why will gwen gale not read the sources on august i posted a section on talk death of adolf hitler titled random questions which started i am not a scholar i read wiki but would not think of editing it but i was disappointed in this article and many points in the discussion so i am asking some questions perhaps someone else will read and address them the section went on with several rethoritical questions and ended with as to sources the last books i have read are the murder of adolph hitler by hugh thomas sort of shaky and the last days of hitler by anton joachimsthaler english translation i buy much of this gwen gale was apparently assigned me as an administrator because at she replied with as the article lead says this said this talk page isn't a forum for talking about personal views or questions on a topic it's meant for talking about sources and how to echo them in the text i say this because the article seems to already cover with thorough citations most if not all of what you've brought up dodgy gwen gale talk by this reply it appears that gwen gale is not familiar with the work of joachimsthaler who i have just referenced and thinks that i am asking a personal question not a rhetorical one at that time i apologized tried to explain myself and restate my questions at i posted if i had read kershaw's nemesis chapter note and epilogue note i wouldn't have wasted your time you can't get much clearer than that should be required reading perhaps someone else should read them and possibly edit the article thank you for your time talk at i posted i would like to direct people to the work of ian kershaw hitler nemesis isbn chapter and the epilogue relate to this article please pay attention to his notes and sources be warned his book hitler a biography is a kind of digest which does not include these resources the source joachimsthaler is basically an english translation of a german's analysis of 's post soviet interviews of bunker survivors the original transcripts must be available somewhere there are many other bunker interviews some with questionable intent and not all agree wm talk since those posts i have posted a huge amount on the talk page virtually all of which gwen gale has disputed much of the material i have posted i have later deleted often because i felt that the endless conflict between gwen gale and myself is counterproductive to the article anyone who is wiki can probably bring back any of those posts was i sometimes rude and argumentative absolutely was i making legitimate points which related to the article i thought so did i receive effective support and encouragement by my administrator i think not but you judge my main point was that joachimsthaler had reviewed the information and had made a solid case for positions which kershaw backed i repeatedly begged anyone especially gwen gale to read joachimsthaler and kershaw specifically two footnotes i even told the pages of the footnotes gwen gale clearly had not read either source i posted under the heading question for gwen gale the following i lost you but i m confused myself it appears as though the person with the least information available is most influential on the article the u s is big on free press and it works my very low budget suburb is in a system which serves people with million titles numbers approximate thanks carol that s on the next shuttle van most of the rest of the assets of a state with million people are a couple of days away by mail the specialty stuff on ae from radcliffe took maybe a week and i am an amateur dan you are over three million people higher in the food chain you must be world class kierzek has clearly read and analyzed everything reviewed most of it and as far as i can tell every word he says is accurate and informed kershaw joachimsthaler thomas trevor roper beevor shirer ryan toland eberle uhl lehmann carroll o donnell victor petrova watson vinogradov hit a snag reordered these are books which i have had in my possession and read parts of since aug i can understand if others do not have access to the same resources but i think that should be addressed if someone does not have access to two footnotes which are critical in a discussion that also should be addressed i know that this is p o v and that i am personally involved but i can not help but believe that this article has problems with it s process wm talk ' on gwen gale posted for starters