British authorities arrested Keitel for war crimes. Dönitz appointed Jodl as his replacement. Although the liaison mission arranged meetings with members of the Flensburg government, these only confirmed that neither Dönitz nor his ministers had been able to establish any degree of civil authority. Churchill withdrew his protection once it became clear that the Soviet High Command would otherwise have to be represented in the liaison mission. On 21 May the SHAEF acceded to Soviet proposals that the Flensburg Government be dissolved and its members arrested as POWs. This was carried out on 23 May. On that day, a British officer went to Dönitz's headquarters and asked to speak to the members of the government. Dönitz, Friedeburg, and Jodl were then taken aboard the Patria, where Rooks informed them of the dissolution of the government; placing them under arrest, and ordered that they be stripped and searched for concealed phials of poison.

The communication regarding the dissolution of the acting government and the arrest of its members was made in a formal manner, around a table on Patria's deck: Dönitz, Jodl, and Friedeburg sat on one side, with Rooks, British Navy Captain Mund and Soviet General Trusov on the other. Foord remained standing, next to Rooks and an official interpreter was also present at the proceedings, that were photographed. By the time Dönitz emerged from the ship, the town's main street was filled with British tanks and troops rounding up the Germans. Faced with the prospect of being strip-searched, Friedeburg committed suicide, while Dönitz, Schwerin von Krosigk, Speer, Jodl, and other members of the dissolved Flensburg Government were taken prisoner, under the responsibility of the RAF Regiment task force commanded by Squadron Leader Mark Hobden.

The prisoners were later handed over to the King's Shropshire Light Infantry. Some Flensburg Government POWs such as Speer were subsequently moved to the British POW camp Dustbin in Castle Kransberg, while others, including Dönitz, were transferred to the US-led Camp Ashcan. Later, all Camp Ashcan prisoners were moved to Nuremberg to stand trial.

Berlin Declaration: 5 June 1945
With the arrest of the Flensburg Government on 23 May 1945, the German High Command also ceased to exist, with no central authority having been kept in place to govern Germany even in a nominal capacity, or to assume responsibility for complying with the demands and instructions of the victorious nations. This power vacuum continued for almost two weeks until 5 June 1945, when the representatives of the four Allied Powers signed the Declaration Regarding the Defeat of Germany and the Assumption of Supreme Authority by Allied Powers, also known as the Berlin Declaration.

The declaration, issued in Berlin at 18:00 on 5 June 1945, and signed by Eisenhower on behalf of the United States, Montgomery on behalf of the United Kingdom, Zhukov on behalf of the Soviet Union, and by de Tassigny on behalf of the Provisional Government of the French Republic, contained the following statement:

"The Governments of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United Kingdom and the Provisional Government of the French Republic, hereby assume supreme authority with respect to Germany, including all the powers possessed by the German Government, the High Command and any state, municipal, or local government or authority. The assumption, for the purposes stated above, of the said authority and powers does not effect the annexation of Germany."

In effect, the declaration on 5 June 1945 gave legal recognition to the state of affairs that had existed for all practical purposes from 23 May at the latest, which was that Germany did not possess a native government. Consequentially, complete authority and sovereignty was thereafter assumed by the Allied Military Occupation Government. The contention of the Allied Powers that the German state ceased to exist as of 5 June 1945 was then generally accepted, but came subsequently to be challenged in legal and political debate. In any event, the Berlin Declaration recognized the continued existence of Germany as a national territory and thus implied the continued existence of a German nation inhabiting that territory.

During the initial stage of the occupation of Germany, supreme authority was discharged by the Four Powers jointly for all occupation zones via the Allied Control Council. Therefore, this council was the immediate successor of the Dönitz Administration in governing the German national territories. Pursuant to the Potsdam Agreement, after 2 August 1945 the Allied Control Council limited its jurisdiction to the pre-war German territory west of the Oder-Neisse Line (i.e. the lands corresponding to Germany's present-day borders) thus implementing the Four Powers' decision to place Germany's pre-war territory east of the Oder-Neisse Line under direct Polish and Soviet administration.

title: Flensburg Government


text:
Talk:Ray Emery

Emery fighting
Emery was also involved in the record breaking 373 PIM game between the Binghamton Senators and the Philadelphia Phantoms a few seasons ago. http://www.phantomshockey.com/numbers/boxScore/boxscoredetailRegularSeason.asp?Season=2006&BoxScoreID=2368 He got a game misconduct, but re entered when Thompson got booted as well. ccwaters 15:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Nice brawl, thanks for bringing that one up. Evilclown93 21:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Emery's place of birth.
www.NHL.com it says he was born in Hamilton, but www.MHLPA.com says he's born in Cayuga. Sens site states Hamilton. Which one is it then? Is it same as with Marty McSorley?

Norum 23:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Cayuga is a suburb of Hamilton, Ontario. Cheers! Nhl4hamilton 01:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude, are you for real? I live in Hamilton and believe me, Cayuga has never been (nor will it ever be) a suburb of the Hammer. Cayuga is in the Haldimand County to start with plus Cayuga is like 15 km south of Hamilton.

Norum 02:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

 * First of all my name is not "Dude", it's Rick. Secondly, Cayuga is listed in the local Hamilton telephone book and is also included in the Hamilton CMA Population figures. Have a good evening. Nhl4hamilton 02:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Rick. I'm just shelf shocked by the fact that someone would consider Cayuga a suburb of Hamilton. Burlington is also included in our phone book, but yet no one considers Burlington to be a part of Hamilton.

Norum 02:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Norum, I'm not the one with the power & authority to include Cayuga in the Hamilton CMA population figures. One time someone asked me where Rick Tocchet was from and I answered, "Toronto" and the person disagreed with me. He told me he was from "Scarborough." I don't know if it would work here but maybe instead of having Ray Emery listed as being from "Hamilton, Ontario" we can instead have him listed as being from "Cayuga, Hamilton, Ontario?" Nhl4hamilton 02:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure to be honest. Maybe we should wait to see what others (if) will say?

Norum 02:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I've seen Emery listed as being from Hamilton on some hockey publications and Cayuga on some others. I've always thought Cayuga was Hamilton, but then again, maybe some people from Cayuga don't think of themselves as Hamiltonians. All I know is Cayuga is included in the Hamilton Census Metropolitan Population figures. Nhl4hamilton 03:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I know nothing of Cayuga or Hamilton or anything, but unless you list suburbs and the city that the town is a suburb of in the same location in Canada (I really don't know if you do, but I've never seen that before), then "Cayuga, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada" would be incorrect. It's either "Cayuga, Ontario, Canada" or "Hamilton, Ontario, Canada". If Cayuga is a suburb or Hamilton (which is disputed apparently) then it should still list Cayuga as his birthplace unless Cayuga is a district within the town of Hamilton, in which case it should be Hamilton. Anyway, you should go for accuracy, not what city the town is a suburb of, so Cayuga would be better as long as it's sourced. Perhaps there's an interview somewhere with Ray being asked where he's from? Not trying to stir things up, just putting in my two cents.  Bsroiaadn Talk 22:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Emery is from Cayuga I am not disputing that at all. All I'm saying is that if we are going to cite sources then I can find just as many sources out there that state Ray Emery is from Hamilton, Ontario and as well as Cayuga, Ontario. Either way, personally doesn't matter for me. I know he's from Cayuga, Ontario. Nhl4hamilton 06:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is Hamilton or Cayuga, it should not read both. We agree on this one then. The best way to solve this is to go with which place is listed more often than the other. So far Hamilton is listed 2 out of 3. Since Cayuga is not within the city of Hamilton, then it should not read Hamilton, Cayuga, Ontario.

Norum 14:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I've actually found alot more sources for citations that have Ray Emery listed as being from Hamilton, Ontario. Nhl4hamilton 18:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's just stick with Hamilton then.

Norum 22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

 * O.K. Cheers! Nhl4hamilton 02:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

BCOOLJ: He was BORN in Cayuga, NOT Hamilton. He lived in Hamilton, BUT was BORN in Cayuga. Its where he was BORN not which suburb. He also was raised in Cayuga and lived in Cayuga through high school.

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 8, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

 * 1. Well written?: Fail I find that there are many sentences that are confusing to the reader and are either too long or are choppy.. For example, this sentence breaks the flow and is overly long: "In 2001, after an 18 win, 29 loss season, Emery was drafted to the NHL by the Ottawa Senators. He was selected 99th overall. Emery had his most successful OHL season in 2001–2002." I would suggest adding a sentence that connects these ideas. Somthing like, "After an 18 win, 29 loss season, Emery was drafted 99th overall in the 2001 NHL draft by the Ottawa Senators. However, he played with the Greyhounds for one more year in 2001-2002, which was his most successful OHL season."

 * I would recommend reformatting the Playing Career section. I would have two sections: Pre-NHL and NHL Career. Keep everything in Pre-NHL, but move his best OHL year to this section. In NHL Career, take out all of the headings. The short paragraphs make the article seem smaller then it is, and other articles about NHL players like Martin Brodeur and Wayne Gretzky do not sort their information season by season.

 * I would also suggest moving all of the fighting information into another heading entitled "Reputation" (or something to that effect) since this is a major aspect of this article.

 * Lastly, I think it would help if the "awards" section was organised into a graph. See the "awards" section in Joe Sakic for ideas on how to organise it.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Fail Everything is cited correctly, but there is some information I would like cited. This includes, "Emery has a reputation as somewhat of a fighter. In 2000–2001 with the Greyhounds, Emery was involved in 4 on-ice fights. In his first season with Binghamton, Emery was suspended twice," "On Saturday, February 10, 2007, Emery was suspended 3 games from the NHL for slashing Montreal Canadiens forward Maxim Lapierre after Lapierre crashed into Emery's net," "After the altercation, fans and media have dubbed him "Sugar Ray" in reference to retired boxer Sugar Ray Robinson and Emery's reputation as a fighter," and all of the career statistics (Dominik Hašek has an excellent way of citing the stats when they can be updated at any time)
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Pass However, it is hard to tell because of disorganisation. See below.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass I especially love how his mother hates it when he fights on the ice :) Excellent work presenting the other side of the story.
 * 5. Article stability? Pass One vandalism revert over the last few days, but nothing serious.
 * 6. Images?: Pass Image is in the free domain.

I am putting this article on hold. In general, I think the main problem this article has is disorganisation. I believe all of the information is here, but it is hard to tell when the article keeps jumping from topic to topic. I would suggest adding more information if you can. I enjoyed reading the information, and this article seems very close to GA status. Keep up the hard work and this will be GA in no time! Please leave a message on my talk page when you are finished with all of the edits and I will review it again. Good luck!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Z1720 06:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Evaluation #2

 * I was asked to do another evaluation of the article, and here it is! Since #3, 4, 5, and 6 were a pass, I will address #1 (Well Written) and #2 (Factually accurate)

 * 1. Well Written?: Fail Before getting fustrated, know that all the corrections that I suggested were excellently done and the layout looks much better. The only concern I have is with the Pre-NHL section. Some of the sentences are two short and break the flow of the article. I would suggest either combining some of the sentences or expand them. Some possible changes are:

 * "He again had a solid season, winning 27 of 50 games.Emery was also suspended twice for on-ice incidents. He was named to the AHL's All-Rookie team for 2003. Emery's fighiting ways continued during the 2003-2004 season." to "He again had a solid season, winning 27 of 50 games and being named the AHL's All-Rookie team for 2003. However, Emery was suspended twice for on-ice incidents, and his behavior continued into the 2003-2004 season.
 * "He played one more full season in the AHL in 2004–2005. He also played in 6 NHL games with Ottawa." to "He played one more full season in the AHL in 2004–2005, while also playing 6 NHL games with the Ottawa Senators."

 * 2. Factually Accurate?: Fail I would still like to see some of the information cited. This includes:

 * "In 2000–2001 with the Greyhounds, Emery was involved in 4 on-ice fights. "
 * "but due to Gerber's poor play, Emery regained the role of starter in mid-November."
 * "On Saturday, February 10, 2007, Emery was suspended 3 games from the NHL for slashing Montreal Canadiens forward Maxim Lapierre after Lapierre crashed into Emery's net."
 * "After the altercation, fans and media have dubbed him "Sugar Ray" in reference to retired boxer Sugar Ray Robinson and Emery's reputation as a fighter."

 * I will still keep this article on hold, and I'll give you a couple of days to fix the corrections. Although these are many corrections, they are minor ones and this article is VERY close to GA status. Thank you for the quick corrections, and please contact me on my talk page when you want another evaluation. --Z1720 19:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Status
As per the changes made on the page, I hereby grant this article GA status. Congratulations, and thank you for all your hard work. :)

Since this looks like an excellent article, I would like to add some advice if you decide to pursue FA status. I would definatly suggest improving the quality of the picture in the article, (especially since the ice looks brown.) I know nothing about editing pictures, but I believe it has to do with improving the contrast and brightness of the pic. Also, I would suggest getting a picture of the mask that had Mike Tyson on it, for visual effect. I am sure you can find a picture of this online somewhere.

Again, congratulations, and if you need anything else, feel free to contact me :) Z1720 22:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Image
Can someone please crop and decrease the size of the image in the infobox? One can barely see Emery. --Hasek is the best 02:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, a better image is needed. Are there none available?  The one in the article is pretty dismal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.73.235 (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Useful source
See Aside from the fact they used the skeleton of this article, they added info I hadn't found before, and I think this should nicely add to personal/early life sections, which should help pass FAC.  Maxim (talk)  16:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Playing in Russia
...I wonder how the nightlife in Mytishchi is...I think he'd BEG for a TGIFridays now216.223.155.40 (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

haha...so true...I just feel bad that people spent so much time on this article in a way, not to diminsh their work its wonderful that their hard work made this a featured article (the goal of wikipedia), but I imagine there are alot more goaltenders out there more note worthy of this extensive time commitment to bring an article up to par. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ray was a very promising goalie. I started work on this when the Sens went to the Finals. I made this an FA last November, but Emery's career has just gone downhill since then...  Maxim (talk)  13:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Still its featured which is a testiment to your hard work, keep it up :) Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

10 minute vs.game misconduct
it is stated that emery got a '10 minute game misconduct'. 10 minutes is an ordinary misconduct penalty. a game misconduct is the remainder of the game - an ejection. in neither case does the team play short handed. the only '10 minute game misconduct' would be if there was exactly 10 minutes left in the game at the time. see article: penalty:ice hockey. clarification is in order. was it a 10 minute or a game?Toyokuni3 (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ray Emery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121110135755/http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=1941111e-01fa-4070-a0eb-4a7e9f068f91&k=24150 to http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=1941111e-01fa-4070-a0eb-4a7e9f068f91&k=24150

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ray Emery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160205181841/http://www.marlies.ca/news/news.asp?story_id=3725 to http://www.marlies.ca/news/news.asp?story_id=3725

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ray Emery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207191912/http://www2.canada.com/topics/sports/hockey/senatorsstory.html?id=68facf83-a9bf-4174-b0f1%E2%80%935a35fe48aaaa&k=68131 to http://www.canada.com/topics/sports/hockey/senatorsstory.html?id=68facf83-a9bf-4174-b0f1%E2%80%935a35fe48aaaa&k=68131
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207192654/http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/sports/story.html?id=3e2399c6-4fc2-4640-81e7-b74d783c1345&k=94659 to http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/sports/story.html?id=3e2399c6-4fc2-4640-81e7-b74d783c1345&k=94659
 * Added tag to http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=b44dfd3b-686d-47b4-9c7d-9e6d6ea970f9&k=33072
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070217054405/http://www.sportsline.com/nhl/gamecenter/recap/NHL_20070214_FLA%40OTT to http://sportsline.com/nhl/gamecenter/recap/NHL_20070214_FLA%40OTT
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207002341/http://allhockey.ru/articles/33762/ to http://allhockey.ru/articles/33762/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130616232842/http://blogs.suntimes.com/blackhawks/2012/04/blackhawks_sign_ray_emery_to_o.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/blackhawks/2012/04/blackhawks_sign_ray_emery_to_o.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160208214117/http://www.del.org/de/news/2016/02/emery/page/4555--30-4538-.html to http://www.del.org/de/news/2016/02/emery/page/4555--30-4538-.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160223083943/http://www.adler-mannheim.de/news.php?d%5Bnr%5D=4901&d%5Bbereich%5D=Startseite to http://www.adler-mannheim.de/news.php?d%5Bnr%5D=4901&d%5Bbereich%5D=Startseite

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ray Emery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013191119/http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2007/09/29/emery_sens_070929/ to http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2007/09/29/emery_sens_070929

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Issues
I've asked that the FAR nomination be closed as out-of-process, because issues are required to be enumerated on the article Talk page so people have a chance to address them. Can someone please describe the issues (in more detail than just what criteria the article doesn't meet)? -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am also willing to pitch in and help if the issues are spelled out. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Biological father: African-Canadian vs. Black Canadian
The article currently describes his biological father as "an unnamed African-Canadian". Is that term taken from the cited source article (which I can't read since I don't want to register for a free trial for the site it's on)? According to the intro of Black Canadians, "Many Black people of Caribbean origin in Canada reject the term African Canadian as an elision of the uniquely Caribbean aspects of their heritage, and instead identify as Caribbean Canadian (French: Canadien des Caraïbes). Unlike in the United States, where African American has become a widely used term, in Canada controversies associated with distinguishing African or Caribbean heritage have resulted in the term Black Canadian being widely accepted there." [citations omitted] —184.248.193.175 (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't use that phrasing. It only has a small bit about Emery being a biracial baby. I've rewritten the section anyway as some of the details were wrong.Citing (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Add Death Section
Proposal to add section about his death, as is normally done for those who are deceased. Until then this article should probably be tagged as incomplete? Aarondevo (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Ray Emery


text:
Mikko Ruutu

Mikko Ruutu (born September 10, 1978 in Vantaa, Finland) is a retired Finnish ice hockey forward.

Ruutu played for HIFK and Jokerit in the Finnish SM-liiga, earning a silver medal with HIFK and the SM-liiga championship with Jokerit in 2002. He was drafted by the Ottawa Senators as their 7th round pick in the 1999 NHL Entry Draft, but his only season in North America was for Clarkson University in the NCAA league. He has since retired from professional hockey because of his broken knee. He is currently working as the Director of European Scouting for the Ottawa Senators.

Mikko Ruutu has two brothers, Jarkko, a former NHL player who retired in 2014, and Tuomo, who plays in the NLA for HC Davos.

title: Mikko Ruutu


text:
Talk:Haines, Jesse

Created as part of the WikiProject Missing articles/Encarta_Encyclopedia_topics Paul 15:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Haines, Jesse


text:
Talk:Hailwood, Mike

Created as part of the WikiProject Missing articles/Encarta_Encyclopedia_topics Paul 15:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hailwood, Mike


text:
User talk:Fwdixon/fwdixon1

"Cyberstalker"
I'm very confused about your reversions of The Mysterious Caravan. It seems as though the anonymous IPs were simply adding a link to your site, where more information could be found on the book. There is nothing wrong with this. Could you please explain to me why you believe that it is the work of a "pathetic, obsessed cyberstalker"? Leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. jglc | t | c 16:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually they were REMOVING the link to my site, not adding it.

 * Hmm... I see. It's very possible that they were actually different people, removing what they felt to be a promotional link to your own site. Looking at how the edits came from different IP addresses, I am somewhat doubtful that they are personally targeting you. jglc | t | c 21:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * All right :) I'm guessing it's not so much someone obsessed with you as somebody playing a joke, or messing with you. But I see what's going on, now. jglc | t | c 21:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandal Vendetta
Certain AOL (who else?) user(s) are on a vendetta against me and are removing external links to my sites from Radio Boys, Grosset & Dunlap, Supermystery, Mildred Benson, Roy Rockwood, Clues Brothers, Casefiles, The Dana Girls, Hardy Boys Digest, Undercover Brothers, Harriet Adams, Ted Scott Flying Stories, Nancy Drew, Franklin W. Dixon, Rover Boys, Stratemeyer Syndicate, Tom Swift, Jr., Tom Swift, X Bar X Boys, Edward Stratemeyer, Hardy Boys, Tom Swift IV, While the Clock Ticked, What Happened at Midnight, The Yellow Feather Mystery, The Witchmaster's Key, The Wailing Siren Mystery, The Viking Symbol Mystery, The Twisted Claw, The Tower Treasure, The Sting of the Scorpion, The Sinister Signpost, The Sign of the Crooked Arrow, The Short-Wave Mystery, The Shore Road Mystery, The Shattered Helmet, The Secret of the Old Mill, The Secret of the Lost Tunnel, The Secret of the Caves, The Secret of Wildcat Swamp, The Secret of Skull Mountain, The Secret of Pirate's Hill, The Secret Warning, The Secret Panel, The Secret Agent on Flight 101, The Phantom Freighter, The Mystery of the Whale Tattoo, The Mystery of the Spiral Bridge, The Mystery of the Flying Express, The Mystery of the Desert Giant, The Mystery of the Chinese Junk, The Mystery of the Aztec Warrior, The Mystery of Cabin Island, The Mystery at Devil's Paw, The Mysterious Caravan, The Missing Chums, The Melted Coins, The Masked Monkey, The Mark on the Door, The Jungle Pyramid, The House on the Cliff, The Hooded Hawk Mystery, The Hidden Harbor Mystery, The Haunted Fort, The Great Airport Mystery, The Ghost of Skeleton Rock, The Flickering Torch Mystery, The Firebird Rocket, The Disappearing Floor, The Crisscross Shadow, The Clue of the Screeching Owl, The Clue of the Hissing Serpent, The Clue of the Broken Blade, The Clue in the Embers, The Bombay Boomerang, The Arctic Patrol Mystery, Hunting for Hidden Gold, Footprints under the Window, Detective Handbook, Danger on Vampire Trail, A Figure in Hiding and others. This is doubly annoying as I was the originator of many of the Wikipages and my web pages provide additional in-depth information on these subjects. This has been going on for weeks. PLEASE HELP ME!--FWDixon 11:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I got your message on my talk page. That definitely seems like vandalism, and I will be watching those articles now. I have already reverted them on "A Figure in Hiding" and will check some of the other articles now to see if the links are still removed. Academic Challenger 10:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I have now reverted the removals on several dozen articles in the past few minutes. Academic Challenger 10:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi, sorry I was out of town, and had no inet access. I will also watch the other articles and help out as best I can.   ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  18:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

This is getting crazy now. I have been reverting dozens of articles, still finding them while reverting others many times. I have reverted Hunting for Hidden Gold at least 5 times in the past few minutes, and even blocked an IP for an hour. I am starting to wonder if these pages should be protected for a while. Academic Challenger 22:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The vandal struck again, and a couple other users helped to revert him. Unfortunately, we cannot block this person or I would have already done it. There are many other users who use AOL, and while much of what comes from the IP address is vandalism, blocking the IP addresses may also block the accounts of people who use AOL. This is so that AOL vandals cannot avoid a block by creating an account. So unfortunately the only option is page protection, because the person will always keep reverting a few hours after we revert him. Also I will be leaving in a few days to an area where I cannot be on the Internet for a week. If you ever want to add something to an article, let me know and I will unprotect that article. Also, I may not protect articles about series' such as the main Nancy Drew page and the main Hardy Boys page, since people will wawnt to make good edits to them more often, but I will continue to watch them. We cannot really predict what the vandal will do now, after I protect the pages. Unlike most vandals who target a specific user, this vandal does not seem to vandalize your user page and talk page, and it is particularly strange because he really has not written anything at all. However, I think page protection is the best option for now.

I did protect some of the pages last night. It is a very long process. I decided to stop in case the vandal might just maybe stop when he realized that we took this seriously enough to start locking pages. But apparently that has not happened; he has vandalized the remaining pages twice more, so about an hour ago I started protecting more pages, and will continue to protect more. There are so many of them that its hard to keep track of them all, so I might miss some, but I should be able to protect most of them now. Academic Challenger 20:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I have left a note at User talk:Academic Challenger regarding this case. I think it's only fair to inform you. Rl 15:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Outside View
I moved this from User talk:Academic Challenger. --PhilipO 00:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

but one from every book title, which doesn't initially link to detailed information about the book is link spamming But it does initially link to information on the title including release dates, author info, revision history, artist info, type of revision and a plot summary. Clicking on the title brings up another page with publishing history and cover art scans. How much more detailed can I get?--FWDixon 23:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)''
 * Granted - but it is information that could be included on the book page in Wikipedia itself. As mentioned previously there is also a prominent red "Buy It Now" link which is commercial. Each book specific article seems to have been created with the link present and there is very little information on each page. It seems that the articles were created specifically to link to your page, which I consider against the spirit of Wikipedia. Now if each page had a detailed plot summary, that would be different. I would be of the opinion that the list on the main Hardy Boys page is perfectly sufficient to describe the books - or single page like there is on your website - and the individual book pages should be removed. One link on the Hardy Boys page to your site is a good compromise (because there seems to be alot of information on your site). The vandal is way out of order, and that is why he had rightly brought the wrath of Wiki down on him, but there is case here for linkspamming IMHO. --PhilipO 00:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Reading all this information, I'm apt to agree withPhilipO. I think a link on the main Hardy Boys article would be sufficient rather than multiple links on each book page. maltmomma 02:15, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Stratemeyer Syndicate
We're talking about you over in Talk:Stratemeyer Syndicate, and the other party in said conversation seems to have a problem with your external links. This may be a chance to meet your "stalker" face to face; care to join us? --Ardonik.talk* 18:06, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been around to revert and protect more pages in the past few days. I just moved and didn't have Internet access from Thursday until today, and I really thought that the vandal had given up before I left. I received the other messages on my talk page and I still think that your website belongs in the articles. Academic Challenger 03:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Links from Individual Hardy Boys Articles
I think we need to sort this out - it is making my RC patrol painful ;-)

References: -

Above &

FWDixon - I believe that the links to your site at bobfinnan.com should be removed from individual Hardy Boys pages, for the following reasons: -

 * The Wiki pages lack any other substantial information.
 * They were created with the link in place.
 * You have removed info from the Wiki pages that might make the pages more valuable.
 * The pages they are directed to contain a prominent, red "Buy It Now" link . This is certainly commercial.
 * There have been meatpuppets (at best) involved in this argument on your behalf.

I think one link from the main Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew page is probably valuable - there are two, why? While I totally disagree with the vandal's behaviour in relation to removing links constantly, there is a case here for link spam IMHO in relation to the individual pages.

 * There are 2 links for the "Everything Hardy Boys" site (The Bayport Gazette link and the Hardy-Boys.com link both resolve to the same site) Why pick on me for having a separate link to my webzine? Furthermore there is only 1 link to my Nancy Drew site, not 2 as you stated.--FWDixon 20:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Absolutely right. If these other links are commercial, they should go to IMHO. --PhilipO 21:27, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus building around this. The following comments and users appear to support this line: -

, Maltmomma, Rl , Joy Stovall , User:Dan_East User:Sitearm

I believe other users have been reverting the links (as I did) because they are being removed by a vandal (who should be sent to Wiki hell). However my opinion has changed when I looked into this in more depth, and I believe theirs would too.

Thoughts? --PhilipO 16:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * I first came upon Wiki when someone emailed me that much of the Hardy Boys page had copied word for word entire passages from my site without credit. I added a link to my site and corrected some factual errors in other parts of the article. That's when a deranged lunatic kept removing the link to my site for no reason other than personal animus.
 * The links were removed because they represent linkspam (IMHO). I disagree with the method, but the point is correct. --PhilipO 21:27, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * You stated earlier you thought a link from the main Hardy Boys page was appropriate. Now you claim it is "link spam". So which is it?--FWDixon 21:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I wasn't clear. The link from Hardy Boys is OK. I consider (along with everyone else here) the links from individual pages as link spam. --PhilipO 22:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Hardy Boys page used to have a "credit of authorship / copyright" type notice at the top of the page. Fwdixon added it originally, and it was refined and modified by another wikipedian.  In the talk page I indicated that the notice was inappropriate, and it was promptly removed by Fwdixon himself.  This is a good example of his willingness to refine these articles towards proper Wikipedia standards.  As Fwdixon joined Wikipedia expressly to deal with these articles, it is quite understandable that he was not aware of proper etiquette.  That, combined with an immediate reversion war, certainly gave him a rather bad impression of what Wikipedia is and how it is supposed to work.  Another note in his "defense", if you will.  The amount of people persuaded into actually purchasing a Hardy Boys book, after seeing the corresponding Wikipedia article and visiting his site, would have to be next to nothing.  In other words, I'm sure he's aware there is nothing to loose, financially, with the removal of these links.  I think Fwdixon is a reasonable individual, and is an asset Wikipedia.  --Dan East 01:55, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree - that is why I believe the link should remain in the main article (note the name of this Talk section) because there is worthy information there. I just believe it is a reasonable request to remove the links from the individual articles. --PhilipO 15:56, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Despite unfounded claims to the contrary, I didn't create those pages to sell anything. I truly thought they were an asset to Wiki. Apparently most posters here are predisposed to believe the worst about everyone.--FWDixon 11:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Before I came along about 95% of the "title" pages didn't exist (along with pages on the other Hardy spin-off series) and those that did were poorly written and/or inaccurate. I even modified my web site so the links from those pages would bring the user directly to the title in question, where they could get more information.
 * I would argue that they probably shouldn' exist. --PhilipO 21:27, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no problem with the pages being deleted. Let some other poor soul put up with all the abuse!--FWDixon 21:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have links for people to buy the books but to say my site is strictly commercial is an absurd distortion of the truth. Most readers of my site are collectors and are glad to find those links and they help to pay the hosting fees. Furthermore, there are thousands of external links on Wiki that link to purely commercial sites and I don't see everyone up in arms about that. And even those sites that are not purely commercial have Google "Adsense" and other banner ads on them. SO let's not be hypocritical here.
 * Anytime I come across links to commercial sites - and particularly linkspam - I remove them. Check my contributions. However, just because Wikipedia hasn't been purged of single commercial link yet has no bearing on the point I am trying to make. If you would like people to find your books, advertise with [www.google.com/adsense GoogleAdSense] --PhilipO 22:24, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Clearly you need to examine articles more closely as I have no trouble finding links to commercial sites. For example: the Grosset & Dunlap page has a link to the G&D site - A COMMERCIAL SITE dedicated to getting people to buy their books. The Ford page links to FoMoCo's home page - a strictly commercial site, ditto for GM and Chrysler. Where's the outrage for this?--FWDixon 21:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please don't be disingenuous. A link to Ford Motor Company's website is 100% relevant to an article about Ford Motor Company. The equivalent thing to your links would be a link from every Ford Model Page to my local car seller's website. Ditto for Grosset & Dunlap, a book company that is 100 years old. --PhilipO 22:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Commercial is commercial, don't you be disingenuous and/or hypocritical.--FWDixon 11:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Frankly I'm getting sick of this whole thing. I tried to do a good thing by adding many pages to Wiki and been subjected to abuse and libel by a deranged lunatic cyberstalker. If it was up to me, I'd delete every one of those fucking pages and let some other poor schmuck put up with all the abuse! But if those pages are going to have the copyrighted descriptions from my site, I think the link is not out of place.--FWDixon 20:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe the correct thing to do is to remove the copyright information. Do not link to your site as a response. Am I incorrect but didn't you write the "copyrighted" material? --PhilipO 21:27, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Wiki can't have it both ways. If copyrighted material from my site is to be used, then a link to my site is appropriate.--FWDixon 21:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * If and when I remove the links (after a consensus has been reached) I will also remove the copyrighted material and indicate that we have a book stub. Would this be satisfactory? --PhilipO 22:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Works for me but anytime I see copyrighted material from my site on Wiki, it's going to be deleted immediately--FWDixon 11:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Absolutely you should. --PhilipO 15:59, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think the crux of the issue is that the individual book pages contain no real information, and the links to Fwdixon's site contributes little more. In order for the articles to be justified in the first place they will have to contain more information. If the articles were more robust then they would not need to link to Fwdixon's site. So I believe the solution is to contribute more to the stubs so the external links are unnecessary. Now, a potential use for Fwdixon's external resources would be for the collection of images (book covers of the various editions, etc). I think it would be taking things a bit too far to incorporate that degree of information into Wikipedia. Since those external links would be properly justified in the first place, it wouldn't bother me as much if the destinations contained affiliate links. Taking things full-circle, the AOL individual that keeps removing links to Fwdixon's site has a personal vendetta against Fwdixon which has nothing to do with Wikipedia, or the existence of the affiliate links discussed (in great depth) here. So obviously the problem (that brought the microscope onto Fwdixon and this family of articles, resulting in this discussion) will not go away. One final note. The individual that keeps removing links has only recently begun to parrot this commercial / affiliate link issue once others brought it up. They never used that as justification (not that it would have been valid) during the bulk of their inappropriate editing. --Dan East 01:55, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Having stumbled across this multiple times on RC patrol, I wholly agree with PhillipO's comments.

This has been discussed in 5 or 6 different places and trying to interpret what is going on has been a great waste of time for all those who work hard trying to keep Wikipedia free of abuse.

I would like to commend Philip for making a huge effort to bring the issue to an amicable conclusion.

--GraemeL (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The vandal's behavior was unwarranted, but aside from the housekeeping aspect, I don't really feel that the links contribute to the subpages. There are also lots of potential copyright pitfalls with the plot summaries, whether they originate from the linked page or from the printed text (making it doubly problematic).  In any case, I support PhilipO's position in this matter and thank him for his efforts to resolve this.  --Alan Au 18:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The plot summaries were created by me for my Hardy Boys page. Let's put a stop to this plagiarism innuendo once and for all!--FWDixon 20:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Observation... what's required to resolve...
 * The posting of the same external link on a score of pages is inappropriate
 * Find an admin to delete all those pages or, at least, remove my copyrighted summaries from them.--FWDixon 20:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems in alot of cases the individual pages were created by you. You placed your copyrighted material there. --PhilipO 21:27, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant and immaterial--FWDixon 21:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Material from your website is clearly labelled as "© 1995-2005 - Robert W. Finnan - All Rights Reserved." which is not compatible with the GFDL. Unless the material is made compatible, it cannot be included here.  (Note that granting "permission for inclusion on Wikipedia only" does not solve this problem.) --Alan Au 22:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Virtually every page linked to by Wiki is copyrighted, what's your point?--FWDixon 11:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The behavior of the anonymous IP commenter is inappropriate
 * The situation remains unresolved:
 * The anonymous commenter has a point about link spamming. But the accusation of copyright violation has not been substantiated and the commenter has left the work to prove or disprove the allegation for someone else to do.
 * Wrong. The books copied from have been named. It would take very little to verify.
 * Adding the external link in question to selected pages, while probably ok with a majority of users including me, is unlikely to stop the war. The anonymous deleter has stated they will continue their behavior until they are satisfied.
 * Resolving the situation will require somebody to do some work:
 * Either disprove the allegations of copyright violation and ban the anonymous commenter if disruptive behavior continues.
 * Or substantiate the allegations and clean up the articles in question.
 * -- Sitearm | Talk 18:59, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

User:4.236.54.116 link spamming
Checking User:4.236.54.116 contributions shows that the Bob Finnan fan site link was added to a total of 72 Wikipedia article pages. The changes were made 2005 June 19 in a 3 hour time period. A reasonable assumption is that this was a deliberate act of link spamming. -- Sitearm | Talk 01:48, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
 * Another "reasonable" assumption would be that I actually thought I was making a contribution to Wiki. What a sad world you must inhabit if you are always believing the worst in everyone!--FWDixon 11:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The majority of those articles were created at that time (as opposed to simply adding links to existing articles). They represent the individual books in the series.  I do not find it unreasonable for that many articles to be created in that amount of time under those circumstances.  However, the motive for the creation of the articles in the first place is open to interpretation.  --Dan East 02:10, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * We cannot know the motivation. But we don't have to. If there is a consensus that the links should go, we can simply remove them regardless of their intention. I've removed external links on a large scale many times even though they had been added by people in good faith (i.e. before reading WP:EL). Rl 07:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe there is now a consensus that the individual links should be removed but that the main link on Hardy Boys should stay. --PhilipO 15:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I will amend my earlier position and support keeping a link on one (the main) Nancy Drew article. I am still waiting for comment from the anonymous IP commenter. -- Sitearm | Talk 17:16, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

 * You have violated the Three revert rule
 * Vandalism threats
 * Multiple accounts are known as sockpuppets and are easily spotted with contribution logs. It is next to impossible to fake a consensus.
 * An account shows respect for the people you communicate with. No need to hide yourself in Glens Falls, New York.--PhilipO 23:31, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * I stand by my comment above, that if the book articles are expanded, and there is still a legitimate need for external links (for images of each book throughout its revision history, for example), than the links would be fine (whether or not they contain affiliate links to Amazon, etc). Assuming the interim is short, I have no preference whether the links stay or go, because it should be a temporary situation.  If the articles will stay in their current state for an extended amount of time then the links should be removed, simply because of the mere appearance of impropriety (articles with only superficial content but with external links).  --Dan East 17:55, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

The anonymous AOL vandal
I assume everyone who is so eager to see the links removed from the Hardy Boys titles pages are going to be equally eager to restore my links on the main page when the AOL vandal strikes again, right?--FWDixon 18:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Aren't you being a little ungracious about the effort expended by administrators and PhilipO to protect some pages and consolidate the dispute so it can be resolved? Have you read the Wikipedia policy about spamming and do you realize, now, the 72 links were inappropriate, even if you did not at the time you created them? The anonymous IP commenter upset all of us. -- Sitearm | Talk 20:45, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

 * 69.205.1.91 vandalism - now he's back removing links on Nancy Drew and Tom Swift. I removed my copyrighted material from one of the "title" pages and he put it back. This is harrassment plain and simple and proof that this person is nothing more than a deranged, vindictive vandal.--FWDixon 12:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * From now on all unsigned comments are going to be removed from this page. Mr. 69.205.1.91 doesn't like that and keeps reverting this page back to display his libelous and unfounded remarks. Further proof he is nothing more than a deranged cyberstalker.--FWDixon 13:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Now he's removing comments he that prove him to be a liar on the various "title" talk pages. This is proof that this person has no desire to be part of the Wiki community and is just a deranged, obsessed vandal.--FWDixon 14:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a reference? This can be added to the Vandalism in Progress page. --PhilipO 17:37, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * FWDixon - may I ask why you are removing comments from this discussion? Perhaps you could simply instead attribute the comment to the IP address. I did check out the links provided by the previous comments and they could useful in relation to this discussion. --PhilipO 14:42, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I refuse to allow a coward a forum on my talk page. All he does is libel me and lie. As I stated earlier, all unsigned comments will be deleted from this page. Period.--FWDixon 14:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I would suggest you do something like this: -
 * More on the link spamming and commercial advertising. Example http://hardyboys.bobfinnan.com/hbpb.htm is just a list of titles that all have links to Amazon. All of the books summaries were copied from Amazon. Every HB Digest title, Casefiles title, Clues Brothers title, Supermysteries title, Ultra Thriller title and so on has a link to Amazon and all summaries were copied from Amazon. Does that tell anyone something? (Unsigned comment by 69.205.1.91)

 * this would make it easier for us to follow the thread and his contributions (and vandalism). --PhilipO 17:36, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

May we consolidate on what we've agreed so far?
May we acknowledge progress has been made? An agreement to leave one link on Nancy Drew main article page and one link on Hardy Boys main article page? Links to be removed from Hardy Boys book article pages? We need to execute before discussing further issues. If you concur please respond below...

 * Anonymous IP Commenter: Thanks for leaving comments here per request. Thanks for not going back and reverting me on Nancy Drew after I left you the message. Yes, please register a user name and use it, with ~ signatures, on next discussions to come.
 * Thanks for checking this out. Finnan's link spamming needs to be looked at overall and not just the HB. He still will have dozens of links to his site when there isn't even any real info on some of the pages to support it, just titles and format stuff he copied from books on these series. All of this is obviously advertising and overkill.
 * PhilipO: I notice Hardy Boys is protected again. Can we get that unprotected again (or maybe it will expire tomorrow) and I think the link will stay this time.
 * Dan East: Would you be willing to look at the Hardy Boy book plot articles and check the links are removed especially on the short stubs?
 * Sure. --Dan East 20:28, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fwdixon: Just hang in here for now.

There are more things to work out but may we consolidate on what we've agreed so far?

-- Sitearm | Talk 02:58, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

Re: An agreement to leave one link on Nancy Drew main article page and one link on Hardy Boys main article page?

The Hardy Boys page has two links to different pages of the same web site, the index page for The Unofficial Hardy Boys Web Page and The Bayport Times. The second link should be removed per the above agreement. The web site owner has complained that two other links, Hardy-Boys.com and The Bayport Gazette, resolve the same site. This is true. Only one link per site should be allowed.

The Unofficial Nancy Drew Web Page is just a title list set up for buy links to Amazon. If this link is going to be kept the description should at least be changed to: primarily a commercial site with limited information on the series. 69.205.1.91 17:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I believe the pages should remain protected for now until this issue has settled down somewhat. There has been too much history of vandalism by 69.205.1.91. --PhilipO 19:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fwdixon/fwdixon1


text: Template:Polynesia

title: Template:Polynesia