User talk:Jadger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Jadger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  FCYTravis 01:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you the anonymous user to leave comments at my talk page some time ago? I did not ignore your comments, I simply lost my computer for almost two months, and lately I didn't have time to correct the maps. They are on my to-do list, but I don't have the time to do it now. Halibutt 08:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Cite sources

Please cite your sources instead of starting revert wars. A referenced edit is much less likely to be deleted. At the same time, please don't delete sourced information unless you have sources proving they are false.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, before you remove a large chunk of the text, like you did at German 4th Panzer Division recently, be sure to take a look at its talk page. At times it helps to avoid disputes.. Halibutt 23:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to helpfully point out that information on answers.com is simply one of the mirrors, or copies, of Wikipedia content. Warsaw Uprising is the original, up to date Wikipedia article. Balcer 02:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I am a latecomer to this controversy, so I don't know exactly what you mean by information so different. Still, as Wikipedia is created by many individual editors, it is quite often not consistent with itself, and one article may contradict information in another. This is why I have quoted a reputable book written by an eminent historian, to provide a more reliable source. Balcer 03:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, I put some effort in typing in the reference, so please do not remove it. Martin Gilbert is a highly respected historian, and I would tend to trust him more than any Wikipedia article. Balcer 03:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, the worst atrocities were not perpetrated by normal German formations but by "special" units, most importantly the Dirlewanger and Kaminsky brigades. Still, the German commanders knew very well what these brigades were likely to do and still sent them to quell the Uprising, so they share some responsibility.
As for using strong words, some historical events do require strong words. See for example the Oradour-sur-Glane article which describes a similar incident in France. Balcer 03:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the worst atrocities were not perpetrated by normal German formations http://www.warsawuprising.com/doc/atrocities.pdf The crimes committed by the Germans at the time of the Warsaw rising in August and September, 1944, occupy a special place among those committed by the in Poland during the recent war.These crimes, the victims of which' were thousands of unarmed citizens, men, women and children, were committed by army troops in fulfilment of explicit orders given by the highest German army authorities; they were carried out by the germane Army and the German General Staff, institutions independent of the Gestapo. The whole question is not essentially changed by the fact that the majority of these troops consisted of a police brigade in which criminals and Volksdeutsche served and of the Vlassov army composed of Soviet prisoner-of-war (Warsaw population usually called them Ukrainians) for these were parts of the German army, under German Command. They were thrown into action and committed common crimes by order of the German High Command. German soldiers and members of the Vlassov army in German unfirom together committed atrocities on an unarmed civilianh poplation. It is not material that certain of their criminal deeds, such, as the violation of women, were done principally by Vlassov’s men; these facts were known to the German officers who allowed them to happen. Vlassov’s troops were merely carrying out the crimes; they were pawns in a general criminal scheme. Everything that happened in the tragic days of the Warsaw Rising was know to and approved by the German Command.''''

I was in the last group of four. I begged the Vlassov's men around me to save me and the children, and they asked if I had anything with which to buy my life. I had a large amount of gold with me and gave it them. They took it all and wanted to lead me away, but the German supervising the execution would not allow them to do so, and when I begged him to let me go he pushed me off, shouting "Quicker!" I fell when he pushed me. He also hit and pushed my elder boy, shouting "hurry up, you Polish bandit". --Molobo 11:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

and so? these lies are supposed to make me feel that you have a right to distort history, because you feel that Poland is the only nation to have ever suffered? you need CREDIBLE sources for anything you put on hereJadger 05:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

What reason do you have to call those sources lies? You should cite your sources in article, not in edit summaries. Answers.com is an outdated mirror of Wiki, and as Balcer pointed out, it is thus much less valuable as a reference then books or non-wiki external links.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Just because something has been published in a book doesn't make it true, or else Mein Kampf would be true, its probably just as true as your sources, that is to say 0% true. If it were an outdated mirror of the wiki then why dont u go there and edit all there topics to skew history in your favour all over the WWWJadger 23:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Block

I've blocked you for 24 hours for violating the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule on Wola. Please discuss disputed changes rather than engaging in edit wars. — Matt Crypto 13:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "The Vanished Kingdom" reviews

  1. "This book should never have been published. One thing we do not need is nostalgia for Prussia - a state that was hated, while it existed, by all its neighbours, that expanded by systematic aggression and banditry, and that became joyfully identified with a doctrine of extreme immoralism in politics and military aggression as the basis of international relations. The author feels the need to slander the Poles in order to make us forget not only what Hitler did, but what Prussia had been doing to them since the First Partition; so he represents them as drunks and congenital Jew-baiters (but Poland had the largest Jewish population in Europe - until Germany decided to do something about it). Other reviewers have said what needed to be said about the rotten double standards, the lousy history and map, the racism, the single-minded intention to rewrite history - but I have one more thing to say: find me another country in European history that ever drew, throughout its history, the hatred and contempt that Prussia drew from the age of Frederick the so-called Great to Hitler. If Prussia was so great, why did it manage the unusual feat of (for instance) making Chesterton and Kipling unanimous in their detestation? Is there another nation that has so managed to unify Europe, uninting it three times over - in the Seven Years' War, and in the two World Wars - in war, and uniting it constantly in dislike? And it is always those who knew Prussia and Prussian Germany best, that hated it the most: unlike France in the age of the Sun King and of Napoleon - where people fought French aggression but imitated French art and administration - and unlike the USA today, nobody ever wanted to imitate Prussia once they had seen what it was like. People like F.D.Roosevelt, who spent one year there as a young man, went back home with a rooted dislike to the whole Prussian/German system that was to have long-lasting results. Believe me, Mr.Roy, the biggest favour anyone ever did to Germany was done in 1945 and included the complete territorial destruction of Prussia. As for the Hindenburg family vaults being used as a garbage dump - well, it hardly counts as a change of use, does it?"
  2. "Readers interested in the the former East Prussia should make the effort to read The Vanished Kingdom, as it provides a good description of the German elements of the history of this region. The main disappointment with this book is that the author's views on the superiority of German culture over Polish culture are reflected throughout the book, making it a very one-sided account of history. Sometimes it is difficult to even take the author seriously (for example, he writes at one point that a group of drunk Poles in a bar represented the only friendly Poles he had encountered throughout all of his travels through Poland). Essentially, he equates all things German with progress and culture and all things Polish with backwardness and decay. The book unreasonably dismisses Polish historical claims to the region, and at points appears to attempt to portray the Poles as being the most anti-semitic of all Europeans. Although the book excellently describes the German history of this region, it is not the balanced analysis that I had hoped for."
  3. "From start to finish the book is a huge disappointment. For a region like Prussia, that was changing it's borders at least twice in a century the author is providing only one map from 1939, and even that is full of mistakes - rivers that don't exist, Kulm in East Prussia instead of in Poland, major cities misnamed. For the very unique and controversial subject of the prussian history the author chose the long discarded even by German historians, 19th century 'Borussian Myth' - drawing a straight line from the Teutonic Knights' rulership, through the Hohenzollern rule to the unification of Germany. All the elements of Polish history of the land are carefully omitted. Author interviews members of German nobility, aristocracy and German historians. When it comes to the Polish side he talks to car dealers, street drunks and other incompetent sources to show polish ignorance and lack of deep insight. Entire two chapters are devoted to an interview with a Jewish concentration camp survivor and an anti-Polish fanatic. This part is completely irrelevant to the subject of the book (Prussia), it just allows to show Poles in the worst possible light and portray them as primitive, blood thirsty, genetically anti-semitic beasts, responsible for entire Jewish holocaust in WW2. 'Germans were killing Jews only when they were ordered to, but Poles killed Jews whenever they had an opportunity, just for plain joy and pleasure, to satisfy their animal instincts' - that's basically the message contained in the book. There is no mention in the book about the 300 year history of Royal Prussia - a Polish province from 1454. The consistently pro-Polish loyalty of the people inhabiting the Prussian Provinces, even through the difficult war times, never appears in the book. The 15, 16 and 17th century symbol of Prussia - the Prussian Liberty and Privileges, provided by the King of Poland, and brutally liquidated during the Partitions of Poland - all of it was not worth discussion in a book supposedly devoted to 'travels through history of Prussia'. This might be a great book for a nostalgic Germans of East Prussian descent, but never to somebody, who would like to learn something about a twisted, complex and controversial history of Prussia. However, the exceptional writing skills and author's ability to capture reader's emotions will make this book very hard to put down."
  4. "This book is quite readable and interesting. So what's wrong with it? The author is terribly insulting towards Poles. They are frequently portrayed as drunks and nasty drunks, and he repeatedly makes the mistake of writing what he assumes they are saying to him, although his knowledge of the Polish language seems to be minimal. James Roy's comment about the Polish Home Army acting horribly towards Polish Jews strikes me as a bit one-sided. Perhaps he could have mentioned prominent Polish Jews such as Jacob Berman and Schlomo Morel(a mass murderer and torturer currently hiding out in Israel as a fugitve from Polish justice)who were instrumental in turning post-war Poland into a massive Stalinist concentration camp for Polish Catholics, all the while murdering/ethnically cleansing the former population of Germans. The strong point of this book is its explanation of Prussian history. If you can put up with the frequent put downs of Poles and the barbs thrown at the Germans/Prussians, then it makes for good reading."
  5. "This book is a misguided, ahistorical disaster. "The Vanished Kingdom" is nothing more than a convoluted travel diary with no worthwhile insights. It is bigoted, unintelligent, and overflowing with historical inaccuracies.When describing the Franco-Prussian war, Roy writes: "This conflict resulted in the formal creation of the German empire at Versailles Palace on January 18, 1871, its Hall of Mirrors then full of generals in cuirasses and pointed helmets, their swords drawn and yelling Hunnish war cries to the new Emperor William I." Roy is not describing the event; he is describing the famous painting by Anton von Werner, which was obviously a de facto "enhancement" of the coronation by the great nationalist artist. (In reality, the whole thing was a very muted affair.) Similar sloppiness pervades the rest of the text. On page 104, the Great Elector is called "King of Prussia," when he was actually "King in Prussia" - a very slight, but nevertheless important, distinction. Roy also ridiculously asserts that the Hohenzollerns were xenophobic and determined to keep their nation ethnically Prussian. He doesn't mention the 1685 Edict of Potsdam, which extended an open invitation to French Huguenots (of which 20,000 came) or the similarly enormous influx of Salzburgers into East Prussia. As for Roy's travels and "interviews," the only point that is repeatedly made is that Poles are "mean" and "stupid," and Germans "orderly" and "great." Roy even includes pictures of drunken Russians and Poles in this book. (After all, they are the only ones who consume alcohol, right?) In the meantime, Roy's "German friends" - who are all coincidentally rightist reactionaries and angry Wehrmacht veterans - chat poetically about spilling their blood for sacred Prussian soil. This book is a joke. If you are interested in the history of Brandenburg-Prussia, you will find Alexandra Richie's "Faust's Metropolis: A History of Berlin" to be infinitely more rewarding than this overblown, hackneyed harangue."

Space Cadet 19:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Amazon.com. Of course I read it myself! Review # 3 is mine! You really didn't see the anti-Polish bias? Space Cadet 19:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] [ Add me to the list]

Hi Jadger. I am one of those backward Poles full of nationalist bullshit. Add me to your list. Szopen 09:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silesian Uprisings

So? France wasnt established following ww2 just because it was a new fourth republic- same with Poland. Ksenon 12:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

no, because there were still lands controlled by it, under the Free French Banner, some of its colonies remained french, and also there was also Vichy France, whereas there was no separate Polish state, Poland was run by the Nazis 100% unlike Vichy FranceJadger 01:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to the Polish government in exile article. But I digress. Common nomenclature, and rightly so, states that Poland regained her independence following WWI. And why do you revert my links to the Weimar Republic? It would give a better and tighter understanding of the era. Ksenon 03:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

i reverted the link because by stating "German gov't" rather then simply "Germany" as u did clarifies what others were editing, that is that the polish people were rebelling against freikorps (if u wanted to keep the link under the name "german gov't that'd be fine with me". the polish gov't was in exile for WWII, but was not set-up in Poland following WWII, the Soviets set-up their own gov't after the war, which became what we now recognize as Poland. this is different tehn the French as they still had land that was recognized as French, not German controlled. and besides we are not talking about Poland following WWII, we are talking following WWI, unless u can prove there was a gov't in exile for over 100 years my opinion stands.Jadger 20:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page

Would you consider rewording your user page? You are entitled to make criticisms about (what you see as) Polish nationlist bias on Wikipedia. However, what is not acceptable is to post such criticisms in the form of personal attacks: specifically, listing other editors that you "hate", and referring to their "utterly stupid" "childish attacks". Moreover, your comments are very close to being anti-Polish slurs: "These are the type of people that allow the Polish stereotypes to continue, by fitting perfectly the stereotype", and quoting Bismarck, apparently with approval given the context, talking about "the destruction of the Poles". This is unacceptable to the community; see policies Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:User page. — Matt Crypto 12:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have considered it, and will not change it, as the sentence "I hate people that insist on imposing their views on others, especially using Wikipedia which gives a false idea of authority on the subject to unwary readers." is not a personal attack unless someone realizes that is the way they act, and if that is how they act they should not be on wikipedia. So before I change that, u would need to ban Halibutt and the other people who keep labeling me as a "Nazi Apologetic" as they are outrightly hating people that subscribe to a different political ideal, even though I am not a Nazi and do not condone its actions.

As my user page states: "The absurd an childish attacks that these people bring against someone who edits their work is utterly stupid, calling everyone "Nazis" and "anti-polish". These are the type of people that allow the Polish stereotypes to continue, by fitting perfectly the stereotype."

That is more of a fact then most things these other users post. look at a list of Molobo's contributions and see how many times he calls someone a Nazi unjustifiably.

As for anti-Polish slurs? where do u get that from? I was referring to how these users' actions casts a bad light on Polish people as a whole, as they act similar to Polish stereotypes. just like a person fits the stereotype for a redneck if he wears a wife-beater, has a mullet, is missing teeth and talks with a southern drawl, and is racist. It is not a personal attack, I was simply stating a fact.

to reiterate, I will not change it, as it is not a personal attack.Jadger 01:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It is, and I've removed it. Please do not reinstate it. — Matt Crypto 07:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Please refrain from attacking other editors on your user page (or in fact anywhere on Wikipedia). I strongly urge you to rewrite your user page to remove the attacks upon editors Molobo, Space Cadet, Lysy and Halibutt. If you feel that their editing is detrimental to Wikipedia, there are appropriate channels for you to make your feelings known. Badmouthing them on your user page is not one of those channels. Regards, Kelly Martin (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Got it? Space Cadet 22:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Space Cadet, apart from the bossiness of this comment of yours here, what is it that makes you disagree with Jadger's user page but not with User:Witkacy/Black Book, on whose request for deletion you, Lysi(Wojsyl) and Molobo voted 'keep' (Halibutt didn't vote at all but posted a link to the black book on his own user page in approval, and deleted it only later when he was approached about it in his RfA)? Sciurinæ 23:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Nightbeast, the criterion is always the same: THE TRUTH, which of course is unknown, but it should be our goal here to at least pursue it by avoiding lies. Space Cadet 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, yes, your goal... Sciurinæ 23:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
No, no, it is MHO that it should be a collective goal for all of us here. Space Cadet 23:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Folks, this is about Jadger's user page; if you want to dredge up a discussion about other "black books", please do so elsewhere. (I don't think comments like "got it?" really help the situation, either). — Matt Crypto 23:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I honestly believed it would help though. Space Cadet 23:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
You got what Matt Crypto said, Space Cadet? (just so it helps you) Sciurinæ 23:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
LOL! Your historically first Good One. I admit you literally put me on the floor, like three bottles of wódka. Space Cadet 23:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't and am not in the mood of joking. Rather I'm pretty fed up of what I consider double standards, harassment and teasing, the delaying of the sock check on Molobo in favour of commenting on a second black book and last but not least my lack of time. I can understand that Jadger chose to vent the intense annoyance he must have had about the rudeness he faced not least by you, Space Cadet. Sciurinæ 23:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Your second good one! I'm on the floor again. Space Cadet 00:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)P.S. It's "fed up WITH" not "fed up OF". P.S.2. "In the mood FOR" not "in the mood OF". Are you in the right Wikipedia?

I took the only offensive part of my userpage off, if u could even call it that (the bismarck quote). the rest is all true, unless u can prove otherwise I am not taking these facts off my userpage. so unless u can prove that Molobo has never called me a "Nazi" or Space Cadet doesnt call me a "chauvanist" or that they do not keep editing my posts, it stays.Jadger 16:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well said and done.--Matthead 01:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

Trouble? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:German_Wikipedians%27_notice_board Ksenon 00:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I kindly ask you to remove your personal attacks on me from your user page. WP:NPA is pretty clear and I'd appreciate it if you abide by that rule. Halibutt 12:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

and which personal attack is that? the one were I state u are seemingly intelligent but at the same time hold a fiercely nationalistic perspective? that is not a personal attack, if one calls Hitler an anti-semite, that is a personal attack, and so requires deletion by your criteria, so lets go edit teh Hitler article and remove every occurence of "anti-semite" in that article. --Jadger 17:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

By listing me on your attack page you suggest I insist that every German during WWII committed an atrocity against me, which is a blatant lie
You suggest that I plaster Wikipedia with non-sensical (most oftenly Polish) nationalist bullshit, which is also a lie.
You claim that I insist on imposing my views on others, (...) which gives a false impression of authority on the subject to unwary readers, which is also a lie
You state that I believe the myth that Poland has been the victim of history, which is a lie as well
You claim that I consciously try and force this view on others, which is nothing but your sick vision
You also call me stupid, childish and call me some other names I did not deserve.

All in all, I asked you to remove your attack page. You refused. I will ask the admins to either blank your page or resort to some more serious measures since civilised chat does not work with you. Halibutt

Seeing as English is not your first language you obviously do not understand some of the more technical constructs of the language. For instance, a new paragraph denotes a new topic, and I never state your name in the paragraph:

"right now I guess u could say I am in a revert conflict against some Poles who insist that every German during WWII committed an atrocity against them. I am trying to prevent this POV pushing one or two pages at a time."

You yourself have just admitted self-incriminatingly, that you yourself see how people could see you as described in that paragraph. This is inherently a partial admission that you share the detrimental characteristics of this group.

ALSO, read the paragraph again, in it is stated:

"The people I have noticed that most closely fit this description are Molobo, Space Cadet, and Halibutt."

I do not state that you do belong in that group, just that at first glance one could mistake you for a member (if you are not a member of that group). the next sentence in the paragraph you have continued to misunderstand the subject, as the subject is not you, but this supposed group (if indeed it does exist). I will edit taht sentence to make the subject more clear.

As for your not believing the myth that Poland is the victim of history, I never state that you do, not that you can prove to me or anyone else that you do not believe that. The onus is on you to prove that, if you insist on continuing to take my words out of context that is. --Jadger 04:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If one could "mistake" me, then leave it to the person - and do not list me on your user page. Full stop. BTW, apparently native English speakers understood the attack on me on your user page the very same way as I did, so it's not a matter of my English but rather of your behaviour. Halibutt 13:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CANAPPUS

Hi, how about starting Coalition Against NAtionalistic Pov PUShing one day ? --Lysytalk 18:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

that'd be a great idea, but I can only see it being protested by Molobo and Halibutt as a front to conspire against them. As well, I can see a problem being in the selection of membership, It could end up like Halibutt's denied RfA maybe. --Jadger 22:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention to reply to your questions as long as you keep your offensive user page. Halibutt

See, you are acting exactly as what you claim you are not. I am willing to put aside our differences in order to further the wiki, you on the other hand are not able to put your personal prejudices off to the side. This is exactly why your RfA was denied. --Jadger 06:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you would be equally willing to cooperate with someone who calls you an idiot, a moron and suggest you're a nationalist, which is a serious offence to me. I seriously doubt it. Also, protesting against childish offensive language and tone has got nothing to do with one's political beliefs. If I were a nationalist I would equally protest against your violation of WP:NPA. Halibutt 13:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please learn to properly edit and put your attacks upon me in the correct category of my talk page. and which native English speakers are these that think my current page revision attacks you? as I have edited it to make all the missed subject sentences easier to read so that you do not mix up my words again.

I would gladly cooperate with someone that calls me an idiot or a moron, because the fact that they need my help shows who the actual idiot/moron is. Why would an intelligent person need the help of an idiot? unless they themselves were unintelligent. As for your not being a nationalist, I dont care if you are not one, but your edits say otherwise, perhaps you should not act like a nationalist if you are not one. --Jadger 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use {{fact}}

Please use the above tag before removing information. Than, if no refs are provided for several day, you cna remove the info - but give people a chance to provide the refs first.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to POV accusations

None of my article isn't POV, and everything I wrote was written according to wikipedia NPOV policy. I gave you list of literature about Medak Pocket; from Višnja Strešina, Mate Granić, Hrvoje Šarinić, etc... You should read any Croatian book which is talking about Croatian Homeland war, and (as they are qouting government officials, and as there is no new version of actual government, that should be takken as official. Also I noticed that you used pronoun we "as we do not have time here to correct your POV edits here". I did not know that you are a spoksmen of so large group?:) Please try to stick to theme, and not accuse somebody of something when you run out of proofs. --Ceha 18:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

you are correct, none of your article isn't POV, which in case you did not realize it, is a double negative and just another way of saying you are POV pusher.

Again your english is severely lacking, as "we" does not signify a large group, only more then one, which it does as I am not the only one who has tried to stop your POV pushing.

--Jadger 03:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Wow, how clever are you! You speak as king of France, I'm sorry your royal highness, I will call you in majority for now one (this is sarcasam, and proper use of "we" if you did not understand it:). If you have spoken in the name of the grop, then I think it is aproprite that you list those in wich name you have said something. As for POV accusation, you are qouting over and over statments from Canadian soldier (which were accused that they are POV) or sorces that are qouting their statments. Hello? For list of litereture, I gave it few times(not all of it, but parts off), just to qoute myself; "For french peacekeepers I recomend you reading Višnja Starešina books Balkan's Labaratory and Hague's formula. I don't know if you can buy it in Canda" "From Višnja Starešina; Formula Haag, Labaratory Balkan, are the ones I read." see [1] I'm sorry to notice, but now when you've run out of facts you are trying to change the subject. I'm not, nor will ever be spokesment of Croatian goverment, but, unlike you I am in position to read the litterature wich is published in Croatia. Please inform yourself more about Croatian politics and books regarding that subject if you want to start that discoussion. I've given you a lot of literature. Start reading for a change. --Ceha 13:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


WTF are you talking about? I NEVER quoted Canadian soldiers, I quoted the UN article and the DND (department of national defense) page on the PPCLI, never once did I quote a POV person, I have only quoted from knowledgeable and credible groups that are respected the world over.

Now that I have run out of facts? I still have many more left, and atleast I started with facts and concrete proof, you on the other hand have only spouted hateful gibberish the whole time.

and yet again you do not properly cite a "source" so I cannot look it up properly. learn how to cite something instead of just spouting of random words pretending they are titles, or else someone can say that The Grimm fairy tale books contain proof that pigs can fly.

--Jadger 07:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You qouted statmens from sources that are based only on experience of Canadian soldiers (UN report [2] is an exception).

I'd like to hear that facts of yours. I'd also like you to answer to my questions, which were given to you.

As for the sources, I've told you I'm going to look for them up. I have to go to library, and check it out. It would be stupid to give you some frase from my memory... And you asked me to prove that the story on Croatian version is official opinion of Croatian goverment. If you want to se if that story is true or not try reading Međimurec article. I've told you only I'll give you qoutations from goverment officials (or persons which were goverment officials) that that story is true. --Ceha 14:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Jadger, a template on your user page is a "double negative" too: "This pilot doesn't need no stinkin' engine, thank you very much!" Aranherunar 12:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking on German 17th Infantry Division page

(Blanking warning removed) Antonrojo 03:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I did so, you might want to look at the talk page for once.

--Jadger 18:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Jadger, after looking at it in more detail it does look like this issue would have been better settled by the people who know the issues in detail. The particular reasons I interpreted this as vandalism were: 1) there was an active debate around the issue on the discussion page and at the same time (which on a second reading I recognize is more of a consensus toward removing the quote) 2) the deletion of what seemed to be valid and relevant content still under discussion without a 'see talk' notice in the summary 3) a warning on your talk page for deleting comments from the same page which made it sound like a revert war and 4) I've seen a rash of POV deletions that minimize or ignore killings of ethnic minorities. Antonrojo 03:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

So you doubt the teory of evolution? Hm, that would explain why you are always stuck in the same place:) WASP creacionist which hates Seinfield? Ceha 03:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC) This was a joke, not an insault. Theory of evolution does not have nothing with religion (or a least it should not have). It is just a well argumented theory of devolopment of life on Earth. It does not speaks about god, creation, etc but it is just trying to explain how many things came to be. You are right that it has some gaps (for example primamry creation of life, early chemical processes which led to it), but as a theory it does not denies existance of God. Why would almity being needed to create a miracle, when it can just pair few mothers and fathers create a mutation which helps that specices to better adapt to its enviroment? Ceha 10:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] No revert wars

Please do not change the Expulsion article until someone else joins the discussion. I acknowledge the fact that you are for sure some kind of pro-german or german nationalist, do respect the Wikipedia rules anyway. ackoz 22:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concentration camps

From Concentration camps:Talk

Soviet Camps

why is it that Soviet camps are described in the first line of the article, but nothing else is stated after that? I have been trying to find out information on German WWII POWS and can find absolutely none on wikipedia. I know there is loads of information on the topic out there, but it is nowhere on wikipedia. I give one big WTF to wikipedia, so much for it being a source of knowledge. I dont know how such a huge website with information about everything on non-importance can miss such a huge section.

--Jadger 04:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

At the time you posted your comment, the article had been vandalised and the section on "Russia and the Soviet Union" deleted. It was reinstated shortly afterwards. Pol098 13:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English knowledge

If I said that I speak at near-native level, that doesn't have to mean that I'm excellent with expressions that belong to certain profession. Neither all native English speakers are excellent with knowledge of these expressions. Kubura 14:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Grammar and spelling? Strange, you're the first person who told me that. Can you tell me which lines brought you to such conclusions?Kubura 21:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why do you remove pertinent information?

Because It is unrelated to the topic of Germanisation. --Molobo 16:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Teutonic order charge.jpg

Since you like this image, please note it is considered for deletion.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  14:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Jogaila

Hi there. Despite a whopping victory for the name Jogaila on the previous vote, the Polish users have got upset and called yet another vote. They want to get it moved back to the old unpopular name Władysław II Jagiełło. If you are interested in stopping this, you'll need to cast your vote again. Sorry for all this tediousness. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Take note that the "whooping victory" was in fact a 16:16 parity. Despite that the article was moved anyway, in violation of wiki rules and procedures. Now is the chance to repair that. Besides, Calgacus is also lying about the name - the one we propose to move it to is Wladyslaw II Jagiello, without diacritics. And that name is at least 10 times more popular with English scientific literature than Jogaila. //Halibutt 08:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish war

Hi there. I took the liberty to remove this part of your comment from the list. The discussion section is below, no need to start a discussion in every section. Feel free to revert me, though I believe a better option would be to stick to arguments, not to dispute them everywhere. What do you say? //Halibutt 15:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I already wrote that I prefer the current version to avoid redirects or piping, but I consider this a minor issue and I don't intend to change any names I see in the text either way. It's just as trying to argue that we should eliminate all WWII redirects and replace them with Second World War.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extermination through labour

I kindly ask you to remove the slanderous remark from Talk:Extermination through labour. It's neither fair nor true, as I'm acting in line with WP:VERIFY. If you think otherwise please provide some diffs pointing to such behaviour you accuse me of, but I believe removal of the said remark would be a much better option. Thanks in advance. //Halibutt 06:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You stated that I have been in the mood lately that he thinks he can state anything he likes and everyone else must provide references to remove it, which is a shameless lie. I never said anything like it nor did I even suggest anything like it. On one occasion I simply pointed to the fact that published sources are more valuable than your own beliefs, but that is a different thing as it's perfectly in line with WP:VERIFY. So, in other words, you accused me of things I neither did nor said, and the only reason for that I could think of is slander. So please be so kind as to reword that statement so that it did not tarnish my good name. Thank you. //Halibutt 12:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
You want link? Here you go. There's not even a slightest mention of your fantasies there. However, given your stance so far I will remove the remark myself as per the WP:NPA. //Halibutt 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, call me names... I made no statements similar to the ones you accuse me of anywhere in Wikipedia. You must know it yourself since it's you to invent them. However, since you asked me for a link to the place where I did not say the things you accuse me of, then here you go. You want another link? Why not, here it is - I did not said the things you accuse me of here either. Nor here, here and here. Nowhere means in no place in particular.
You claim that I have been in certain mood. It's great you know better how I feel, but I'd appreciate it if you focused on your own problems. //Halibutt 01:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, my English is getting worse. What does my problem is your POV pushing mean? Does it mean that you have a problem with statements you invent and then put into my mouth? //Halibutt 06:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Then perhaps you could tell me why do you believe black people should be exterminated? //Halibutt 12:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The above is a rather childish insult on behalf of Halibutt, not to mention a logical fallacy called "begging the question"

--Jadger 21:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

But that's the very same tactics you use... And it's childish when others use it, but mature when used by Jadger, right? //Halibutt 21:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I did point out your "errors" above and kindly asked you to correct them. I also provided a link, but here you go again. However, you declined and repeatedly insisted on keeping the personal attack visible to others. In that light your remark at my talk page is a tad two-faced, don't you think? Anyway, if it really is a tit-for-tat, then should I consider myself excused if I slander you the way you do? Or perhaps you're the only person in the entire wiki who should be able to do that? //Halibutt 21:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I agree that it reflects badly upon me when I sink to your level. However, I have to defend my good name, you're apparently trying to slander/libel/whatever. I don't know what is the reason for that, perhaps some personal animosity or anything. I don't know and I don't care. I asked you to stay civil and remove the lies you spread. To no avail.
You pointed to a citation in which I paraphrased the WP:VERIFY. However, you failed to provide citations for your accusation that I've been in the mood (lie), that I think I can state anything I like (lie), that everyone else must provide references to remove it (shameless lie). Nor did you provide any proof that if you don't cite anything that says that it didn't happen, well he reverts you. It's a pack of lies, nothing more. Or perhaps you can find citations for that, just like you're finding a wiki rule prohibiting us from using various named for the same phenomenon?
On a personal note, I wonder whether you've ever written any wikipedia article. From your list of contributions it seems that all you do is either spread German WWII views, nitpick or change single words to a large number of articles. Or perhaps you did under your previous name? Interestingly, your very first edit in wikipedia seems informative as well. //Halibutt 22:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, contrary to what you claim, you have not posted a single link to support your accusations. Be advised that next time I will not try to talk things over as politely as I did this time. I will simply use the existing wiki procedures. //Halibutt 09:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
When did I call you a racist? I merely asked for clarification of your beliefs, that's all. And my comments above are as polite as it gets. Anyway, you've been warned and I hope you will refrain from such offensive remarks, tone and language in the future. Over and out. //Halibutt 21:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. I kindly ask you to remove the slanderous remark from Talk:Extermination through labour.
  2. If you think otherwise please provide some diffs pointing to such behaviour you accuse me of, but I believe removal of the said remark would be a much better option. Thanks in advance.
  3. please be so kind as to reword that statement so that it did not tarnish my good name. Thank you.
  4. ... //Halibutt 23:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
[3] and [4]. Please keep that in mind. //Halibutt 06:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello, Jadger. You look strikingly like Frederick the Great! Sca 22:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. Aranherunar 12:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your query. I would not comment on your discussion in Talk:Extermination through labour, though I find them quite offensive, and, at least, unnecessary and annoying. However, your discussion here has definitely been uncivil, e.g. "Halibutt, when did you stop beating your wife?", etc. It might have been a joke, but user Halibutt can be seriously offended with that, and I believe it to be obviously unnecessary. Thanks. Aranherunar 03:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
If it's personal, and if it can be taken as offensive, then it's a personal attack. The user you are arguing with being uncivil does not justify you being uncivil. Please keep cool and try to make the discussion on-topic - i.e., about improving Wikipedia, not about the social life of a person. Aranherunar 03:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite see his comments as being personal attacks - end of story. Moreover, a warning is not a punishment, it is a reminder. Well, if you think Halibutt has crossed the line and has not received a warning, you may well be happy, because at least you know not to make the same mistake now. Aran|heru|nar 04:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
What I see in this case is that you posted a personal remark that sounded offensive to Halibutt, he kindly asked you to remove it and argued that it is offensive and slanderous to him, and you harshly denied it with a few more personal attacks, like this: "but I will not be immature like you". That is not what I call "getting the discussion back on track". I think that Halibutt has been as polite as any other contributor could be, and you have been discussing in an unnecessarily incivil manner. As for this sentence, "Then perhaps you could tell me why do you believe black people should be exterminated?", which you called "racist" and "impolite", I think it's a perfectly proper and acceptable question. The question only asked you to explain your action - it does not claim anything. And that is what I think. End of story. Aran|heru|nar 03:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I am perfectly capable of making a judgement myself whether it is a personal attack or not. Halibutt didn't tell me anything - check his contributions. I simply saw the case, read through it, found you're being unnecessarily rude, and warned you. Yes, this is my conclusion, and there is no need to argue that your personal attacks are not personal attacks. Aran|heru|nar 06:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I can see what are personal attacks myself, and I am not obliged to warn everyone that may have broke a rule. You made a personal attack, you get warned, that's it. Whether or not to warn the other user is my choice, and I believe he does not need to be warned, either. Aran|heru|nar 13:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gdańsk/Danzig

I was talking about 1793 and annexation of Gdańsk by the Kingdom of Prussia. I'm not angry at all. Tirid Tirid 22:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing comments from WP:ANI

Please do not remove other user's comments about you from the administrator's noticeboard as you did here. This is highly inappropriate. You made an accusation against Halibu, who has every right to defend him/her self on the same forum. I have reverted your edit. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia you will be blocked from editing. Thanks, Gwernol 22:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paper

I can't explain your email difficulties. My offer, of course, still stands. Sca 00:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

I have no idea what are you talking about. //Halibutt 05:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Evacuation of East Prussia

Have a look at Mayakovskoye (I did want to type Nemmersdorf, and there is a re-direct). You'll be surprised to see that my sources are all German. Joachim Reisch, Bernhard Fisch, Gerd Überschär and the German TV Channel ZDF. I saw that programme, by the way. --Pan Gerwazy 00:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Those "neutral observers" arrived many days after the Soviet army left the place. Whereas the Soviet army occupied the place for a few hours - that is clear from the statement of the German witness Joachim Reisch. If you read his story carefully, you will see that there is no way he could have been mistaken about the day of his return to Nemmersdorf, as was later claimed by revisionists.
I agree that there are weasel words in this article (one wants to spare the feelings of those who still cling to the belief that this was a horrible massacre whereas many, if not most villages in White Russia and Ukraine suffered a worse fate) but I resent the accusation that this article, based on recently published books of German historians is POV.--Pan Gerwazy 08:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think we can find common ground. I am sorry that I cannot devote much time to this - yesterday I had an answer ready, but the Wikipedia server was down. And now I am very busy on something else. A few points now, more later. You are right that the Mayakovskoye article is parly a mess because of this comment by Dönhoff. i tried to remove it a few times as superfluous. However, User:Philip Baird Shearer insisted that it should stay - if I understood correctly, in order to explain why for such a long time the general public in the Federal republic at least believed the high number of casualties. I agreed that that was an important concern.
Another point I want to make - and that is relevant for the Evacuation article - there were two Mayakovskoyes: the largely staged massacre in the village (well, it does look like 10 people were brutally killed for no apparent reason - not that the other 13 killings would not make a war crime, of course) and the horrible scene in front of the bridge with the corpses of horses and refugees who got caught between the two armies. That last one was a massacre, but obviously both sides were to blame. The Reisch account says that military vehicles and personnel got absolute priority on the night before, such a command may have come up from higher up than the captain or segeant in charge of guarding the bridge, but we do not know who these people were and whether they could possibly have foreseen such a speedy breakthrough (if only temporary) by the Soviet army.
As for "alleged worst behavior" that is probably not mine (I would have written "behaviour" - lol - not sure in which brand of English this was started) but you must admit that it is sometimes used to refer to the scale of "the alleged rapings of all women between 8 and 88". Well, rapings did take place, no one disputes that, it is the "all" or the number quoted that is alleged. Strictly speaking this is ungrammatical in the Queen's English, but it is more or less standard now in spoken English - American or British, I think. I agree that the usage here seems a bit odd. It looks as if it means "some people think this is the worst thing they did, but others think they did worse than that". Hm, shouldn't that be "allegedly"? Yes, better drop it, it is probably meant to be a weasel word, but it does not even work well that way. More about the basic problems of the Mayakovskoye article and how they may be solved later, if you do not mind. Going to bed now.--Pan Gerwazy 22:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red links

Your edits to Hełm wz. 31, Bomber Brigade, Wizna have produced red links due to incorrect linking. Please be careful to avoid this in your future edits. Also, when replacing Polish September Campaign or Polish Defensive War with Invasion of Poland (1939), please make sure that the grammatical structure of the sentence remains correct. Mindlessly replacing without taking care that the sentence still makes sense or is not misleading is counterproductive. Balcer 19:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What I mainly had in mind is the following problem: if one changes the wording without thinking, then it might emerge that some Polish division "took part in the Invasion of Poland" (i.e. invaded its own country) which strikes me as a little bit ridiculous. In the same way, we should not write that 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend "took part in the Invasion of Normandy", as that would imply it landed on the beaches. In such cases, a better formulation would seem to be in order. Balcer 19:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, then what about: Bomber Brigade,Juliusz Zulauf, Wacław Przeździecki, Stanisław Grzmot-Skotnicki, Alojzy Wir-Konas. In my opinion, all of these could use better wording. In all of these we have Polish units/officers "invading Poland", so to speak. Balcer 19:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Since you asked for specific examples, in Bomber Brigade I would replace "was active in" to "resisted". This clearly indicates which side it was on, and we want the reader to quickly grasp that, don't we? This is not an issue of NPOV, but simple clarity. Balcer 20:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
To a knowledgeable reader it is clear which side the unit fought on, but it does not hurt to use very clear language. It is not a big deal of course. As for the proper unit names, I am by no means certain what they should be. In the bomber brigade, we have 4 dywizjons (18-20 planes each), each divided into 2 eskadras of 8-10 planes each. Dywizjon is usually translated as squadron, though it is a bit larger. Eskadra then becomes escadrille. Not an exact translation, since escadrille was usually only 6 planes, according to Webster's dictionary at least. Still, that is what has been adopted on Wikipedia, and it seems a reasonable choice to me. Balcer 05:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erika Steinbach

Look, are you going to fight revert wars over that page until it says exactly what you want? That is not how Wikipedia works. Usually, if there is a dispute between users, they reach some kind of compromise which is not perfect for everyone, but which is what they can live with. The article has been changed in recent days to make it more acceptable to everyone (hopefully). Please consider accepting the current version. Balcer 17:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

We mention both the German and Polish names prominently, which is a good compromise, in my opinion, and conforms with the Gdansk vote. You want to: 1. insert West Prussia - this is an unfortunate term which generates a lot of bad feeling. 2. have Rahmel (now Rumia), which implies that it was not then Rumia, which of course it was, at least according to the international community of the time. Try to think about changes to your version which would address these concerns. Again, blindly reverting to what you think is the only right version is just not the Wikipedia way. Balcer 18:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
1. If you really want to use the actual name of the administrative subdivision, it was Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia.
2. The question remains: how do we address the fact that the annexation of Rumia was not considered legitimate by most of the world at the time, and so the name Rumia remained valid. This cannot just be swept under the carpet, like you are trying to do. What I (and many other editors) find so disturbing here are the attempts to simply say "Rahmel in Germany" and leave it at that, without touching on the huge controversy hidden by this formulation.
Oh, and please don't imply that "only Poles think something, and therefore we should not concern ourselves about it". I am a Pole (and also a Canadian BTW), but this does not in any way mean that my views cannot count here. Balcer 18:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I think were are making progress here. Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia is much better than West Prussia. Still, please tell me: Why do you steadfastly refuse to have any mention in the article of the fact that the territory was annexed by Germany in 1939 and that most of the world did not recognize this. Could we try to work that in somehow?
As for your comment about the nations fighting against Germany being partisan, I must say it takes my breath away. Yes, the Nazi regime was so evil that eventually almost the entire world joined the war against it. Does this then mean that the opinions of all those nations must be discarded as "biased"? Who is left then? Are we allowed to only use opinions of countries like Sweden or Switzerland? Furthermore, would you not say that the Nazis themselves who annexed and renamed Rumia are heavily biased as well? Why should their opinion about Rumia's status count, but the opinion of Poland, United States, Great Britain etc. etc. not count?Balcer 02:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New vote

The new vote you attempted to start is a very bad idea. Remember that no one supported your proposal to restart the vote. Besides you, 12 people have already voted in the first poll, which is still open, and now you propose to unilaterally throw out their votes and start again. Get a hold of yourself. Wait until the first poll concludes and is closed. This will most likely be done by Olessi who started this poll. Having two open polls running at the same time is simply a recipe for chaos, and muddling the results. Then, if you find the first poll was faulty, you can try to argue your case. Balcer 05:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The first vote was supported by the 13 people who already voted for it. Balcer 05:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

'note: the first vote only had 1 side and no representation against it, after I presented an objection, people removed their support for the vote. Balcer, PP and Stettiner then began personally attacking other users and clouding the vote. the opinion vote was literally lost in the ensuing "discussion". Not to mention, the first vote was started without any discussion on it, whereas the vote I started was discussed on the talk page

--Jadger 05:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the current vote, complain about it, and get some other users to support you. So far, not a single person expressed support for your complaints. Leave a message on Olessi's talk page. He started the vote, and customarily only he has the power to wrap it up. If you can convince him that the current vote is unfair, maybe he will start a new one. Balcer 05:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poll?

I am curious why you think it is "my" poll at Talk:Erika Steinbach. A request was mode at Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board for further input on the naming dispute. I answered this request by mentioning again phrasing that I had suggested months ago. I never once suggested it as a poll, and if you look at the history of the talk page you will see that I had nothing to do with the establishment of a poll. I offered a suggested compromise and specifically asked for further discussion about it, not for a poll. Olessi 19:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggested to Jadger that Olessi started the poll, but now I see I was mistaken. Checking the history, it was User:Richardshusr who actually launched the poll, in this diff. It is only Olessi's suggestion which is being voted on. Sorry for any confusion. The text itself did not contain any mention of who launched the poll, but the message just above it carried Olessi's signature, hence my error. Balcer 20:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Also note that it is not a good idea to advertise your poll [in this way]. If you get votes that way, they will be disputed. I will vote on your poll when the other one is finished and it is clear that that would not create a hopeless situation (supposing eg your poll attracts fewer voters but a higher percentage of "yes" votes). Keep up any good work and try to stay out of trouble.--Pan Gerwazy 14:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monster warning

Per WP:NPA and WP:UP, please note that calling another user monster is a personal attack and as such should be removed. Please remove it. Thank you. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

LMAO, since when was comparing a user to a beloved children's show character a personal attack? It is a rather favourable comparison I would say; would you have preferred if it was deletion Jesus as that is perhaps a more beloved and well known personality in Poland?

--Jadger 02:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I found the thing. I think that putting a personal attack into a prominent position on your user page (in the second sentence) is a bad judgement. People could think that you come to wiki not to create an encyclopedia, but to get even with Balcer. The personal attack is mild (especially with your explanation that the deletion monster is another name for the cookie monster) and in my humble opinion does not warrant a block or another administrative action, but if I were you I would remove the attack. The user page is not the right place to criticize fellow users. It creates a negative impression about yourself. abakharev 05:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it has served its purpose, now I will remove it.

--Jadger 01:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot abakharev 02:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thats classic!! you are a very evil person! comparing him with the cookie monster!--Tresckow 00:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steinbach

Re: We could use your calming input on talk:Erika Steinbach, thanks.

Sorry, but I don't want to get involved in that hornets' nest. I see user names that are all too familiar from previous marathon diatribes. It only serves to reinforce my view that there are people on both sides whose mission in life is to keep the fires of ethnic hatred burning. These people live in, and on, the past.
Anyhow, I know almost nothing about Erika Steinbach. My general view of the German expellee organizations is that they represent primarily the descendants of displaced people, and that these descendants have a legitimate human interest in exploring their own heritage and family or regional histories; doing so does not amount to "revisionism." But certainly no one is served by any claims at this point upon property lost in the old Heimat 60 years ago. You can't turn back the clock.
As far as place names are concerned, this topic has been well aired elsewhere (see "My 2 grosze's worth" on WP:NC(GN).
Sca 14:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The "discussion" at talk:Erika Steinbach is so convoluted and garrulous I can't see where to vote. Besides, the overall character of the "discussion" is sophomoric and acrimonious. I can't believe Erika Steinbach's birthplace is all that important to anyone. However: Why not just say the town of Rumia in present-day Poland, which was known then to the Germans as Rahmel — and move on?
I do agree that the current phraseology about the town and the German occupation of Poland is confusing and decidedly not NPOV. I also agree that the reincorporation of the "Polish Corridor" territory (and other areas) into Germany after 1939 was not internationally recognized, as it was a result of aggression. But there's no point here in explaining the whole history of the area — West Prussia before 1919, the "Corridor," the Nazi "Greater German Reich," the postwar border changes. All that history is not relevant to a sketch of Erika Steinbach, who in my view is a minor political figure who, perhaps unintentionally, serves as a foil for ultra-nationalists. And in my view nationalism, like racism, is a disease. Wir alle sind doch Menschen.
Sca 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion at talk:Erika Steinbach is messy enough, so I will address you here:

1. Please understand that giving less weight to votes of new users is a common Wikipedia practice (see Wikipedia:Single purpose account). Less weight is given especially to votes of those new users who seem to arrive on Wikipedia fully knowledgeable about Wikipedia procedures, past disputes and common expressions, and hence can be suspected of being sockpuppets of other users.

2. I have noticed that you have solicited the votes of other users on their talk pages. Now, there is nothing wrong with that in itself, but Wikipedia etiquette does require certain things when you do that, which are explained in Wikipedia:Survey notification. You might consider following these guidelines in the future. Balcer 03:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not imply that Wikipedia:Survey notification states official policy. It simply suggests what is reasonable and considerate towards other users. Whether you want to follow it is your choice. As for checking Stettiner for being a sockpuppet, that might be a good idea if he becomes active in more votes. For one vote it is probably overkill. Finally, yes, I was a new Wikipedian once too (back in April, 2004), but I do not remember plunging into a controversial vote in my first hundred edits. Oh, and one last thing. Your demand for a second vote could be rejected on the basis of the Snowball clause. Balcer 03:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding soliciting "votes" from other users, you should be aware of WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. It's not vote count that is important, but a derived consensus from the discussion. If you think someone has something useful to contribute to the discussion, then by all means inform them of its existence; but attempting to bolster one side of an argument numerically isn't really going to work. --Grey Knight ⊖ 15:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German victims

Jadger, I've answered a question of yours on my talk page. Sca 03:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could use your input

Hey, I gave the Bydgoszcz Bloody Sunday an enormous makeover in my effort to retain both POVs. I know this will not go over well with the diehard Polish nationale community, raised on only stories such as this. Granted, the Germans were no angels in Poland, but there is no reason why the rest of the story should not be told. Anyway, I think it is dangerous for the German population to be so sheltered from reality; there is a fine line between revanchism and mourning, and the latter is only possible when nothing is hidden and everyone acknowledges everyone else's wounds. Otherwise, certain individuals will introduce the other side of the coin and use this awakening to forward their own attached political cause. Well anyway, please give it a look if you can and tell me what you think. If you could, stop by the Bombing of Dresden page where there is a discrepancy with the Hague that I want your opinion on, if at all possible; it is the subject of an ongoing edit war.--155.247.166.29 11:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expulsion of Germans after World War II

There is a discussion going on between User:Lysy and myself at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Lysy has brought up an important criticism of the article that I agree with and will result in a shift in the tone of the article. I would like your input into the discussion before edits are made rather than afterward. Please join us in this discussion.

--Richard 12:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: thank you

No problem. XD And yeah, is that intended as an insult? I don't even get it. I mean, sure, I guess I love Ireland just as much as the next person who's never been there... My mom liked it... --Masamage 00:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Get over yourself

[parent]

I thought that was a fairly polite note, not an accusation or attempt to "police" Wikipedia. I noticed a request on another user's talk that looked like a broad request for numerical voting and, as I would do for any other user, decided to leave a short note of the relevant part of WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY (as this is a common and understandable misconception). At no point was I attempting to attack you personally (I've no experience with you or yours) or assuming bad faith on your part; a quick glance through XfD will show up many people "voting" only a keep or delete with no discussion or attempt to reach a consensus -- I'm sure none of them are doing it deliberately, they just don't understand what is going on clearly enough.

--Grey Knight ⊖ 22:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I misread "September" as "November". Whoops! --Grey Knight ⊖ 20:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP Munich

Hello,

You are invited to join WikiProject Munich!



There are a lot of things to do in this project. From creating new articles to finetuning articles into featured article status.


How can you help?

  • You can help comform Munich-related articles to Wikipedia Policy.
  • You can get free Munich-related images under GNU Free Documentation License.
  • You can create and edit of Munich-related articles.
  • You can do translations from German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia on Munich-related articles.
  • You can help do assessments of Munich-related articles.
  • You can help expand articles currently in the Stub-class and Start-class.
  • You can help reference articles.
  • Since original research is against Wikipedia policy, you can research topics to expand. This means you don't need to know anything about Munich.
  • You can help expand stubs and start-class articles and help finetune other articles into Featured article status.

A WikiProject of this nature is very broad. Munich has a rich history in sports, culture, politics along with many more topics. Feel free to help out in your area of interest.

If you want to check the project out you can click the link above. If you want to join the project, you can sign up here.


If you have any questions feel free to contact myself or any other member of the project.

Your welcome. Do you know any German? Maybe you could help out in the translation section. Kingjeff 14:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP Munich participation

You might want to start on some Stub-class Munich articles of your interest. Don't forget to reassess the article (If Necessary) if you're able to bring it up yo a B-class article. Kingjeff 19:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recovered Territories

Are you claim the Recovered Territories belongs to Teutonic Knits, Prussia or Germany? Andrew 131.104.218.46 16:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sorry

While I am sorry for the Prime Minister joke, I see reason why you had to delete the comments about the Music and Drama Programs. Unless you have actual personal knowledge about them, as I do, I suggest you add those comments back in.

Thanks,

Thomas

[edit] Recovered Territories #2

Regarding you request, citation: “please prove that the land was only inhabited by slavs, as it is pretty clear from other sources that it wasn't” Is it regarding the map described BY: “Land ruled by Polans, including lands conquered by the Piast Dukes.” Please be specific: What tribe under the Piast Dukes you consider non-Slavic? What sources convince you for that? Andrew 131.104.218.135 18:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recovered Territories #3

I attempted to answer to you notes. Pleas look in to my discussion page. Since there were many separate points in you notes I answered in order after consecutive paragraphs. Andrew 131.104.218.46 18:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language

Jadger, re your recent comments at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II" — While I appreciate support from other Wikipedians, I'm afraid the caustic tone of your comments directed at Poles and Poland can only do "our" cause — true German history — a disservice. The Poles are bound to find your tone and belittling remarks about Poland highly offensive, and lash out in turn. This will cancel out anything you might have to offer regarding Germany and the Oder-Neisse territories.

I only lived in Poland for six months or so, but I learned to respect the Poles and their culture, and appreciate their delightful qualities, which include bonhomie and hospitality. True, many Poles are nationalistic and take a one-sided view of history, but one must realize that this is largely a product of their history, education and national environment.

So, where in Ontario? I grew up in Minneapolis and we used to go fishing in northern Ontario, N. of Lake Superior. Gorgeous! Hey, I even remember when Thunder Bay was Port Arthur and Ft. William.

Sca 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply. Well, maybe you should ask your Polish friend how those comments strike him. To me, it sounded sorta like your attitude was, Germans are great; PL ain't worth shit.
I'd like to sit down with you & your Polish-Canadian friend over a few (maybe not so few) glasses of Beck's beer and maybe the occasional shot of Belvedere (Polish) vodka! Sca 23:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recovered Territories

Dear Jadger, Please see my letter to you on my talk page, title Part II. Andrew 131.104.218.46 03:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ONTs

Jadger, re your note to me, I don't think there's anything I can add that will change anyone's mind or clarify the issues. It's all been raked over endlessly before.

The simplest judgment on the whole topic is that two wrongs didn't make a right. But those of us who gravitate toward the German side of things must always remember that the sum of German wrongs vis-a-vis the Poles and Russians was much greater, in magnitude and severity, than the sum of Russian and Polish wrongs perpetrated in revenge and "compensation" against the Germans. That doesn't, for example, make gang-raping of teen-age German girls by Soviet soliders right. But it does help explain why what happened did happen.

There are some Poles who simply don't want to accept that anything done to Germans during WWII and its aftermath might have been wrong, especially things done by Poles. My supposition is that these Poles may be inwardly convinced that the Germans of the Nazi era had lost their status as humans because of all the inhumane things done in the name of Germany. Of course I don't accept this POV, but a certain point one must realize that these people aren't going to change their views.

Nevertheless, we can still work to achieve a balanced presentation of the events on Wiki, and we can continue to cite basic human values as our framework. (That's why I like Kant's Categorical Imperative so well.) And remember, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar!

Bis später. Alles gute! Sca 20:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RT 01Dec06

Dear Jadger, Please see my next letter to you on my talk page, title Part III. Andrew131.104.218.46 00:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RT end

Because you are revisionist - you do not accept the international decisions, Poland rights to its accident territories and bilateral German –Polish treaty I do not see any reason to discuss with you. Also because, you accuses Polish nation for a crime and you have no knowledge about facts regarding it. Bye, Andrew 131.104.218.46 01:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ONTs-2

Re "you have an understanding of Polish" — not really; I just know a few words and phrases. Re your hope that the person understands you now, doesn't look like it. A revisionist in this context would want to change the border; you don't. Oh well! Sca 15:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: See my note under "Archiving" at User talk:John Kenney. Sca 15:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Erika Steinbach

Hi, it turns out you were right deleting my edit on Erika Steinbach article regarding her parents living in Rumia in a house that belonged to an expelled Polish person. I based my edit on Polish version of Wikipedia, which I thought was trustworhy. And the fact that this is something like common knoledge here in Poland. I have done a thorough research on this matter and I have found very reliable sources (Mrs. Steinbach was very much in the interest of Polish journalists and historians) (Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper article [5] and Polish History Institute Instytut Pamięci Narodowej bulletin [6] p.51) saying something different. Namely, that her parents, while in Rumia, were renting a flat on Adolf Hitler street (today Sobieski street), from a person of Kashubian origin - they did not qualify to obtain a house of an expelled Polish person, as these were given to people higher in the hierarchy (oficers, essential airport staff). Although I understand where this common belief has started. Most of the then Polish residents of Rumia were expelled, and thrown away from their houses by German occupation authorities, sent to central Poland. German people from Reich were installed in their houses. So I guess many people authomatically assumed that this happened in Erika's parents' case. Actually this is the belief shared by most Polish people (and probably some in other countries as well), so I think it would be a good idea to include an accurate information on this matter within the article: to avoid wrong assumptions, and set the matter straight for all readers. I will certainly edit the misinforming Polish article. Thanks again, cheers. Boyau 01:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jadger, I also came across this 131. person and what seems to be a twin , named Serafin, in the German wiki (Johann Dzierzon) listed as Aserafin. There the persons are doing the same exact disruptive thing and personal attacks as on EN wiki. They/he were stopped. Since then this twin team 131. and Serafin continue at En wiki, such as Jan Dzierzon.You are probably hunting by now, so good luck. Labbas 2 Dec 2006


[edit] Your ancestry

I ran across your page. Hamburg port authorities may still have passenger lists. If I remember correctly, there is a department where these old documents are kept. Your problem might be that Fischer is a very common name.--Tresckow 00:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

look here: [[7]] on this page two links are mentioned and more info is given about the subject. Its in German, though. Ballin was one of the main lines. But I guess 18th century might be to early for lists. I think it starts 1850.--Tresckow 22:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gone with the wind

Oh dear. The reply I've written to you is gone! I must have pressed 'show preview' instead of 'save' AGAIN. grrr. I'll post it again, in a day or two, for i'm dreadfully busy in real life. Cheers ---Boyau 22:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

MeinGott, sind alle Pfälzer so doof wie Du? Peinlich, das alles... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.136.165.227 (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Would you please keep away?

I don't like your comments on my private page, you are free to present your opinions in the whole Wikipedia. Xx236 08:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OFAH

Per your comments on Talk:Only Fools and Horses, I've turned OFAH into a disambiguation page. SteveO 16:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gun Registry

Hi, I have deleted your last blurb on the article about the gun registry. I have left my comments on the talk page. Please feel free to respond. I am interested in informing people about firearm politics in Canada too, so please don't take it personally. I just felt the wording needed to be cleaned up. Best regards, Cavell 02:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/d/User_talk%7EJadger_c60f.html"