User talk:Molobo/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay · Talk 15:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] please, sign yourself

Hi Molobo, please, sign yourself when you take part in a discussion. This way you will be regarded more seriously by other editors. To sign yourself, please, click the second right bar above a message window. Welcome! --SylwiaS 16:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

Please vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland. --Ttyre 13:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kilka wskazówek

Molobo, jeszcze kilka wskazówek jak korzystać z Wiki. Poniżej wklejam wskazówki, które sama dostałam od Piotra:

Welcome!

Hello, Molobo/Archive01, 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Oprócz tego, kilka wskazówek w skrócie, bo i tak pewnie nie przeczytasz od razu wszystkich powyższych linków. Do głosowania używa się gwiazdki (*), która pojawia się na ekranie jako niebieski kwadracik. Również słowa delete/keep/rename/remove/merge powinny być wyboldowane. Jeśli odpowiadasz na kometarz innej osoby, Twoja odpowiedź powinna być wcięta w stosunku do tekstu powyżej. Używasz do tego dwukropka (:). Czym więcej dwukropków, tym bardziej wcięty tekst. Żeby zobaczyć, jak wygląda Twój tekst przed zapisaniem, kliknij 'show preview'.

Na prywatnych stronach użytkowników (takich jak ta) można używać polskiego, na wszystkich innych, również Polish Wikipedians' Notice Board obowiązuje angielski. Klinknij link w kwadratowym okienku, żeby dostać się do naszej kanciapy.

Shortcut:
WP:WNBP

Jeśli masz jeszcze jakieś pytania, zapraszam. Bardziej skomplikowane pytania kieruj do Piotra. :) --SylwiaS 16:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Dzięki --Molobo

[edit] Magdenburg rights - please reconsider your last edit

Hello, I would like to point, that the correction you have added "especially new cities founded" recently to Magdeburg rights is not correct historically. Cities never have been founded as they are these days in medieval Europe. Before a city has been established, it always existed as a village. After willage has grown substantially for inter-city trade or a local self goverment was necessary, it was given the mMgenburg city rights and automaticlly received a status of a city. These facts have been preserved in various chronicles, and in many cases these were the first writteen sources the locality was named. So many cities celebrate their foundry date the date they have been mentioned in chronicles. I din't wan't to disregard you, so better fix that yourself . Have a nice day :) DariusMazeika 21:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rommel

I left this message at Cadorna's talk page as well: You two are not helping the article with your frequent POV edits and reverts on the Rommel page. I would suggest that you read WP:NPOV, and please try and play nice. Leithp 11:58, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from your current confrontational editing style, and try to improve your spelling and grammar, this is the English Wikipedia after all. GeneralPatton 19:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Molbo, the quotes are taken out of context. The Poland section also contains some sneaky stuff that is also not properly in context. It just looks like your trying hard to push some kind of a personal agenda. That’s certainly not NPOV. GeneralPatton 00:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dodalem

Dzieki, dodalem - gdyby ktos Cie atakowal rasistowskimi tekstami, ponownie daj znac.--Witkacy 20:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Panie Witkacy, mam tylko jedno pytanie: Czy to, że mówisz o "rasistowskich" tekstach, znaczy że Polacy są jakąś osobną "rasą" w stosunku do innych białych ludzi? Jestem naprawdę ciekaw! --Thorsten1 17:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Być może są ludzie którzy tak uważają i na tej podstawie dyskryminują Polaków(warto zastnowić się nad włączeniem tego do artykułu o antypoloniżmie :), zresztą pojęcie rasizm zawiera wiele form dyskryminacji wobec grup etnicznych które rasami nie są.Radzę poczytać coś na temat, może rozszerzysz swoje horyzonty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism Assuming that character and abilities of an individual substantially depend on racial or ethnic stereotypes is race prejudice, and granting or withholding rights or privileges based on such stereotypes is racially discriminatory prejudice. The term racism sometimes is used to mean a strong and persistent bias or inclination towards these attitudes. --Molobo 18:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Widocznie artykuł Racism jest trochę zagmatwany - ponieważ wg. tej definicji nie byłoby żadnej różnicy między rasizmem a zwykłą ksenofobią. Dziękuję za tą informację. --Thorsten1 18:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC) When in doubt-change the article.W sumie to już trzeci raz chyba gdy na info że się mylisz pędzisz zmienić artykuł aby przyznał ci rację. :) --Molobo 22:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC) No ale tego nie zmienisz : http://www.imadr.org/pub/web/staven1.html "If racism is understood as a set of beliefs and practices whereby certain ethnic groups are discriminated against in a given society because of their real or imagined racial and/or ethnic characteristics, then the new name of racism at the end of the twentieth century is no longer colonialism, apartheid or nazi ideology but rather xenophobia and social exclusion related to international migrations, the emerging of new kinds of ethnic or racial minorities, and the persistent and in fact growing inequalities between the "haves" and the "have nots" in a globalised economy.

To the extent that "race" is a social construct and "racialisation" a social and political process, certain ethnic groups become "racialised" in the global society and the concept "race" is used extensively by dominant groups and public opinion in general to signify difference, incompatibility, hostility, exclusion, discrimination, rejection of specific collectivities on the basis of their real or imagined (constructed) biological and/or cultural characteristics. Consequently, racism can be directed not only at "racial" groups but at "ethnic" groups as well."

)--Molobo 22:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Certainly, you can always try and redefine things until they all mean the same. We social scientists are really good at that... ;) In the 1980s and 1990s, "racism" has been elevated to a key concept to understand any kind of discrimination within the social sciences. However, the fact remains that in common usage the word "racism" is reserved discrimination of people of a different "race", i.e. with distinguishable physical differences from the dominant discriminating party. That is why you will rarely hear the word "racism" in connection with, say, U.S. American resentment against Canadians or the French, German resentment against the Dutch, etc.
I do not believe that you are really using the word "racism" to label what you consider as anti-Polish sentiments because you interpret "race" as a social construct to discriminate against migrant have-nots within a globalised economy. That wouldn't be quite your style. To be perfectly frank, I do not believe you even understand what you are quoting...
I believe the reason is much simpler: "Racism" is simply a much stronger word than xenophobia. People will commiserate much more with anyone who is a victim of the big bad R-word, and not just some banal national stereotyping. The problem is, if I can see through this, most people will, too. Tough luck! --Thorsten1 23:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom

You really leave me with few options but to take your case over to the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. You seem to not understand some of our main principles such as NPOV policy and editorial consensus. GeneralPatton 01:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wiking

Just cool down a bit, i just combined the existing intro with your section on war crimes GeneralPatton 14:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nie daj sie

Zamotac, w zwiazku z dawnymi sprawami generalek nie przepada za krajem Wislan.--Witkacy 20:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Dzieki, nie pierwszy i nie ostatni :)--Witkacy 23:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Right wing propaganda

Molobo,

I do not appreciate being accused of advocating right wing propaganda. The edits in question, for the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend article I shall justify my edits below.
1) Malmedy Massacre. a)The perpertrators of the Malmedy massacre were elements of Kampfgruppe Peiper, the spearhead of the 1.SS-Panzer-Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler. In post war trials held at Dachau, Peiper, along with many other LSSAH personnel and even 6.SS-Panzer-Armee commander Josef Dietrich was broght to trial. 12.SS-Panzer-Division Hitlerjugend was involved in heavy fighting to break through the Elsenborn Ridge and to reach Kampfgruppe Peiper at the time of the Massacre. The Bagunez Crossroads at Malmedy were well out of the operational area of the HJ, and there was a US combat division between them.
b) The malmedy massacre took place in December 1944 during the Battle of the Bulge. In June, when you state the massacre took place, the HJ was based in Normandy, over 200km from Malmedy (in Belgium).
c) HJ had only two panzergrenadier regiments, not three.Have a look at FACTS before you start writing.
2) Meyer's release caused enourmous outrage among the public.

Meyer's release brought neither a positive or a negative reaction. His release had been secured only through the help of a Canadian priest and several of his contemporaries from Normandy, including General Sir George W. E. J. Bobby Erskine, GCB, KBE, DSO, commander of the famous British 7th Armoured Division. See the Warcrimes section of the Kurt Meyer (Panzermeyer) article.

In summation, if you have a problem with the POV in any article i've edited, please don't hesitate to message me. I'll be more than happy to discuss your greivances. Accusing me of spitting Right Wing Propaganda is insulting and unjust, especially considering the more-than-dubious claims you have been advocating. --Ansbachdragoner 00:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"Right Wing Propaganda is insulting and unjust"... I couldn't possibly agree more, especially as Molobo has himself been pushing an extreme right-wing POV on a number of pages about Poland and topics remotely connected with Poland. He is showing a remarkable talent in randomly picking out Google results that appear (to him) to prove his points, without any profound knowledge of the context. This can't go on for much longer. --Thorsten1 00:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slavic differences

I don't have time to prosecute the topic, but, honestly, my belief is that only the Poles could talk seriously about the Mongolian influence on Russian politics. In my experience, the Poles talk about Russians, as anti-Semites talk about Jews. But now to the topic. I don't think that free nomads like Mongols or Huns were particularly inclined to authoritorianism. As the EB 2005 states, the Russian authoritorianism is rooted in the Byzantine Empire, whom the tsars aspired to emulate, and, consequently, in the Roman imperial traditions. Read about Moscow as the Third Rome doctrine for more information. On the other hand, Russia has the most ancient democratic traditions among all Slavic peoples. You may read about them in the articles on Novgorod Republic and Don Cossacks. Without such traditions, the Russian Revolution wouldn't have been possible. --Ghirlandajo

[edit] Warcrimes

Molbo, why are you removing mentions of alleged allied war crimes? Do you believe in victors justice or NPOV? And what about the numerous and well documented Red Army war crimes. While we all know Nazis were despicable, however other sides also didn't play it all by the books. Yet you zealously add info about the one side while taking out the info about the other. Nobody is pro Nazi here, we’re just trying to make a fair and NPOV encyclopedia. GeneralPatton 19:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

It is Molobo not Molbo.I didn't remove any allegations of war crimes committed by Alied side.I asked for sources in relation to statement about confrontation with SS forces in which it was stated that both sides committed widespread war crimes.I might add that I have yet to see a war crime committed by Allied side that can be compared to Nazi side, so far I known only incidents where violations were made by invidual soldiers(sometimes in shock over German Reich behaviour, like in Dachau incident), not policy of deliberate atrocities aimed at extermination of people defined as subhuman. As to Red Army, so far I have not edited any articles dealing with its behaviour in detail, so the accusation is baseless--Molobo 00:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
"I might add that I have yet to see a war crime committed by Allied side that can be compared to Nazi side." Being a Pole, I'm shocked that you never heard of the Katyn massacre. At least, that's what you imply with that statement. I also believe that that the bombings of Dresden or Hiroshima may ring a bell - do they? And just to make my position clear, I suscribe a 100% to what GeneralPatton says: we're just trying to make a NPOV encyclopedia, not supporting the Nazis: I happen to be of Jewish heritage myself. Regarding your requirement for sources on the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend, it's you who must provide them to support your views when you want to introduce changes to the text that Ansbachdragoner has written, not the other way around. FYI, forcing undiscussed changes is not the way to do things properly around here. Ask yourself how you'd feel if someone drops at Anti-polonism and deletes your work with the same claim that you wield against Ansbachdragoner. I'm positive that your reaction would not be to accept it calmly. Shauri 15:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
It's not at all relevant to Rommel (like most of this discussion page), but I'd dispute your assertation that the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war-crimes. Leithp 15:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Well, Leithp, this is Molbo's Talk Page, not the Rommel's article one, so no wonder it is not relevant to that subject. And although I'm tempted to engage with you in a debate that has gone over and over for 60 years now, rendering no results other than metaphisic claims in either sense, I don't have the time nor the energies to perform such a useless task. It is a little ironic tho, that by adhering to that position, you are aligning yourself with Paul Johnson! Just a teasing comment, and I hope you take it as lightly as I intend it to be. Shauri 06:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Neither Dresden nor Hiroshima and Nagasaki were crimes.Katyn was genocide but not comparable to Nazi war crimes since it didn't have a goal of eradicating whole nation as subhumans.Furthermore Soviets were their own side and the crime happened during their alliance with German Reich. As to disproving any allegation its absurd.Should I find proof that Allies weren't Martians when somebody writes that ? It is the accuser who needs to proof what he claims.--Molobo 18:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, see the talk page on Hitlerjugend Division. Again, your constant POV edits, with spurious facts based on spurious sources are becoming irritating. This kind of constant POV pushing belongs on a web forum, not a NPOV encyclopaedia.

Please, if you're going to change something, provide proofs, and no, a Polish high school webpage is not sufficient proof. Claiming that the Panzer regiment of the Hermann Göring was involved in war crimes during the Warsaw Uprising - considering that every source i've come across places the unit in almost constant action against the Soviet 3rd Corps at Modlin during this period - is ridiculous. --Ansbachdragoner 03:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poczytam

Racja, nadal uwazam artykul za stuba :)--Witkacy 01:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To byłeś Ty?

Molobo, ktoś podpisał się na stronie talku antypolonizmu Twoim imieniem, ale wygląda jak anon. To byłeś Ty, tylko zapomniałeś się zalogować, czy ktoś inny? --SylwiaS 19:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Fajnie ze wrociles, kilku przyjaciol za Odry, postanowilo nas odwiedzic i swoim anty-polskim dzialaniem (wandalizm, o komentarzach nie wspomne bo rece opadaja) udowodnic ze antypolonizm w Niemczech nie istnieje ;)--Witkacy 23:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewizjonizm idzie pełną parą

a tak zgadza sie :) kilka cytatow Marka Edelmana: [mowa o centrum wypedzonych] "Jeśli pomysł Centrum wychodzi ze środowisk Związku Wypędzonych, to znaczy, że jest to zakamuflowany powrót do idei Drang nach Osten. W niemieckiej podświadomości stale tli się przekonanie, że Niemcy mają za mało Lebensraum, że tak wielki naród musi mieć wielką przestrzeń do istnienia, że mu się to zwyczajnie należy., "Nacjonalizm jest ciągle nośny. Zwłaszcza w Niemczech: przecież jeszcze niedawno na nacjonalizmie właśnie oparta była polityka tego kraju. To nie mija bez śladu. Dlatego odgrzewanie tam takich nastrojów jest tak niebezpieczne." , " Nie chodzi o pokutę: oni mają obowiązek zapłacić za te winy! Nie jedno, drugie czy trzecie pokolenie - ale tyle pokoleń, aż z niemieckiej mentalności znikną tęsknoty o narodzie panów.", " Niemcy za to stale krzyczą, że ich cywile ginęli podczas bombardowań alianckich. To świadczy o zadufaniu. I bezczelności. Oraz dowodzi, że nic nie zrozumieli z nauki II wojny. Więcej: ta wojna była przez Niemców wyczekiwana. Naród był za Hitlerem. Chcieli zapanować nad całym światem. I może by im się udało, gdyby nie popełnili błędu, prowokując wojnę z Ameryką. Też z zadufania.", "Ja byłem pięć lat pod okupacją. Mówią: byli Niemcy źli i dobrzy. Ale dlaczego nie miałem wtedy szczęścia spotkać tego dobrego?", [Żadnego?] "Żadnego. Nie miałem szczęścia spotkać ani jednego dobrego Niemca. Tylko takich, co bili mnie po mordzie.", [A co by Pan zaproponował Niemcom w takim Centrum?] "Nic! Żeby się nie pchali ze swoim nieszczęściem. Nie należy się im miłosierdzie, należy się im pokuta. I to przez wiele pokoleń, bo inaczej wróci ta ich pycha i buta." wyskubalem najciekawsze :)--Witkacy 03:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Ten wywiad z Edelmanem jest rzeczywiście bardzo dobry. Zwłaszcza, że Edelman to poważny autorytet słuchany nie tylko w Polsce. Rzuć okiem na to, co udało się wypracować w sprawie Pawelki na stronie dyskusji. Wydaje mi się, że to, co zaproponował NightBeAsT oddaje to, o co chodzi z tą kreaturą. Alx-pl D 18:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Moja intencja też jest taka, żeby edukować innych o Polsce i polskich sprawach. Zauważ jednak, że ja staram się to robić szukając argumentów, które są w stanie przekonać drugą stronę i spokojnie na ich temat dyskutując. Mam przy tym nadzieję, że spokojne tłumaczenie zyska więcej sympatii niż pokrzykiwanie i ostre stawianie sprawy na zasadzie wszystko albo nic. Otwierając się na argumenty drugiej strony zyskujemy sympatię, pokazując jej twardymi argumentami, że mamy rację - zyskujemy szacunek. Szacunek zyskujemy też, wycofując się ze sformułowań, które są nie do obronienia. Zauważ, że to, co chcemy uzyskać, to szacunek innych przez respektowanie tutejszych praw, w szczególności NPOV. A NPOV to jest coś takiego, co dyskusji się nie boi, nie walczy przez rewerty, ale przez dialog, źródła, dowody, miłość do prawdy itp. Alx-pl D 20:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

To nie tak. Cokolwiek się uzyska w takim starciu przez dyskusję będzie o wiele bardziej wiarygodne niż w starciu przez rewerty. Trzeba z tymi ludźmi dyskutować, nawet jeśli na końcu oni nie będą przekonani. A w takim wypadku trzeba dyskusję zamknąć w takim punkcie, że jasne jest, że przeciwnik wykazywał złą wolę. Rewertując a nie dyskutując - my pokazujemy złą wolę. Wchodząc w dyskusję - dobrą. Poza tym NPOV jest taką zasadą, w której nieprzekonani to tylko margines. Dlatego warto przekonać na przykład Niemców do artykułu, bo 60 mln ludzi trudno uważać za margnies, a poza tym problem antypolonizmu w dużym stopniu dotyczy ich. Alx-pl D 20:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Przesadzasz. Ale oczywiście artykuł końcowy będzie musiał obejmować też ich POV, bo taka jest natura NPOV. Alx-pl D 20:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Te artykuły mnie nie obchodzą, jeśli chcesz możesz wrzucić. Natomiast zauważ drobną różnicę - nazizm i antysemityzm są pozycjami niecywilizowanymi. Bycie Niemcem jest pozycją cywilizowaną. Oznacza to, że trzeba Niemców traktować w sposób cywilizowany, czyli dyskutować. Aha, oczywiście Pawelka nie jest cywilizowany, żeby nie było wątpliwości. Rzuć jeszcze okiem tutaj. Alx-pl D 21:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No właśnie, jak nie wrodzona cecha, to znaczy, że można próbować edukować. Jeśli jakieś zachowania wydają się antypolskie, to trzeba tłumaczyć. Ale jak zaczniemy tłumaczyć im od tego, że "hej facet jesteś antypolski", to nie będą chcieli dyskutować. Natomiast, jak będziemy rozmawiać w ten sposób, że skoro uważasz tak, to zwuważ jeszcze tamto, to dopiero wtedy otworzy się pole do dyskusji i do udoskanalania tego artykułu. Nawet jeśli oni się w takiej dyskusji nie przekonają, to my pokażemy wszystkie nasze argumenty, a wtedy jak ktoś nowy się przyłączy na miejscu już będzie cały materiał. Alx-pl D 21:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Do poczytania: [1], [2], - skoro Erika Steinbach dystansuje sie od Rugiego Pawelki, to mozna sobie wyobrazic co z niego za osobnik :) (P.S. Gazeta Wyborcza to pismak jak Wprost!) ;) Co do Axla wierze ze jeszcze zauwazy jak tu sprawy sie tocza na wikipedii i jak poznac tych ktorzy chca tylko zaszkodzic :)--Witkacy 14:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Dlugo nie trzeba bylo czekac, ale bylo do przewidzenia :)--Witkacy 11:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Zerknij na Kulturkampf - kolega Nightbeast twierdzi ze niema nic wspolnego z antypolonizmem, zapewne znow bedzie probowal usunac kategorie, a ze ostatnio mam nie za duzo czasu na wiki - zerknij czasem na ten artykul :)--Witkacy 01:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bismarck jako przyjaciel Polski

Dzieki, ciekawe linki (szczegolnie ten drugi). Co do "problemu polskiego" popieram - trzeba to rowniez rozwinac na AP. Co do antyniemieckiej postawy, zgadza sie - podobnie antyniemiecko byli nastawieni Polacy podczas kampanii wrzesniowej, bo zamiast popelnic zbiorowe samobojstwo, narazali Niemcow w ladnych mundurach na utrate zdrowia a nawet zycia ;)--Witkacy 12:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Nightbeast skasowal Twoja wypowiedz [3] - wpierw domaga sie o zrodlo dla kazdego slowa, a pozniej kasuje wypowiedzi.--Witkacy 13:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Problem w tym, że i Wy i on macie rację. To znaczy, jego racja polega na tym, że definicja antypolonizmu jest taka, że nie pasuje do sytuacji, zaś Wasza racja polega na tym, że macie solidne źródła wskazujące na to, że polityka Bismarcka była antypolska. Ten problem można prawdopodobnie rozwiązać przez analizę definicji - zauważ, że inne anty-xxx mają trochę inne definicje, więc tutaj pewnie jest sporo miejsca na kompromis. Oczywiście należy sobie też jakoś poradzić z faktem, że oprócz tego, iż była antypolska była też skierowana przeciwko Kościołowi katolickiemu. Na to argument jest taki, że jak ktoś jest obywatelem USA, to nie przeszkadza w określaniu go jako mówiący po angielsku (choć są przecież tacy, którzy tylko po hiszpańsku). Alx-pl D 05:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You wrote here

Thank you for your answer. In the light of your statement: "You cannot root out within seconds our attitudes that were shaped up by the most respecable members of our community and by the most valuable pieces of our literature throughout the last 200 years of our history" I understand that your goal is different than to show the truth. As I said, we're not soul engineers. I regret that you have a different attitude and make the job of German nationalists easier. I hope it is due to your kindliness (or naivety) and not due to conscious agenda.

Well, my conscious agenda w.r.t. this article is to find a balance between your POV and the POV of Germans and this can be only done on the basis of truth; no doubt about it. I realise that my personal POV is different than yours. In particular, I can agree that there is certain anti-Polish sentiment in Germany these days, but I cannot agree that the German society in general is irrationaly or maliciously hostile against Poland. Of course, this is my current POV and if you bring decent documentation that your POV is closer to the reality I will change my mind. I think the best way to pursue now is to bring sources, bring solutions and bring arguments for these solutions - this eventually will lead to a balanced presentation of the truth. I took an effort to formulate a platform for this (Talk:Anti-Polonism#Rudi Pawelka - summary). If you can win the argument in a clear way then no one - even me and German nationalists - will stop you from inserting your version of the content. We can also make a poll concerning some issues in the article and gather opinions of non-Germans and non-Poles with regard of the text. Note also that I brought up a proposal ([4], [5]) to extend the article with new content and I have a good deal of documentation for this proposal (see for instance here), which I do not present only because I have to focus myself on the other issues, so my action is not one-sided. Alx-pl D 10:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You and me, we're done.

I won't argue with you anymore, Molobo. It's useless. I've had the "pleasure" of knowing what several other Polish editors think about you, and I won't waste my energy in engaging in pointless discussions. At Chris' Talk Page, I didn't say anything but a truth accepted and observed by many, and that's all I'll say. I hate Nazis wholeheartedly, as all people of Jewish heritage do (surprised that I am one?). But it's not just Nazism you hate, it's everything that comes from Germany, and you never reason against that. You should stop for a second, think calmly and perform some self-criticism, and see the harm you're bringing to Wikipedia by enraging both German and Polish moderate editors alike.

If you are truly an honest person, as I think you are, you'll know deep inside that I speak the truth. I was *this* close of filing a RfC on you during the Rommel discussion at the urging of several editors, but I decided to give you a chance: go there and see that I invited you to participate after the article's unprotection. Prove me that I was right to do so.

You don't have to reply to this, and if you don't, you won't hear from me anytime soon. Hopefully, our paths won't cross again in the nearby future. And when they do, I hope you've done some thinking on my words. Trust me - it'll be for your own good. Pozdrowienia, Shauri 23:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't come to my Talk Page anymore

Quod erat demonstrandum. How naif from me to think that you could be reasonable. Amusing to see how you still insist on the SS crimes as if it was the only issue. Regarding that, post all you want, as long as if it's true... not flagrant mistakes (I hope that's what they are, instead of simple lies) like placing the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend as responsible for the Malmedy massacre. Just a simple example of the many errors you comit whenever you press the "Save page" button. Why don't you also mention that "victims" of your edits include Konrad Adenauer, for example? I don't think disagreing with you on your acusations on him has anything to do with nazism... but with your confessed anti Germanism, which is the omnipresent underlying issue here.

Know what? Forget about it. I don't wanna hear about you anymore. Don't post at my Talk Page anymore, please, and I'll be most happy to return you the same favor. I'm just one of many you've acussed of "right wing propagandists" simply because we point you your mistakes and biases. Ansbachdragoner, Thorsten1, Chris 73, GeneralPatton, Alx-pl... I'm in good company. As long as you remain on this radical position, you will eventually end up in trouble here. But, as Saruman The White once said, "it will be none of my doing. I merely foresee". Shauri 13:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

"Goodbye and I hope you will be able to overcome your prejudices." Ditto. Hope I never hear from you again. Shauri 22:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] at the time called ...

Hi. Just a note: Writing (at the time called Gdańsk) sounds to me like the city is no longer called Gdansk nowadays, which I think is incorrect and probably not what you want to say. Also, I think both names were used throughout history. Just a suggestion -- Chris 73 Talk 19:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Germanisation attempts by certain users leave me no other choice. --Molobo 17:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
For your info, there was a vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote, where a large majority voted for double naming (that being the German and the Polish name), since both are used in English (and this is the english wiki). Please do not remove double naming of the places in question against the community consensus. Details can be found at Talk:Gdansk/Vote. -- Chris 73 Talk 16:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The edit in question is [6], where you removed the German name for Sztutowo (Stutthof). Please do not do that again. -- Chris 73 Talk 18:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
the vote was only in regards to Gdansk - actually, no. Please read the vote again, this applies to many cities in Poland, not only Gdansk. Please do not remove the alternative English name, since they are still in use for native English speakers -- Chris 73 Talk 07:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Voting results

To answer your question about whether voting results for Talk:Gdansk/Vote can be binding. Voting is not a way to establish rules on Wikipedia, it can be used for informative purposes only. See Wikipedia:Survey guidelines for further explanations. Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made on consesnus basis, and voting can be a useful tool to show if there is consensus or not on a particular issue. In my opinion the voting results of Gdansk/Danzig survey clearly show that there is no consensus on naming for the period of 1466 to 1793 as well as some other qestions (including "enforcement" and "cross naming"). This said, we should think of some way to prevent constant Gdańsk/Danzig naming edit wars in the future. Any idea ? --Wojsyl (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Polonism in Germany

Note that the way you formulated your proposal in Anti-Polonism#Anti-Polonism in Germany leaves very little room for further discussion. I advise you to restructure it in the same way as the section was structured during the block. I also want you to treat this message as one of the two attempts to resolve the dispute which are mentioned here. Alx-pl D 09:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking about the structure of the section and reasonable ways to conduct the dispute. Alx-pl D 09:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gdansk/Gdańsk/Danzig

You are right about the google counts. GoogleBattle shows that Gdansk wins against Danzig by 4,790,000:2,630,000. If you add 2,170,000 hits for Gdańsk to it, Danzig clearly looses by a factor 2.6:1 --Wojsyl (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC) (UTC)

That means that more than 1/3rd of our potential users refer to it as Danzig. Please do not remove these names (also for other places with similar double names). If you do, you go against the wishes of over 70% of the voters at the Gdansk vote. Also, I am NOT removing the polish name, since I also agree that over thime the polish name will be and should be the only name, but currently this is still changing and these places are known only by the German name by many users of Wikipedia. Please do NOT remove those doublenames! --Chris 73 Talk 08:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expulsion of Germans after World War II

Please try to discuss your change first on Talk page. Although your opinion is undoubtedly the only right one the less enlightened people may need some convincing and Talk page has just for this purpose. Engaging in revert wars is fruitless. Pavel Vozenilek 17:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The article is quite messy but at least not completely bogus. You would not believe how many warriors came here to insert their own opinions and how much of time it takes to clean after them. IMO the only way to add larges changes there would be to create a temporary page with new cleanly structured content and then ask on Talk page for opinions and trying to reach consensus. It is quite a lot of work but in my experience individual changes are frequently reverted.
The article should benefit from rewrite (and merge with other mentioned article) but no one has so far volunteered to do it and gather enough of support to complete it. I am not suprised, it would be weeks of work. Pavel Vozenilek 17:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

By removing the AfD tag you are creating an "orphan" on the main AfD page and ignoring the specific do not remove request. The nom has generated legitimate talk and may generate more. Plz speak ask an admin to properly close the nomination. Marskell 17:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm an admin and I recommend that the nomination be allowed to run its course. Molobo, I have added to the current AfD discussion a link to the old discussion in July, and if you like you can alert people who participated in that discussion if they'd like to make a further contribution to the present discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: Gratuluje dobrej pracy

If you really think my edits are in bad faith then I suggest you to fill User-conduct RfC for me instead of making comments like this. You should not have much trouble in fulfilling the formal requirements for RfC against me if your judgement of my contribution is correct (and I think you believe in it strongly). Alx-pl D 18:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This is something that I do not catch. Either the article is NPOV and it belongs to Wikipedia or there is something to cover up about it. In the first case, there is no fear in making other people know about it by means of presentation in different fora like AfD, or RfC, or, even better, as Featured Article. (Oh yes, maybe the article is not matured enough to nominate it for FA, but still there is no fear in presenting it in different fora.) In the second case,... Well, I prefer not to assume that the second case takes place. If you think my edits are harmful to the article then you should go for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process instead of making personal attacks. Note that if you do not try to use the dispute resolution process here instead of the attacks it will really look like you fall into the second case. I am open for further discussion, of course. Alx-pl D 20:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi again

Sorry for not answering you until now. Last time, you wrote the following at Chris 73's Talk Page: "As to Fallschirm division.I have detailed information about the elements that took part in Warsaw Uprising from historic site : http://wilk.wpk.p.lodz.pl/~whatfor/niemcy%20_w_powstaniu_warszawskim.htm If you want I can translate the information and put it into article.But its rather detailed, including the exact movements of the unit.You have a photo on the site with the soldiers from the Division." That was on September 13.

I simply wanted to say that the tone of your message was a positive one, and that I praise that atittude. This way, we get to understand each other and achieve an agreement. Too long we have argued without really listening to each other. My real position was to have accurate references to every topic, not to delete information, as I showed by respecting your edits at Fallschirm-Panzer Division 1 Hermann Göring. As to your question, yes, I'd love to see your translation of the article that you mention. If you have the time to translate it, rest assured that I'll read it with utmost interest.

I understand that the issue of Nazi Germany is a very sensitive topic for you as a Pole. But from the depths of my heart I assure you that at no time it was my intention to support the infamous deeds of the German army in WWII, but to have the utmost historical accuracy. For our previous arguments, I apollogize, and I hope that if we ever disagree in the future again, we can achieve an agreement in a mature and constructive way. Pozdrowienia, Shauri Yes babe? 13:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What did Argunova say?

I guess you allude to this edit. This states that the main anti-Polish content is:

  • the repetition of the lie about Polish concentration camps organised during the 1920 campaign
  • insignificance of the Polish resistance movement during WW2

This does not exclude that there is other anti-Polish content enumerated in the article, in particluar it does not exclude that I spotted the anti-Polish content in the partitions point. Note that even the source you mentioned makes a clear distinction between these two points in Argunova article and the one about partitions. I guess the intent of the author of the Gazeta Wyborcza note is that the two above are much more clear than the case of partitions. I think it is much better to present facts that are beyond all doubt instead of presentig facts that may lead to a lenghty dispute over their interpretation or their actual content. Alx-pl D 21:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


  • Can you point me out the Russian book once more? I'll try to find out what can be done about it.
  • I'll try to find a link to the Argunova article in strona.ru. In fact, I was going to bring it earlier, but I decided not to as there were no Russian editors around. Now that there are I think it makes sense.
  • I think that the fact that a certain person or text is interpreted by major Polish media or by a respectable Pole is enough to put an information about it into the article of anti-Polonism. Similarly, for books and articles which are clearly hostile against Poland. Other kinds of propaganda are disputable, but I don't exclude possibility that information on such propaganda may find its way to the article. My personal opinion whether a particular piece of propaganda that has not been included into an article is anti-Polish or not is quite a different story.
  • As for my attempts to erase information I remind you that
    • I tried to introduce information about efforts to counter anti-Polish sentiment in Germany.
    • I tried to introduce information that Rudi Pawelka's efforts are recognised as hostile in Poland and thus contribute to anti-Polonism (or at least to its Polish view)
    • I verified the information about "antypolonizm" in major dictionaries and encyclopedias.
    • I introduced information about anti-Polish events in Moscow this summer.
    • I introduced information about the fact that there are no commonly known cases of anti-Polish attacks from ordinary Belarussians.
    • I erased the irrationality and malice from the definition of anti-Polonism as there are notable cases of anti-Polonism that are at the same time neither irrational nor malicious. Keeping these adjectives would soon result in an edit war for keeping or throwing away these cases.
    • I accepted the solution that Pawelka's speech is omited at the cost of information that his attempts to regain German properties from before WWII are considered hostile in Poland; as the latter is much more important information than the former, in my opinion and I've got good reasons to think so. Moreover, the latter information can be much more easilily documented by various sources both German and Polish which contributes to greater robustness of the article.
    • I brought many primary and secondary sources to document and verify the Pawelka's case.

As you can see I mostly contributed to the article additional information. In the few cases I removed something the aim was to strenghten the robustness of the article. Of course, this is my own opinion and you have good right not to share it. Alx-pl D 18:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with 141.89.66.2

The behaviour you are talking about is an example of vandalism, in my opinion. This kind of conduct should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (but note that a few tests should go to the talk page of the IP, first). However, the users from this IP are a part of the dispute on Anti-Polonism so maybe Wikipedia:Resolving disputes should also be considered. I guess we are now at the level of user conduct RfC with regard of the next step to take. You may also consider voicing your problems at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. I will also try to spot such malicious edits on Anti-Polonism and its talk page (and other pages that I happen to have on my watchlist). I keep removing personal attacks, but I prefer to be sure that a particular edit is a personal attack and its removal is accepted by the attacked person (some people prefer to leave attacks on talk pages). Now I understand that you don't like edits like these to be retained on talk pages so I'll keep removing them. In fact, I'm getting a little bit upset with the edits from the IP too. Alx-pl D 22:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Europeans

You questioned once that the notion of an European exists in the cultural and societal sense. Here is a poll that researches that question. Alx-pl D 22:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, you were asking about a poll not about a truth. Note however that in the social sciences polls are the only way to establish facts. And of course these are sociological facts or statistical facts which means you can always find examples for just the opposite statement. I'm not going to dig into the details of the poll and what questions it researches and what not. It is only answer for one of your past requests. EOT. Alx-pl D 23:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Double Naming/Abuse of Admin rights by Chris 73

As per Talk:Gdansk/Vote, there was a large majority for double naming. Please do NOT remove double naming against community consensus. Consider this your last warning. -- Chris 73 Talk 12:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 24 hours for disrupting Wikipedia, as you are repeatedly going against community consensus. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You violated the rule that Admin that is in dispute with somebody can't block the person. "users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict".

Furthermore I violated none community concesus as I can see it.Please point me to one.If you are claiming Double Naming vote(which in itself is dubious) then you can have nothing against me since it regards only Polish-German names.Not terminology used by Catholic Church as it is the case with Archidioecesis Varmiensis. And again you are not neutral to Polish people and culture as one can see it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.7.179.169&diff=9421756&oldid=9421733 --------------- I think it is not quite as bad as you think it is. Many articles in Wikipedia are of excellent quality, and many others are pretty good. There is of course lots of vandalism, but most of it is handled well (warn user, then block from editing). Problem is that the community here has not yet decided how to handle this national pushing. Personally, i think this is also a form of vandalism and trolling. So, please don't despair but keep on editing. But, as Albert Einstein once said (loosely translated): The ruling by the dumb people cannot be overcome, because there are so many of them, and their vote counts as much as ours. In the meantime, please enjoy this particular aspect of the polish culture. Thank you, and happy editing. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:58, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

So you : Are not neutral to Polish topics. Are engaged in conflicts with users you block. Express bias in regards to Polish editors and Polish culture. --Molobo 13:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse of Admin Rights by Chris 73

Hi. I have warned you repeatedly before not to go against community consensus. Yet you still remove the double naming [7]. hence I have blocked you again for disrupting Wikipedia. -- Chris 73 Talk 18:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Chris you have abused your admin rights once again.Please refrain of your persistant violation of Wikipedia rules and refrain from further abuse of Gdansk vote.Your continued violation of Wiki rules will be noted and reported. --Molobo 23:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you're out! Yes we do need to do something! What's going on with Witkacy? Tirid Tirid 00:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Sorry but...

Good faith edits are not vandalism. Further, you do not own this page so save your breath. I specifically went to talk with a suggestion: add a source and put it after the first mention of scholarly works. My last edit was a compromise not vandalism, thank-you. Marskell 11:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about deleted "scientific" references? I deleted no references; I suggested you add one. And get off the POV horse—your work on this page is a case study in POV pushing. I'm not pushing my personal beliefs. I'm trying to qualify an unsourced comment in the intro. Marskell 11:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I glossed the word "scientific" which is specifically the word you used on my talk. Please cease leaving me messages and stick to the article talk pages; useless circles are never fun. Marskell 12:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Margaret Turnbull

If you're curious, I added this to undeletion: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Margaret_Turnbull. If you feel as I do that it deserves an article, you can vote there. Marskell 16:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of names to German city articles...

Molobo, please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, and please don't encourage other editors to, either. Although there is certainly good reason to mention the Polish name for some cities in (past or present day) Germany, I would ask that you refrain from making wholesale changes.

I would be inclined to interpret the Gdanzkig result regarding 'shared history' to refer to cities that were once part of both Poland and Germany or Prussia. I trust that you will use your common sense.

In the case of Braunschweig, for example, you indicate in your edit that the Polish name should be added because "Changed name according to Gdansk vote.20.000 people of Polish descent live in the city and their is Polish Society in the town-"shares history"". There are more Polish individuals in (for example) Toronto, or New York City; we do not list the Polish names in the bodies of those articles. The best place to indicate Polish significance and the Polish-language name of these cities is through the interlanguage link in the article.

In the case of Bischofswerda, the only apparent link to Poland is that Polish troops passed through in WWII.

I don't intend to dig through all your contributions on this (unless I have to). I ask you to avoid picking a fight over this. Use your common sense, and use discussion pages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

from User talk:TenOfAllTrades
I have been warned several times and even banned by posters enforcing the Gdansk vote.As you can see using the vote on German cities that share history with Poland is possible and can be easly argued for by using "shares history". In the past some similar usage of the vote was used towards Warmia, Sopot or Gdynia.As you can see the vote is flawed and didn't solve the problem since it is contested by people from both sides. I do think that the question regarding "shared history" should be voted upon as well as the period of 1466 because they is a lot of potential of both abuse and 1466 vote has been disputed by several people.
One more thing:"to refer to cities that were once part of both Poland and Germany or Prussia. I trust that you will use your common sense."
That would be highly nationalistic and advantage to poeple expressing German nationalism since ALL cities in Poland belonged to Germany.As you can easly imagine using this argument to give them German names would be highly offensive and in all likelyhood contested. I could agree with that if nk cities taken by aggression in such events as World War 2 or Partitions of Poland should be excluded from this. --Molobo 19:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Look, this isn't about giving an 'advantage' to one side or another. I'm Canadian; I don't really have a personal interest in the specific nomenclature of cities in Poland, in Germany, or in Madagascar.
I am an admin interested in keeping Wikipedia running smoothly. Edit wars and forest fires disrupt that smooth functioning, and usually don't lead to productive or peaceful resolutions. Usually, they end up in page protections, temporary blocks, and cases before the Arbitration Committee.
I'm trying to avoid the unnecessary grief and misery of all that by asking you now not to make edits that are deliberately inflammatory. Frankly, I agree that there are still issues that need to be cleared up with regard to city naming. I don't think those issues will be resolved by picking fights and encouraging other editors to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Also very frankly, I think the nationalistic pissing contests engaged in by some editors–Polish and German–are a profoundly pathetic waste of time, and I wish that they would find something useful to do on the wiki. Go back to the drawing board; sketch out what you think a useful policy would be on naming conventions, open it up for discussion, and don't start a vote on it until everyone has had their say. Don't rush the process. In the meantime, don't deliberately provoke conflict on the naming issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Molobo,

I noticed that you added a number of Polish names to the intros of articles on German cities, because of the Gdansk Vote. I'm disputing these insertions; please note that according to the vote, you're now supposed to provide an "English language reference that primarily uses this name".

If you want, please start at Talk:Braunschweig, where such a request from me to Halibutt is still open. Eugene van der Pijll 21:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the Krolewiec reference. You may want to add this link to the Talk:Kaliningrad page, for later reference. Eugene van der Pijll 21:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Królewiec

Sure thing! Just give me the names of articles and I'll do my thing. Space Cadet 21:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you kindly check your e-mail, right now, please. Thanks. Space Cadet 22:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A request

I urge you not to induce other editors to invoke the controversial Gdansk Vote until the community discuss the vote again. Please cease requests such as these: [8], [9], [10]. Many editors have expressed their disapproval of the vote in recent days. I know that you are unhappy with the Gdansk Vote, but for you to suddenly use it to justify edits which would be controversial "at the current moment" does not seem like a good idea. Please wait until this issue is resolved through a community discussion. Olessi 23:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Please feel free to "induce" me as much as You want! Great suggestion! Space Cadet 01:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] aachen

Please, refrain from adding the Polish name to the list of historical names of Aachen. I acknowledge your comment that it might be used by a large number of people in central Europe (probably all Polish?) and that there is a large Polish community in this city, but aren't there large Polish communities in each and every major city in Europe (let alone the rest of the world). And does the rest of the world care about the name of Aachen in, say Czech, Russian, Hungarian, Italian, Spanish, Greek or English? I guess all of these nations have large communities in Aachen. Plus, Polish does not appear in any of the official documents of the community, while all the other languages mentioned do. So, like all the other languages, I would add Polish to the list down in the language section. And I would suggest you write a Polish article on the city. Hope you agree.

[edit] 3RR Rule

"At the Warmia article. --Molobo 10:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)" Let's see...

  • Edit 1: No reversion there. I retained your information, but copyedited it, fixed your grammar, and tried to make the text neutral and encyclopedic. The only info I did not keep was the treaty-breaking. If you compare my edit to what was there before you made the additions as such [11], you can see that I did NOT revert at all.
  • Edit 2: Again, no reversion. I was trying to make the text more NPOV. If you compare my first edit to my second one as such [12], you can again see that I did NOT revert. You'll notice that I retained the information about the duplicitous actions of the knights, as well as their policy toward the Prussian natives. I did keep the information about the knights breaking treaties, I just made it NPOV.
  • Edit 3. I removed your poorly placed quote, I removed your duplicate mention of German colonists, and I readded the link to Pope Gregory IX that you had deleted. I again retained the relevant information, but tried to rephrase it into a more NPOV format. Compare this edit to edit 2 as such [13]: not a revert. I again tried to make rephrase the treaty section in hopes of a compromise.

I would hope that you would be able to recognize that I have been retaining the information you have added, such as the bloody past of the knights, just writing it in a more encyclopedic fashion. Every edit that I have made to that article in the last few days has been copyediting or trying to come to a compromise. On the other hand, I don't understand why you felt the need to add that poorly placed quote. Olessi 18:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gdansk/Danzig

Czołem (I hope you speak Polish, don't you). Co do nieszczęsnego głosowania na talk:Gdańsk, to muszę przyznać, że nawet mi nie przeszkadza. Miałem na wiki doświadczenia z całą masą nowych nazioli czy po prostu kretynów pokroju Nico czy Chrisa i muszę przyznać, że rozwiązanie problemu nazw jest konieczne. Nawet pomysł na podwójne nazewnictwo mnie nie przeraża i w sumie ma sens. Dzięki temu można uniknąć całej masy anachronizmów (jak choćby "Jan Kazimierz ślubował w L'vivie" czy "Niemcy przegrali bitwę pod Wołgogradem").

Natomiast dla mnie największym problemem jest brak rozsądku w stosowaniu raz ustalonych zasad. Po pierwsze, wyniki głosowania są ok o ile odnoszą się wyłącznie do polskich miast, natomiast od niemieckich - wara. To klasyczny przykład podwójnych zasad. Druga sprawa to to, że przy takim podejściu adminów Chris może sobie spokojnie używać wyników głosowania do uzasadnienia najbardziej nawet bzdurnych pomysłów (pewnie nie pamiętasz, ale była kiedyś dyskusja na temat "czy Wisła po angielsku nazywa się Vistula czy Weichsel"), podczas gdy takie samo prawo nie działa w drugą stronę. To mnie niepokoi i to jest chyba jedyna rzecz, jaka mi się w wyniku głosowania (a raczej w jego zastosowaniu) nie podoba. Z całą resztą konsekwencji, w tym także z nazywaniem Gdańska Danzig jestem w stanie żyć. Halibutt 20:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Oczywiście masz rację, choć jest to tylko jedna strona medalu. Drugą jest to, że można spokojnie pisać o Wilnie, a nie o Vilniusie - choć z tym różnie bywa. Halibutt 23:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

As you can probably spot on my wikipedia page, my German is not fluent. Translating from German takes me ages and is not my favourite task, but I can try to translate the fragment you proposed. Alx-pl D 12:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Niemczenie Kopernika

Czesc Molobo, milo ciebie widziec na wikipedii. Co do narodowosci Kopernika, to problem z tym jest dosc prosty: w zasadzie latwo jest znalezc duzo argumentow za tym, ze byl etnicznym Niemcem. Na pewno np. umial po niemiecku, a po Polsku tylko byc moze. Manuskrypt jego nosi podpis "niemiecki astronom zyjacy w Prusach" tylko pytanie, czy to on to podpisal itd. Brak zdecydowanego argumentu (poza wlasnymi przekonaniami i przekonaniami innych ludzi) jak sam Kopernik to widzial. Moim zdaniem spokojnie mozna go nazywac "polsko-niemieckim" astronomem, kims, kto przede wszystkim czul sie Prusakiem, potem poddanym krola polskiego i byc moze rowniez Niemcem (nalezy pamietac, ze w polowie XV wieku mieszkancy Warszawy obrzucali polskich poslow z wrzaskami "won Polacy", co wprawialo poslow w nieslychanie zdumienie (zrodlo: Jasienica). Swiadomosc narodowa owczesna byla nieslychanie skomplikowana i nie da sie latwo przelozyc na dzisiejsze kryteria. Szopen 14:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

No wlasnie o tym pisze. To, co pisze dzisiaj space.com nie ma zadnego znaczenia, bo nikt NIGDY nie bedzie wiedzial, co o tym myslal sam Kopernik skoro sam sie ingdy nie okreslil. A sprawa nie jest tutaj taka jasna. Mozna dawac argumenty za niemieckoscia i polskoscia Kopernika i je zbijac, i nie da sie IMHO takimi argumentami na 100% ustalic PRAWDY przez duze "P". Zawsze pozostaje tylko wybor, ktore argumenty nas przekonuja, a ktore nie. A tak swoja droga argumenty strony przeciwnej warto znac, zeby moc potem z nimi dyskutowac :). Szopen 19:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Germanisation

No matter how many times I read it, I still cannot figure out what you actually mean by that. It needs to be put in concrete terms.NightBeAsT 16:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC) Are you distinguishing between imposed Germanisation ('by force') and Germanisation from one's own free will ('cultural assimilation')? To me, "By force" is rather abstract. I'd rather you put it more clearly.NightBeAsT 16:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Vandalism"

Hello, could you please stop constantly denouncing my edits as 'vandalism' in your edit summaries?

Remember what TenOfAllTrades said: "Further, characterizing the edits as 'vandalism' is factually incorrect and might itself constitute a personal attack."

Thank you. NightBeAsT 16:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of information confirmed by scholary sources in order to push your own POV is simple vandalism. --Molobo 17:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

According to your definition, for example deleting on Dubya's page that "Hitler started WW2" under the sentence "In 2003 Bush started the Iraq war" would be vandalism as well. I fail to find that definition on Wikipedia:Vandalism. I thought maybe you could show it to me, or at least read the page. Thank you in advance. NightBeAsT 17:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Wrong comparison.The segments you delete are relavant to Kulturkampf, speak of the Kulturkampf reasons and consequences.Its really surprising, your insistance that Kulturkampf had nothing to do with persecution of Poles.--Molobo 18:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, you're beginning to understand that information not only has to be correct but it also has to be relevant. Again there's no such definition on vandalism, and whether what I delete is relevant or not is a different question, but at least you understood there's something wrong with your definition of vandalism. So you're saying Bismarck's speech was relevant? Well, let me summarize: 0 sources that wrote on the Kulturkampf included it, which makes it a case of original research. I do not want to continue the topic both here on your talk page and on the talk page of Kulturkampf, just ask for a stop of the "vandalism"denouncements in neutrality disputes. That's it, bye. NightBeAsT 18:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"Well, let me summarize: 0 sources that wrote on the Kulturkampf included it, which makes it a case of original research." Wrong.Its mentioned by Humanities & Social Sciences Online "An international consortium of scholars and teachers, H-Net creates and coordinates Internet networks with the common objective of advancing teaching and research in the arts, humanities, and social sciences. H-Net is committed to pioneering the use of new communication technology to facilitate the free exchange of academic ideas and scholarly resources.

Among H-Net's most important activities is its sponsorship of over 100 free electronic, interactive newsletters ("lists") edited by scholars in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, and the Pacific.

Subscribers and editors communicate through electronic mail messages sent to the group. These messages can be saved, discarded, downloaded to a local computer, copied, printed out, or relayed to someone else. Otherwise, the lists are all public, and can be quoted and cited with proper attribution. The lists are connected to their own sites on the World Wide Web, that store discussion threads, important documents, and links to related sites on the web.

H-Net lists reach over 100,000 subscribers in more than 90 countries. Subscriptions are screened by the list's editors to promote a diverse readership dedicated to friendly, productive, scholarly communications. Each list publishes between 15 and 60 messages a week. Subscription applications are solicited from scholars, teachers, professors, researchers, graduate students, journalists, librarians and archivists.

Each network has its own "personality," is edited by a team of scholars, and has a board of editors; most are cosponsored by a professional society. The editors control the flow of messages, commission reviews, and reject flames and items unsuitable for a scholarly discussion group.

The goals of H-Net lists are to enable scholars to easily communicate current research and teaching interests; to discuss new approaches, methods and tools of analysis; to share information on electronic databases; and to test new ideas and share comments on the literature in their fields. " And of course your allegation of original research is flawed since I am not the one writing all those articles, books about Kulturkampf's antipolish aspect. And Original Research is : "Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate). The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". Primary and secondary sources

  • Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations.
  • Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data.

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Since they are several authors who have written on aspect of antipolish measures under Kulturkampf, that is not original research.And giving a source such as Bismarck speech isn't original research either.


"just ask for a stop of the "vandalism"denouncements in neutrality disputes." Stop erasing information from scholary sources in order to push your POV and everything will be fine. --Molobo 23:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I asked you to stop denouncing my edits as vandalism but this is just that denouncement again. Also please don't call major edits minor edits. Remember to mark your edits as minor when, but only when, they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one, or vice versa, is condsidered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thank you for your attention. NightBeAsT 00:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but erasing information already confirmed by two scholary works without looking into talk page and giving wrong information("one work") is simple vandalism.I usually mark rv of vandalism as minor.--Molobo 00:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

No sorry, it isn't. I couldn't read the two sources because they're in Polish but to say that something is "often" associated, well, I want proof prior to blindly believing it. Also, I don't think it's got anything to do in the introductory paragraph. If the two of us value the relevance of it differently, it's not vandalism, see? No matter what you think, I'm now kindly asking you to stop that denouncement because I find it insulting and my edit appropriate. Besides, you didn't mark "vandalism" as minor, you smuggled the claim into the article as minor even before I deleted it. NightBeAsT 00:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC) I couldn't read the two sources because they're in Polish

Oh really ??? Thats strange.One of them is in English.Next time try reading the talk page before erasing information you don't like from the articles....

--Molobo 01:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What drives you?

Molobo, I am having serious concerns about your mission on Wikipedia. There are many good websites where you can present your POVs. If you need help, I can find some for you.--Wiglaf 09:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Just as others I am interested in expanding information on Wiki.For example many articles on Wiki about German divisions or Waffen SS are very one sided and tend to ignore war crimes comitted by those units.--Molobo 11:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
You seem to do so quite aggressively. War crimes always happen in war. Atrocities are an unfortunate but virtually inevitable result of war and tribalism, and it is true that the Germans were no models of civilisation on the eastern front. However, I sincerely hope that you can interact with other users in a more civil and more compromising manner. As an admin, it is my duty to be vigilant for NPOV, civility and no personal attacks, and to act, if I deem that one of them has been breeched.--Wiglaf 12:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I know from where your page was vandalized, and I understand if you are angry. Next time, your talkpage is vandalized again by that IP address just report it to me, instead of doing anything rash, OK?--Wiglaf 12:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

While it's thankfully been toned down, for the longest time the page was a pic farm of repititive world war II images.

  • German soldiers executing...
  • Mass graves of murdered Polish...
  • Four Polish children bound to a tree...
  • German police action against poles...

If you want to endlessly rehash WWII atrocities, go do it on one of the world war II pages. Marskell 17:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, is there any policy that excludes history of WW2 from topics that can be made into articles ojn Wiki ? --Molobo 17:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Your interpretation of my words is fascinating Molobo. Plz do not leave messages on my talk page. Marskell 17:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kulturkampf

Don't worry. I'm going to answer your concerns, though you cannot always expect an immediate answer because you're replying minutes after and I just can't spend the whole day on Wikipedia. Trust me, talk pages are not about he who has the last word wins but what argument is most convincing. Just because you always reply no matter what doesn't make the conversation more enlightened, it only floods the pages (c.Talk:Anti-Polonism). NightBeAsT 17:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC) Molobo, as a student of journalism you should know that this one-sided filtering of information and their subsequent overemphasis only makes articles horribly biased. You're cherrypicking articles whose most extreme statements are cherrypicked again. Instead, articles should reflect the impression that reliable, unbiasedly chosen sources on the relevant subject give. NightBeAsT 20:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC) the impression that reliable, unbiasedly chosen sources on the relevant subject give.

I am sorry but it seems your definition of sources that are unbiased are those who you aprove.As to cherrypicking-provided several scholary works by reputable authors, German, English, Polish....Again-the problem is you don't like what they are writing. --Molobo 20:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Czesc Molobo. Przgerzebalem sie przez moje polskie ksiazki na temat polityki pruskiej w wlk ksiestwie poznanskim. Problem w tym, ze tylko JEDNA, JEDEN RAZ wspomina kulturkampf, wiec ciezko mi bedzie napisac jakis konkretny argument. Mam zamiar wysmazyc cos do wtorku - przede wszystkim, wspomniec o Bambrach (ktorzy jako katolicy sie spolonizowali, co spowodowalo powstaine sloganu germaniesierung is protestanticostam) oraz o tym, ze w kontekscie calych Niemiec mniejszosc polska istotnie nie byla zbyt wazna, ale w kontekscie Prus urastala do rangi jednego z najwazniejszych panstwowych problemow - a czy Bismarck byl Prusakiem?

IMHO mozna by ten artykul nieco poszerzyc, ale z drugiej strony on ni ejest MBSZ _ZLY_, a jedynie malo sczegolowy i troche zabardzo z punktu widzenia zachodu. Szopen 09:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, mysle, ze kruszysz kopie o drobbiazgi i mylisz kulturkampf z germanizacja. Germanizacja to nie to samo co kulturkampf. Kulturkjampf byl przeciwko wszystkim katolikom, a ze akurat w Wielkopolsce katolicy to byli Polacy, wiec wspolgral z germanizacja. Jednakze wiele z przykladow, ktore podajesz na stronie to nie przyklad kulturkampfu tylko germanizacji. Zmiana nazw miast to przyklad GERMANIZACJI, ale z Kulturkampfem nie ma duzo wspolnego, chyba ze rozumies to pojecie inaczej niz ja:

http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/39338_1.html PWN: KULTURKAMPF [niem.], walka ideologiczna i polit. prowadzona 1871–78 przez rząd O. von Bismarcka i popierającą go burżuazję liberalną przeciw opozycji katol. w Niemczech (Centrum); celem Kulturkampfu było zahamowanie wpływów papieskich i zachowanie „czystości” kultury niem.; jednocześnie Kulturkampf przybrał formę walki o podporządkowanie państwu Kościoła katol. (majowe ustawy 1873–75); po wydaleniu 1871 jezuitów z Niemiec papież zerwał 1873 stosunki dyplomatyczne z Niemcami; silny opór całego obozu katol., a zwł. wzrost ruchu socjaldemokr. w Niemczech i podjęcie z nim walki, zmusiły Bismarcka do szukania dróg porozumienia z katolikami; nawiązano stosunki dyplomatyczne ze Stolicą Apostolską, złagodzono ustawy majowe; utrzymano jednak m.in. świeckość szkół w Prusach i wpływ państwa na obsadę stanowisk kościelnych. Kulturkampf na ziemiach polskich pod panowaniem prus. wyraził się w powiązaniu polityki antykośc. z zaostrzeniem polityki germanizacyjnej (gł. po 1878); w konsekwencji spowodował opór i zjednoczenie całej ludności pol. w pokojowej walce z niemczyzną.

http://www.szkoly.edu.pl/zs.dlon.miejska-gorka/tbartyze/kulturka.htm Jeden tylko akapit w dlulgasnym artykule: "Kulturkampf objął również ziemie polskie wchodzące w skład Królestwa Pruskiego. Kulturkampf dał Bismarckowi sposobność do wymierzania Polakom szeregu ciosów w dziedzinie ich praw narodowych i obywatelskich. W latach 1872-1874 nastąpiło zniemczenie szkół średnich. W 1887r. język polski został ostatecznie usunięty jako przedmiot w szkołach elementarnych. Wobec „nieugiętych” duchownych stosowano kary pieniężne, kasowano zakony, dokonywano konfiskat dóbr kościelnych. Nie cofano się w niektórych wypadkach przed wtrącaniem do więzień księży, a nawet biskupów (Janiszewski, Cybichowski)[13] . Próbowano nasyłania duchownych narodowości niemieckiej, niemczenia seminariów, ograniczania swobody wypowiedzi w kazaniach. Represje dotykały również ludzi w pełni lojalnych wobec władz pruskich, lecz broniących Kościoła. Arcybiskup poznański Mieczysław Ledóchowski został w 1874r. skazany na 2 lata więzienia. Odsiedział je w Ostrowie. Wywlekano przeciw niemu takie fakty jak umieszczenie go w wydanym w 1873r. kalendarzu toruńskim wśród panujących Europy jako prymasa-interreksa, pośredniczenie między biskupami zaboru rosyjskiego, a Stolicą Apostolską ...[14] .Władze pruskie zwalczały zgodnie z dyrektywami Bismarcka przede wszystkim polskie ziemiaństwo, duchowieństwo i inteligencję, pragnęły natomiast pozyskać chłopów."


Nie wrzucaj wszystkich przykladow germanizacji i postaw anty-polskich do jednego worka z kulturkampfem, bo nikt z angoli nie wezmie cie na powaznie. Uznaja cie za pieniacza nie majacego pojecia o sprawie i w koncu przestana z Toba dyskutowac. KUlturkampf i germanizacja byly w tym samym czasie, wspolgraly, czesto te same akcje mozna podciagnac pod jedno i drugie, ale nie przesadzajmy, dzieki kulturkampfowi prusacy mogli zwiekszyc akcje germanizacyjne, ale nie wszystkie akcje germanizacyjne byly czecia kultukampfu. Unikaj rowniez sformulowan "ktorych szczegolnie nienawidzial", bo to encyklopedia ktorej polityka to POV, czyli unikanie stwierdzen wartosciujacyh i kazdemu bywalcowi widzac to od razu zapali sie czerwona lampka. Co wiecej, jako Polakowi glupio mi troche dyskutowac przeciwko tobie, ale potem kiedy ja o czyms z angolami dyskutuje, to automatycznie oni zakladaja, ze dyskutuje sie ze mna jak z toba i szufladkuja mnie odpowiednio... Wersje poprzednio IMHO byla zupelnie wystarczajaca.

zabcz zreszta np polska wikipedie na ten temat:

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulturkampf

http://www.polska.pl/aktualnosci/kalendarz/kalendarium/article.htm?id=35350 „Kulturkampf” to po niemiecku „walka o kulturę”. Terminem tym określa się prześladowania kościoła katolickiego, jakie miały miejsce w latach 70 i 80 XIX w. w rządzonych przez „żelaznego kanclerza” Otto von Bismarcka Niemczech. Choć „kulturkampf” nie był w – przynajmniej w założeniach – w jakiś szczególny sposób wymierzony przeciwko żyjącym na terenie Rzeszy Niemieckiej Polakom, to – wobec oczywistego faktu, że znakomita większość Polaków wyznawała katolicyzm – im właśnie owa „walka o kulturę” szczególnie mocno dała się we znaki.

[edit] Jedwabne

Strzembosz has been pretty well rebutted, however. From Michlic's piece on the reaction to Jedwabe:

"Gross replied to Strzembosz’s two articles in early April, Jacek Kurczewski and two historians of the Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw, Zofia Borzymińska and Rafal Żebrowski, joined Gross in a critical evaluation of Strzembosz’s arguments. They called the manipulation of the concept of “Judeo-communism” in connection with the Jedwabne massacre both historically false and unethical. They also pointed out that Strzembosz implied the existence of two truths about the Jedwabne massacre: a “Jewish truth” and a “Polish truth.” In an introduction to the first collection of articles dedicated to Jedwabne published by Więż, Israel Gutman, the eminent Israeli historian of Polish Jewry, also criticized Strzembosz’s position: “Although he does not say so clearly, these words suggest a certain tit-for-tat approach to Jedwabne—you hurt us, so now we’ll hurt you!”"
AND
"In this small debate, Strzembosz’s use of the concept of “Judeo-communism” as a way of rationalizing and justifying the crime became a narrative frequently recycled by various representatives of the strong self-defensive position. The most elaborate and aggressive version was circulated in the extreme nationalist press, in which the Soviet occupation of Polish territory was frequently called the “Soviet-Jewish occupation.” Moreover, discussion of the Jedwabne massacre lacked even the notion of tit-for-tat—“Jews hurting Poles and Poles hurting Jews.” Instead, from the beginning, the focus was on how Jews hurt Poles during the war, and still want to hurt them even today. A good example is the article by Jerzy Robert Nowak in the March 24, 2001 edition of Tygodnik Głos. The title itself indicated the author’s endorsement of the “reversed version of the history of the Jedwabne massacre”—“Jak żydowscy sąsiedzi tępili katolików” (How Jewish neighbors eradicated Catholics)."

In other words, if we are going to get into these acusations, we should probably include the rest of the back-and-forth, as Strzembosz and the others work is much less history than an attempt to justify the massacre. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone denies that some Polish Jews welcomed the Soviets over the Nazis, but many authors have attacked him over his arguments about the extent of the collaboration and any ties to Jedwabne: "Strzembosz not only applied different categories of judgment toward both communities, but he also oversimplified or even distorted the history of the German occupation of Poland in relation to the history of the Soviet occupation of Eastern Poland, in order to neutralize the criminal nature of the Jedwabne massacre. Strzembosz’s main argument was that prior to the German occupation of the eastern territories in June 1941, Polish Jews willingly served as the chief agents of Soviet anti-Polish politics. He categorized them as “traitors of the Polish state” and “collaborators with the mortal enemy of Poles,” and Zofia Borzymińska and Rafal Żebrowski called his piece "historically false and unethical." Those are pretty direct condemnations. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] German units

Unfortunately, I don't know of any master list of German units participating in the Holocaust, there is a list of Eisatzgruppen units and lots of other material. And a summary of the reports of massacres and other materials here. "The Murder of the Jews in World War II: Decision Making and Implementation" by Eberhard Jackel and Jurgen Rohwer is supposed to have some of the material, and so does Goldhagen. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)--Goodoldpolonius2 00:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I took a look at the SS article, it was definitely a lot sunnier than I would have expected. I have made some edits to include more information. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] German 4th Panzer Division Edits

Molobo,

could you please add sources for your allegations of war crimes comitted by the German 4th Panzer Division in 1939. Also, perhaps you could flesh out the article itself a bit more. As it stands, over two thirds of the article on a division which saw almost constant combat on several fronts for four years, is taken up by an unsourced war crimes accusation which occured between 3rd and 18 September 1939. Perhaps watch the NPOV on this. Always provide sources for such claims. --Ansbachdragoner 03:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your sources

Dear Molobo, some of your latest contributions have forced me to approach you in order to call your attention to the quality of the sources you're quoting. Since several of your contributions are made to highly sensitive issues that require unimpeachable sources in order to endorse the truth behind your edits, there is an imperative requisite that you review your policy of using websites of unknown, dubious and unofficial origin. A research through most of your contributions show that you invariably claim that they are sourced on websites like these: [14] [15] [16] [17]. None of these websites, which I've selected among many others you've quoted in order to illustrate the point, comply with the official Wikipedia policy of Verifiability. Quoting the proper paragraph from our accepted policy regarding said sources:

"Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources, except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website. Remember that it is easy for anybody to create a website and to claim to be an expert in a certain field, or to start an "expert group", "human rights group", church, or other type of association. Several million people have created their own blogs in the last few years. They are not regarded as acceptable sources for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information."

Even when using websites made by organizations of any sort, this practice of yours is often not in accordance to the rules of Using online sources on Wikipedia, as the origin and neutrality of many of them is questionable. This being said, I don't care in the least for the nature of the information itself that you post, as long as it complies with these strict, unavoidable guidelines. If you continue to make disputed assertions based only on low quality websites (note that I leave aside those of official and widely reputed origin), I'm afraid said contributions will have to be removed on the basis of unverifiability and lack of NPOV. Regards, Shauri smile! 21:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Shauri speaks for me too. You risk seeing your contributions removed if you don't cite reliable sources.--Wiglaf 07:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I used information from two polish books which can be also found on the internet.I don't understand the accusation as neither of the two books are personal blogs.As to the site it is a well respected research site.However as I said before the information is from polish history books. --Molobo 16:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, the great variation in quality and reliability among the sources you quote, does not instill trust in any of us. I will ask you to do what I usually ask of contributors in similar cases, please add to the talkpage a full quote of the source text, or even better e-mail a scan of the page you have quoted.--Wiglaf 16:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the undoubtedly excellent quality of Polish scholarship. It has to do with the fact that I have seen too many POV-pushing users misquote and even twist their sources. I don't say that you misquote or twist your sources, but it would greatly add to my trust for you if you could give much more context about the sources you use on the talkpage, with full quotes and preferably scans.--Wiglaf 16:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Molobo, I echo Wiglaf's words. I beg, you, please, don't think this has to do with any ideological issues; but with the reliabilty and quality of the sources used to back serious arguments like those you have exposed. I take for example the excellent referencing work you provided at Fallschirm-Panzer Division 1 Hermann Göring, with a careful and precise wording and perfectly adequated sources. This case is unfortunately different: we can only rely on one external link that most people cannot understand since it is fully in Polish, and which presents a highly suspicious appearance, far from the "well respected" claim you provide. This is the reason why, as of now, the information on German 4th Panzer Division cannot comply with the verifiability policy. That's also why I suscribe to the urging that Wiglaf has extended you for a more comprehensive detail on the written sources you claim to be in your possession, or for truly reliable and non-partisan websites (and preferably in English or with a full translation of your own). Once you provide said sources, be sure I'll congratulate you once again, just like when you presented the solid referencing work I mentioned above. Regards, Shauri smile! 00:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I fully support everything Shauri has said. Note also that adding information from dubious sources is a very serious matter, and something we fully intend to help you avoid.--Wiglaf 12:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh and the reason the books are dubious is ? --Molobo 22:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC) "I beg, you, please, don't think this has to do with any ideological issues" I wouldn't dream that your constant attempts to erase any mention of atrocities made by Germans have any ideological basis. --Molobo 22:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

*Sigh...* I see your attitude hasn't changed a little bit after all this time, and that Assuming good fate is still unknown to you. OK, I really, really wanted to be polite to you, but since you want the truth, I'll tell it to you. I don't care at all about Germany and its History. It's not a topic I like to write about, nor do I keep an active interest in the articles related to the subject. However, your edits to German matters interest me because:
1- You've repeatedly shown anti-German bias and POV pushing, and
2- You've got a history of posting wrong and/or unverified information, like you did by attributing the Malmedy massacre to the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend, when in fact it was commited by elements of the 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler [18]. And when Ansbachdragoner corrected your mistake, you restored the wrong information saying that you were "reverting right wing propaganda" (see edit summary).
I am unbiased and detached on German matters, and I can apreciatte when information is objective and I easily accept it if verifiable, like I did by praising your referencing work at Fallschirm-Panzer Division 1 Hermann Göring, which I respected even tho you acussed me of trying "withewash Nazi crimes" (weird acussation, considering it's been there for months without me ever messing with it after you referenced it properly). But your past casts a shadow of suspect upon your edits, and thus your credibility must be backed with sources. After all, if it's true as you claim, it shouldn't be that hard to prove it, isn't it? Shauri smile! 00:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

- You've repeatedly shown anti-German bias Really ? Where ? Please point it to me. You must confuse me with somebody else.I would delete any antiGerman bias at once if I found it.

Wanna know where? Pick one: Anti-Polonism, Heinz Guderian, Erwin Rommel, Georg Forster, Prussia, Gustav Stresemann, Konrad Adenauer, History of Germany, Kulturkampf, Otto von Bismarck, and the list is too extense to continue. It is no wonder that you've been in edit skirmishes with nearly 20 people (that I'm aware of) for trying to push your POVs on said articles. Not to mention what Olessi has pointed out above: the attempt to disrupt WP by "recruiting" other users into the Gdansk/Danzig naming crusade in order to avoid 3RR. Also, "I would delete any antiGerman bias at once if I found it"... please, Molobo... are you making fun of me? I'm more than sure that many users around will have a good laugh when they read that statement... Shauri

What ? There is no anti-German bias in this articles.Do you count adding information on atrocities committed by Germany in WW2 as antiGerman bias ? --Molobo 11:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This is clearly the point at which it becomes clear that no further discussion can be useful with you, since you claim that your edits are not biased; yet, nearly everyone else is convinced that they are. When everyone around you points such a thing out, I'm pretty sure the problem lies in you, not in the rest of the people. Shauri

In what way are my editions biased ? It seems the other way around-the fact that you consider mentioning facts of as biased seem to indicate that you are biased in favour to German related articles.

I'm pretty sure the problem lies in you, not in the rest of the people. The rest of people being Halibutt, Witkacy, Space Cadet being reverted every time they add an information of Guderians threat of executing POWs, mention any wartime atrcoity by German units ? --Molobo 15:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

No, the rest of people being Chris 73, Tenofalltrades, Alx-pl, Thorsten1, General Patton, R.D.H. Ghost in the Machine, Ansbachdragoner, Nightbeast, Revvar, Codex Sinaiticus, Ghirlandajo, Alai, Groeck, Andrelvis, John Kenney, Marskell, and many, many others who have tried to discuss with you to no avail the constant POVs you keep pushing. Personally, I have the greatest respect for all three Polish users you've mentioned, because them, unlike you, are willing to discuss his edits and reach a common agreement. I've never met Halibutt, but I know his work, and I respect it greatly. The departure of Witkacy saddened me, as we kept a mutual respect and a friendly teasing. And I've only met Space Cadet briefly, but he was quick to offer a compromise two days ago, and we worked it out smoothly. You have much to learn from your three fellow countrymen. Shauri

I am unbiased and detached on German matters, Your constant attempts to erase information on war crimes is however a reason that I am sceptical.As is your rejection of Yad Vashem as source of knowledge.Restoring German Reich war time propaganda versions of events also doesn't help Shauri...

What?? I'm sorry, are you talking to me? Please, show me exactly where I have rejected Yad Vashem as a source.

By supporting Cadorna who refused to accept it or Jewishlibrary as a source of information on atrocities. --Molobo 11:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Blatant, complete, and absolute lie, as I mentioned at Piotr's Talk page. A personal interpretation of another person's statements doesn not make his opinions mine, especially at an issue like this one. While we're at this, perhaps you could care to explain why you respect so much the noted neo-Nazi David Irving, that you use his works as source? [19]Shauri

And please, what "German Reich War" propaganda have I restored? Your edit in Slavic peoples-without any reason given as well-which restored Nazi classification criteria of murdered people(that considered them Slavs).Personally I wouldn't use Nazi classification of their victims.

So you say, but as it has been discussed there, you're the only one who inferes such an intention and meaning, and it was not originally added by me, but also by many other people. Shauri

Quoting you, "you must have confused me with someone else"... And as I've grown tired of telling you, I don't go around removing claims of War crimes, and, I'm pretty far from having an ideological sympathy with the Nazis, whom I despise - I merely want historical accuracy, which you have failed to provide many times. I'm glad and as I've told you many times I'm pleased with the precise information and referencing you provided at Fallschirm-Panzer Division 1 Hermann Göring, after I proferred you a claim of sources due to the fact that there's very little written information on the matter (all sources I have access to express that the unit was engaging the Soviet 3rd Corps at Modlin at the time of the Warsaw uprising). Furthermore, after said referencing, I left the article for good. So your claim that I simply remove information on War crimes for an ideological reason is extremely unfair and wrong. Shauri And when Ansbachdragone Its interesting that the user you speak of doesn't enter much info on war crimes on otherwise much detailed articles of German units made by him.

I've taken due note of your silence regarding the flagrant error you commited regarding the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend article, and the denying attitude that followed (with the unfair acussations that you directed to other users included), and your choice of acussing another user of Nazi sympathies instead. I think this silence means an implicit recognition of your serious mistake(s). And regarding Ansbachdragoner, well sorry, but in my humble opinion and that of many other users, he has the knowledge and the neutral attitude and tone of a true scholar, which can be easily apreciatted by reading his articles. I truly find your lack of good faith disturbing... Shauri

Again look at the articles before writing. --Molobo 11:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC) You've got a history of posting wrong and/or unverified information, Shauri, you have a history of defending German related topics even if you have no information or are wrong.Like Konrad Adenauer Article where I was right.

Frankly I see you are biased towards my person.However I have yet to see a reason for your claims of dubious soures and belief that the German division didn't commit any war crimes.Care to finally give reasnoble doubt instead of attacking me? --Molobo 00:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Quoting you, "should I disprove that they were Martians, if you have sustained that?" It is you who must prove your arguments, not I nor anyone else who has to disprove them. Heck, I'm sure the unit must have a rather turbulent history, but considering your past history of asserting untrue facts and defending the "truth" of them even after being corrected by several people, I have no reason to let potentially incorrect information go public on a WP article until it has been verified. Shauri

- You've got a history of posting wrong and/or unverified information, like you did by attributing the Malmedy massacre to the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend, when in fact it was commited by elements of the 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler Funny though that the current version of the articles don't reflect your opinion. --Molobo 00:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

That was totally uncalled for. How can you possibly know if they do or do not reflect my opinion? I'd say that the fact that I haven't edited these articles in a long, long time (in fact, I have never edited the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler article), in which you've made a great number of edits to both, proves exactly the opposite. Once again, you show an alarming lack of good faith. Shauri

Not really seems your allegations aren't supported by the articles.Doesn't really matter if you edited them. --Molobo 15:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

To end the matter, you said that you'd gladly remove information that has ben proven to be wrng, if pointed out. As i said, it has been pointe dou to you that the info on the 12th Panzer division was wrong, and you responded by re adding it with an acussation of "right wing" propagandists to the people who corrected you, among whom I was not counted. Shauri Where was the info on 12th Panzer Division wrong ? --Molobo 15:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you taking me for a fool? Read my argument above. And it was proved to be wrong by the very link you provided as source. And this was pointed out to you, and you reverted, accusing Ansbachdragoner of "right wing propagandist". [20]. Ring a bell now? Shauri

[edit] Abuse of Admin rights

Take a 24 hour break to review the policies that Shauri and I have indicated to you. Best,--Wiglaf 00:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Wiglef.And the reason for the block is ? Seems you abused your admin rights pretty heavy. --Molobo 01:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC) You Are going to be reported for this by me Wiglef.No reason, no cause, no explanation.Seems a major abuse... --Molobo 01:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This is an opportunity for you to observe Wikipedia:verifiability, which you refuse to consider, since I have not seen you respond to the specific concerns that Shauri has pointed out. Instead you launch a series of counter accusations against a respected administrator. Wikipedia is not a propaganda tool where you post opinions from spurious sites.--Wiglaf 01:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Wiglaf sorry but your claims are false, as you can see I haven't engaged in editing of the article why engaging in discussion.Thus I haven't violated any wiki policies.Your block is then not only unjustified but also a major abuse of admin rights.I don't think wiki has a policy that allows such blocks if a user hasn't broken any policy. It seems you acted out of emotion and violated Wiki policies yourself. --Molobo 01:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This is an opportunity for you to observe Wikipedia:verifiability which you refuse to consider, Really ? Seems a false opinion, since I didn't edit the article yet.

Oh and please finally can I get the info way you seem convinced the unit didn't make atrocities ? Just pure facts please, not attacking the messanger. --Molobo 01:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Shauri expressed concerns about a number of sites that you use as sources, but instead of responding you begin you normal spiel of accusations. By now you should be familiar with Wikipedia:Civility, which you also fail to respect. I suggest that you take this time in order to consider that policy. See this as a service to you Molobo. However, since my block may have been hasty, I reset it to six hours, which should be enough for you to calm down and read through the indicated policies.--Wiglaf 01:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh sorry but please give me the policy I broke that makes it legal for you to impose a ban according to Wiki policies. 'but instead of responding you begin you normal spiel of accusations' Spiel ? Are admins on Wiki required to monitor conversations on personal pages and Wiki policies allow them to impose bans if the admin thinks the discussion is to offtopic ? Since it was Shauri which attacked me rather then information I had to respond to her allegations. However I still don't see any Wiki policy that allows you to ban a user for personal conversation on his talk page that doesn't involve racist remarks, vulgarities, or death threats (and I haven't seen those beyond vulgarities addressed to me yet ;) ) So, again seems like major abuse of your admin powers and as such has to be reported.

Comment. Care to point exactly where are these "beyond vulgarities" that you claim I've directed to you? When I came here to express you my concerns towards the latest references you're providing, I called you "dear" for a reason - to treat you with respect. The tone of my message was as polite as it can be. I haven't, and I won't for any reason, called you any names, made threats of any kind, nor adscribe you any conducts you haven't committed. Your response was to acusse me straightforward of Nazi sympathy for the sole fact of repeating Ansbachdragoner's concerns above: that you provide sources to your allegations. I'm sorry, Molobo, but if someone should feel offended here, that's not you. Shauri

Also I am still waiting on your answer as to why you seem convinced the unit didn't make atrocities ? --Molobo 01:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Nobody, I repeat, nobody here is convinced that the unit didn't commit atrocities. But there's a big difference between that and asking for a precise referencing for an encyclopedical article. With your reasoning, I could go into that article and say "this unit was involved at the Ardeatine massacre", and according to you, it'd be OK then? Wouldn't it matter to have false information on an article for the whole world to see and mock of WP, since as it was involved in atrocities, we could assign it a random one and the result would be just the same? Sorry, Molobo, but I love WP too much to gamble with its prestige in such a light way. You jeopardized an article very similar to this one once, and I'm very sorry that you haven't learned the lesson. And if you haven't, then it's up to the rest of the community to watch over doubtful edits. Shauri

Your response was to acusse me straightforward of Nazi sympathy for the sole fact of repeating Ansbachdragoner's concerns above: that you provide sources to your allegations

Nope.I only said in responce to your claims that you are neutral to the issue, that the fact you are so heavly interested in erasing information on German war atrocities makes me sceptical of your supposed neutrality.

'"this unit was involved at the Ardeatine massacre", and according to you, it'd be OK then? If you would provide sources.Of course I am still waiting on WHY do you consider the sources dubious.That you haven't explained. --Molobo 10:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Also I am still waiting on information what policy breaking led to the ban. --Molobo 10:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, I strongly doubt that there is *any* way of getting through to you about policies, such as wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Civility. It was not a ban, it was a short temporary block to make you calm down and consider important policies. I have strong doubts that there is any other way of handling you but to give you short blocks to calm down and read up. The way you cited Yad Vashem (where I have registered a distant relative) as a source that you accused Shauri of neglecting strongly suggests that your only way of attacking her is to falsly insinuate.--Wiglaf 15:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It was not a ban, it was a short temporary block to make you calm down and consider important policies. Please point to wiki policy allowing to block users in such way.Until I see such policy I treat this as a serious breach of rules, and abuse of admin powers that you engaged in. +

The way you cited Yad Vashem (where I have registered a distant relative) as a source that you accused Shauri of neglecting strongly suggest that your only way of attacking her is to falsly insinuate Shauri defended a user comparing Jews to KKK and Nazis to opressed minority. The same user said Yad Vashem and Jewishlibrary aren't neutral sources.Shauri agreed with that.Perhaps my wording was inaccurate.Treat this as one. If Shauri doesn't believe so, then she just needs to confirm that Yad Vashem and Jewishlibrary aren't compareble to KKK and are respectable resources.I will gladly apologize to her if I was mistaken and she didn't support that users views.--Molobo 15:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC) I still haven't got a responce on why the crimes of the division are disputed.Why whatfor is disputed, and what policy allows you to make such blocks. Will I finally get the answer ?

Congratulations, Molobo, you're the only user who has ever been so close to make me lose my temper. Yet, you won't succeed, even if you continue to lie about me. Let me be clear, so it can penetrate in your mind, since despite I've already said it thrice, you still lie about me: I never, ever, EVER, endorsed that any Jewish sources should be distrusted. I gave an opinion on what I thought was the intention of another user, and that's all. Jewishlibrary, like the Wiesenthal website, and many other excellent Jewish pages, are sources of utmost seriousness that deal with the suffering that some of my own relatives had to go through. That's why, I won't allow you to say again, not even once, that I ever supported nor agreed with the view of another user stating something contrary to that. As to the reason why your edits are disputed, it's because of your past history of false claims and sourcing. You sure have double standards: you claim your "sourcing" on an unknown and amateurish page fuly written in a foreign language is a "well known researched page" and thus a valid source, yet you refuse foreign sources is Gdansk demanding for "English reference document" (from your edit summary), or you dismiss other websites in English as "unreliable" when they doesn't fit your view [21]. There are no less than 30 users around who fully share the view that you push a personal POV agenda, the same reason why you have already been banned from the Axis History Forums [22]. You sure have used an "inaccurate wording" when addressing me, especially after I've tried so many times to aproach you in the most civilized and friendly manner, only to get my hand bitten by you time after time. It's time for you to seriously change that atittude of yours, less you want to be the subject of a long overdue Request for Comment. Shauri smile! 22:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

have strong doubts that there is any other way of handling you but to give you short blocks to calm down and read Ware I engaged in editing the disputed article during the discussion ? No.So your allegation is incorrect.Please point me to policy I broke that allowed you to block my account.I am still waiting --Molobo 15:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no way to get through to you apparently. Note that if you behave like a troll, you risk being treated like one, henceforth. Most importantly Stop using guilt by association arguments against Shauri. They show what kind of debater you are.--Wiglaf 15:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no way to get through to you apparently. What do you mean ? I engage in sensible discussions if its possible. Note that if you behave like a troll Again Wiglef. Instead of presenting a Wiki Policy justifing your block, you attack me personally.

Most importantly Stop using guilt by association arguments against Shauri

Like I said, Shauri posted that she studied Cadorna's discussion on went on to support him.If I mistaken her words, she just needs to correct me to her intentions and I will gladly apologize. They show what kind of debater you are Again personal attacks Wiglef instead of arguments...

I am still waiting on you to show me the wiki policy I supposedly broke, also on the reasons sources are disputed. --Molobo 16:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your promise to apologize to Shauri. It is funny, you see personal attacks everywhere but in your own accusations. You are truly a misunderstood person by us, in this discussion. I did not say that you behave like a troll (LoL). As for the kind of debater you are: you are a debater without real arguments.--Wiglaf 16:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

As for the kind of debater you are: you are a debater without real arguments. I am always ready to give sources and examples in articles I edit. However as to your personall attacks-can you finally give the Wikipolicy I broke that allowed you to block me ? Seems that argument is missing in your posts.--Molobo 16:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

I've just finished the translation you asked me for. Alx-pl D 10:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gdansk

Hi Molobo. I have to warn you again: Don't remove double naming! [23] -- Chris 73 Talk 18:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

A very brief search revealed at least two english language books [24], [25], and a whole bunch of websites that use only Mottlau, including some in the polish domain [26]. As for the shared history, correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe the river flowed through Gdansk when it was part of Germany, too. Hope this satisfies your curiosity -- Chris 73 Talk 19:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Ditto dozends of books for Thorn, Kulmerland, Marienburg, Elbing, Ermeland, Allenstein. Gdansk/Danzig needs no separate proof, i believe. Best regards, -- Chris 73 Talk 19:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, here's a history book about the river [27]. Herethe river was used as a border line. BTW, the Gdansk article includes the Gdansk history, hence the name is appropriate, unless you can prove me that the river flows through Gdansk only since 1945. -- Chris 73 Talk 19:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, about the Gutemberg site: You would have to click on one of the links. -- Chris 73 Talk 20:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Please provide proper and precise links in the future Chris-it will save a lot of time. --Molobo 20:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Herethe river was used as a border line. I am sorry but this a different period.Please provide a English Reference Document for the Germanised name as it is used in article-in relation to current economic and geographic setup of Poland. I agree that giving the Germanised name could be right for the period of German occupation however the article uses it towards current times. --Molobo 20:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC) I am sorry but the book is unaccesable to me.From a distorted fragment i only see a german name without the context-it seems it does speak about WW2 not modern period as it is used in the article though. Gdansk article includes the Gdansk history, hence the name is appropriate, Again I am sorry but the Germanised version of the Polish name is used in relation to current geographic and economic setup of Poland and doesn't fulfill the requirment of shared history.Again if it would be about period of German occupation we could add the Germanised name if its important for history of Germany. Please provide an English reference document that uses the Germanised name in relation to current geographic and economic setup of Poland as it is used in the article.Please aslo provide reason why do you believe the river enjoys shared history with Germany in relation to the period the article mentions it.I am waiting for your responce. --Molobo 20:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot give you copyrighted texts for free. If this reference does not suffice, you are very welcome to otain the book in a library or purchase it (Cambridge University Press), and study it in its entirety. As for the shared history, the article is largely about history, including a lot of german history. Hence the double naming is appropriate. If you have an article that does not touch history before 1945, I can live with single naming (e.g. soccer clubs etc). Also, another warning: DO not remove valid information from articles [28]! -- Chris 73 Talk 20:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

As for the shared history, the article is largely about history, including a lot of german history. All of Poland has a lot of German history as it was invaded and conquered by Germany in WW2. The section that includes the river is about current shape and economics of Poland, thus it hardly is about shared history. --Molobo 20:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC) If you have an article that does not touch history before 1945 As said before the article section is about post 1945 history. --Molobo 20:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Useful photos

You may find something to use at the mostly forgotten and unused photos gallery at User:Emax/Image gallery. Some of the photos have been tagged fair use and deleted due to being orphaned - I can restore them if you can find some use for them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Gdansk

I hesitate to dignify your comment …

"an indefinsible distortion of events Gdansk was invaded by German Reich on 1st September 1939 and occupied by its forces till 1945. What the problem ?"

… with a reply, but the problem is that the city at the time was German, not Polish, and the entry of German forces was greeted with jubilation by the populace, producing scenes similar to those in Vienna in 1938. Please understand that I am not saying anything in favor of Nazi Germany; this is simply what happened, in the nationalistic context of those times.

Sca 20:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The city was occupied by Nazi Germany in 1939 and liberated in 1945. The fact that many Germans welcomed the occupation by Nazi regime doesn't change this fact.Many Germans welcomed German troops entering Poland as well. --Molobo 21:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Liberating" Danzig

This is an absurd argument. The city was separated from Germany, of which it had been part, in a political act by the Western victors in World War I. It remained the same city, ethnically German. When Nazi Germany "occupied" Danzig in 1939, the justification given by the Nazi regime was of course that it was being returned to Germany -- which was true.

A vast majority of the ethnic-German residents of Danzig would have welcomed being returned to Germany whoever was in power in Germany. That it was Hitler and his criminal regime ultimately was to prove tragic for the Danzigers, who after this world war were to lose not only their political status but also their hometown itself. And of course, a fourth of them lost their lives.

Nazi Germany occupied Poland and many other places in Europe during the war, but it's ridiculous to say Germany "occupied" Danzig -- it reclaimed Danzig (for four years).

To argue that ethnically German Danzig was "liberated" by the Soviets, who kicked the Danzigers out and gave the city to Poland, is just total BS – unless it's your view that Danzig had been "occupied" since the 14th century by Germans, which would be a confession of hysterical Polish ultra-nationalism.

Tell me, Pan Molobo, do you also consider L'wow and Wilna to have been "liberated" by the Red Army in 1939?

In American English we have a humorous usage of "liberated." When someone steals something, he may jokingly say he has "liberated" it. This is exactly the sense in which Danzig was "liberated" in 1945, though in a violent and bloody manner.

Now just don't accuse me of being pro-Nazi. This is just basic logic. The Soviets in 1945 stole Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig and East Prussia from Germany and gave most of it to Poland to "compensate" Poland for their having stolen eastern Poland in 1939 in the deal with Hitler. The fact the it was Nazi Germany that started the war in the first place doesn't change the nature of what happened to the territories affected and the people living in them.

Sca 19:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC) The city was separated from Germany, of which it had been part Since partitiosn of Poland when it was taken from Poland by Prussia.Later it was free again until 1815.

Soviets in 1945 stole Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig and East Prussia from Germany and gave most of it to Poland to "compensate" Poland You do realise that Poland had parts of Silesia, Pomerania before WW2 ?

When Nazi Germany "occupied" Danzig in 1939, the justification given by the Nazi regime was of course that it was being returned to Germany -- which was true. And which doesn't change the fact that it was invaded and occupied, or the fact that it was a Polish city taken over first by Teutonic Knights and later Prussia, so de facto its also true that it was returned to Poland after 1945. A vast majority of the ethnic-German residents of Danzig would have welcomed being returned to Germany whoever was in power in Germany. Please post polls on that. but it's ridiculous to say Germany "occupied" Danzig -- it reclaimed Danzig (for four years) It was part of Nazi Germany before ?

your view that Danzig had been "occupied" since the 14th century by Germans, which would be a confession of hysterical Polish ultra-nationalism. Germans and German state are two different things,I must confess that I encountered this interesting argument (Germans=Germany) before.Indeed Gdansk was occupied by Teutonic Knights in 1308. Then returned to Poland in XV century, only to be occupied later by Prussia.

Tell me, Pan Molobo, do you also consider L'wow and Wilna to have been "liberated" by the Red Army in 1939? They are no such cities as L'wow or Wilna.

When someone steals something, he may jokingly say he has "liberated" it. So in your view Poles "stealed" Gdansk that was founded by them and occupied by both Teutonic Knights and Prussia ? The Soviets in 1945 stole Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig and East Prussia from Germany and gave most of it to Poland to "compensate" Poland for their having stolen eastern Poland in 1939 in the deal with Hitler. Actually it was a joint decision of Allies to stop the problem of Germanic expansion into the East.And of course both Silesia,Pomerania and East Prussia were Polish before. --Molobo 20:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and Copyright violations

Molobo, please refrain from further NPOV violations in articles and probably Copyright violations on talk pages of articles. Regarding copyrigt violations, even on talk pages the following rule needs to be followed: "Please DO NOT COPY WEBSITES, which are not yours, do NOT use COPYRIGHTED WORK without permission of the copyright holder!" Do you agree or do I need to forward your case? NightBeAsT 13:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ultra-nationalism

Following your logic, the U.S. ought to return Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, eastern Colorado and California to Mexico, and all the millions of Americans living in these states – which by your logic would be "U.S.-occupied" states – ought to be expelled, and a few million of them killed, too.

History is a long, complex process. Before Poles founded Gdansk, the Goths lived in the Vistual delta area, and the Poles lived somewhere else. Your ultra-nationalist misconceptions are simplistic, obtuse and damaging to any spirit of human understanding and cooperation.

Sca 21:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You are simplistic. Nobody says that Texas should be (or Gdańsk should have been) returned anywhere. It's just obvious that if Texas ever becomes a part of Mexico, the respective article should say returned. Your putting words in Molobo's mouth and accusing him of desire to have anybody expelled or killed is childish and ridiculous. Your calling him an ultranationalist is highly offensive and unacceptable. Space Cadet 02:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Link to your update

Hi Your link does not lead to a Speigel article on the topic. You are quite correct in posting this.--Berndd11222 19:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Artilce in Spiegel

But the link leads to a page asking for payment, I am cheap and read free news--Berndd11222 20:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gdansk

Are you from Gdansk?--Berndd11222 20:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your project

Hi: Why are you interested in the 17th ID? --Berndd11222 15:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse of admin rights by Wiglaf

Piotrus arbitrarily unblocked my block of you for violating the 3RR. Since, it was my mistake not to give you a formal notification of this (which you were full aware of), I do it now and block you again, but during a shorter time span: 12 hours.--Wiglaf 07:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Just another example of the abuse you are doing in regards to admin rights. Furthermore as a an admin that was in serious dispute with me over mentioning war crimes by German units (you wanted to revert all my entries on sight-without giving reason)you violated yet another Wiki rule. --Molobo 10:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

As you would have seen if you had checked my edit history, I am not involved in a content dispute with you at the moment. I only do my duty by blocking you for violation of 3RR.--Wiglaf 13:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You attacked me several times and continue to do so Wiglaf. While currently you are not in dispute over an article with me, you aren't neutral. --Molobo 14:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Agressivity?

What I care about in this issue is the well-being of fellow Wikipedians. You have a reputation for tiring and scaring away other users, and this is what makes you a liability to Wikipedia, in my eyes. An RfAr will probably be discussed about you and very likely opened. There are probably many people who have things to say about how you interact with them. If you should be banned from Wikipedia, it has nothing to do with your opinions, but with the way you get along with people.--Wiglaf 13:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

If you can point out any insults or vulgar words that I use towards other people, I will be glad to delete them and apologise. As to your comment about my opinions-I don't present them in the articles.What did you mean by that, do you still dispute the war crimes sections of the German units of the dispute you were involved with me ? If so I will be gladly of assistance as Datner's book is in my possesion as of now. --Molobo 14:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

So you try to portray me as an ideological adversary. Thank you for confirming the necessity of the RfAr.--Wiglaf 14:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


So you try to portray me as an ideological adversary. Thank you for confirming the necessity of the RfAr.' No I do not, what I am saying your hostile reaction started with dispute over this articles, and thats why I said that I only know from the dispute over this articles. Like I said If I am wrong, I am ready to apologise. I will be glad to know what do you have against me-I am certainly willing to correct anything that you consider insulting or discussing information you consider to be wrong. However I did not portay you as an ideological adversary, rather pointed out the origins of the conflict, I also hope you can engage in discussion over issues that you have with me, and please use less provocative statements if you can. It seems you are very emotional about me. Why ? And please finally state the issues you have with me so that we can come to agreement. Right now I don't know what you are accusing me of. --Molobo 15:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Molobo, I am rather the antithesis of emotional regarding you. My issue with you is on the contrary my care about other people and their well-being on Wikipedia for the betterment of this encyclopedia. Just to mention one example, you appear to fail to keep your promises, such as the promise to Shauri that you would apologize to her for your attack with guilt by association. The discussion about your RfAr will be about how many people, if any, are possibly unhappy with your presence here.--Wiglaf 15:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

'you appear to fail to keep your promises, such as the promise to Shauri that you would apologize to her for your attack with guilt by association' Wiglaf -my proposition stands towards Shauri, and if she confirms that I judged her wrongly and she didn't support opinions of that other user I will apologize to her right away.However I didn't get Shauri's responce on that. As to other promises please point me to them.As you see I am ready to engage in discussion with people offended and apologize if allegations are true.Are there any other issues you want to discuss ? Or was the conflict with Shauri the only thing you are complaining about. --Molobo 15:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

As for Shauri it does not hurt to be a man and apologize for any possible misunderstandings, without waiting for her request. You should also relax because your likely RfAr is only a way of judging your good standing in the community, since some people have questioned it.--Wiglaf 15:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not waiting for her request, but confirmation that I was wrong as to her position on statements of other user.If I was wrong then I will apologize. --Molobo 15:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


Hello MoBo:> My reply sir, you have it HERE Good day, --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Hello

Molobo, I'm honored you grace my humble talkpage. Iam curious about you. I would like to know how you come upon your "facts", and I don't mean by Google either. I think that none of us are born with a hard-set group of beliefs...we come by them through our life experiences. So what is it in your life, which makes you think the way you do? Did your family suffer loss due to the war and occupation? Most every family in Poland did. I'm being quite sincere here. Please help me understand where you are coming from, besides just Poland. I would like to think, somehow, you could be "rehabilitated" and your energy and enthusiasm made into asset to the English Wikipipedia instead of a liability. But if your beliefs and values are hard-wired in your head, I'd only be wasting our time. Sadly this seems to be the case. Several of my friends have tried in vain to reach out to you before. But in every case you shunned their efforts. I really would enjoy having a civil, productive discussion with you, Molobo. But all you've shown me so far is a combative, arguementative, uncompromising side. And unless you show me there is more to you, I cannot help but side with those who want you banned. By the way, I do not hate you and I certainly do not hate the beautiful land and gallant, brillant people of Poland. So please consider this, my attempt to "Reach out" to you, Molobo. Accept it or reject it as you see fit. Thanks for stopping by. Regards,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

Molobo, you seem to have seriously pissed off some editors otherwise known as extremely friendly, patient, and in command of wikiquette. A WP:RFC means "request for comment". Its purpose is to bring things into the open, and let them be judged by uninvolved members of the community. It shouldn't matter which side opens the RfC, the point is that problems are evaluated. You are free to come forward with an RfC yourself, pointing out if and when you feel you were treated unfairly. If not, I am encouraging editors who have been in conflict with you to describe their grievances in an RfC. An RfC is not a trial, but a discussion of what has happened. After we had the opportunity to calmly review things on an RfC, it will become clear if a WP:RFAr will be necessary, which is more like a 'trial'. Again, you are free to take these steps yourself, but if you do not, I will encourage other editors to do so, since it seems clear to me that there are serious issues here that are detrimental to the proper functioning of the community. dab (ᛏ) 22:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly support dab on this. There is little point in letting the 'bad blood' run, and some outside input seems necessary to break the deadlock. If you feel you are innocent and right, you should not be afraid of this, rather, you should see this as an opportunity to prove that you were right. Personally I think you were sometimes right, and sometimes not, and the same can be said about your opponents. Hopefully the RfC will be enough to make you and all concerned parties realise where you have erred, shake hands and reach a consensus.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

you may write me an email if you like, my "email this user" function is enabled. As for your repeated comment that you are not aware of the nature of the problem, I find this difficult to believe. You may think that your view is correct, and you may even believe that other editors are treating you unfairly, but you cannot be unaware of the amount of controversy you have stirred up. You are not just an "editor in good standing" like any other. You have driven off editors in frustration, and shown no sign of introspection or consideration that some minor thing may be wrong on your side. That makes me at least very suspicious. Good faith editors as a rule are amenable to criticism, and prepared to recognize their weaknesses. But rather than professing innocence and trying to point out what went wrong, you blandly presume that there is nothing wrong at all, maybe you came across some hysterical editors but that can hardly be blamed on you? I am uninvolved in all this, and I wish to remain so. I will wait for the presentation of the case on rfc, and I will then comment on what I see. From what I've seen so far, you seem to be just rather obsessed with one topic, with rather simplistic and nationalistic emphasis, but nothing worse than many other cases I've seen. Wikipedia has been able to cope with nationalistic one-trick-ponies many times before, and if that's really all there is to it, I don't even see why I should become involved. Let's just get this rfc going and hope things come to the open, not much more can be said or done I suppose. dab (ᛏ) 14:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/l/User_talk%7EMolobo_Archive01_a1cc.html"