User talk:24.23.39.36

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nicolaus Copernicus, Prussian Mathematician (Prussus or Borussus Mathematicus)

Thorn in Culmerland in Prussia, map from 16th century

Here some samples on portraits:

  • 1597 Theodor de Bry [1] Nicolaus Copernicus Tornaus Borussus Mathematicus
  • 1620 by Boissard Nicolaus Copernicus Tornaus Borussus Mathematicus
  • 1655 by Pierre Gassendi Nicolaus Copernicus Tornaeus Borussus Mathematicus
  • 1670 J. J. Vogel Nicolaus Copernicus Thorunensis Prussus Mathematicus Celeberritus
  • 1680 Vollaine Nicolaus Copernicus Tornaus Borussus Mathemat.
  • End 1600's in Krakow Nicolaus Copernicus Torunensis Canonicus Warmiensis
  • 1720 Nicolaus Copernic ... Thorn Ville de La Prusse Royal

The Copernicus manuscript went with Rheticus and on December 16, 1603 the following desciption was entered by Jacobus Christmannus:

Thorn/Thorun Nicolaus Copernicus' City of Birth:

Hartknoch features his last residence, the city of Thorn, in his book Altes und Neues Preussen
Hartknoch features his last residence, the city of Thorn, in his book Altes und Neues Preussen

MG 2/17/2006, 3/14/2006



Copernicus born in Thorn, Prussia, worked and died in Ermland-Warmia, Prussia

According to Zedlers Universal-Lexicon (circa 1730-50)

  • Copernicus ..ward zu Thoren in Preussen gebo(h)ren) .. starb in Frauenburg in Preussen.Copernicus was born in Prussia - worked in Prussia - died in Prussia.
  • Rheticus Reise nach Preussen zu Copernicus und sein Aufenthalt in Frauenburgtranlation: Rheticus' travel to Prussia to Copernicus and his stay in Frauenburg Book by leopold Prowe, 1883, reprint 1967.
  • Duden: Nikolaus Kopernikus modern German Lexikon: http://www.duden.de/ type in suchen: Kopernikus - result: der dt. Astronom (dt= abbreviation for deutsch, german)
  • Salem Press Book Published in 2005 with Copernicus Bio [4]Great Lives from History Nicolaus Copernicus, Christina J. Moose] Copernicus Bio by William Urban

Reference to Salem Press book by Christina Moose https://salempress.com/Store/samples/great_lives_from_history_renaissance/great_lives_from_history_renaissance_nicolaus.htm

  • Frauenburg, Prussia Legal Documents- Kirchenbuecher-Taufen-Heiraten-Tote- Church records of inhabitants Baptism, Marriage, Deaths since 1631 [5]

Thorn, Prussia Legal Documents- Kirchenbuecher- Taufen Heiraten Tote-Church Records of inhabitants Baptism, Marriage, Deaths since c 1600 [6] [7]

Thorn, Thorunensis, birthplace of Nicolaus Copernicus was an independent city state, state republic Referces: Stadtstaat or Stadt Republik [8][9][10] MG 2/6/2006 Ermland-Warmia had received from emperor Charles IV souverainty by Golden Bulla and the title of Reichsfuerstentum Prince-Bishoprip [11]. This lasted until 1929.

Nicolaus Copernicus Bio [Stanford University on Nicolaus Copernicus]

[Nikolaus Kopernikus Meyers Lexikon]

Ermland Warmia History on Catholic Encyclopedia]

MG 2/24/2006






Hi and welcome to Wikipedia!

I see that you edit quite a bit. You might want to get an account, to be able to track your work better. Whether you do so or not, please sign your contributions on talk pages. You can use ~~~~ (4 tildes), which will expand into your user name (or IP) and the current date. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz 20:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You might also want to use talk pages before you make quite controversial edits. Note that controversial edits by anon users who fail to discuss them are more likely to be reverted. Halibutt 03:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Stephan Schulz and Halibutt, as user accounts and Talk pages are the best ways to communicate and discuss information. Olessi 20:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

User Halibutt Thank you for you instant message. I just finished writing a lot of material on discussions at the same time that you wrote the message. You probably did not see it yet. MG

Invitation You are cordially invited to the Grand Reopening of my Bumper Sticker Gallery. If my great work inspires you to come up with your own ideas for a sticker, T-shirt, poster, symbol, sign, etc., please let me know and I'll be happy to try to do my best for you. I will only turn down anything racial, anti-semitic, fascist and so on. Yours Truly, Space Cadet 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Space Cadet, I just discovered you invitation to admire your great bumper sticker gallery. If I find anything great I will let you know. MG 2/16/2006

Konrad I of Masovia

Hi, I would like to encourage you to use Talk:Konrad I of Masovia to explain your edits or provide sources before making controversial edits. --Lysytalk 23:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, we have a very short entry on Christian of Oliva, the first bishop of Prussia, I posted it on Talk:Konrad. Make sure to read that link to Catholic Encyclopedia with a lot more info MG 3/5/2006

Thanks. I wonder how to make the "Konrad" article more neutral. Are you aware of any modern research that would deny that the document granting Chełmno Land to Teutonic Knights was forged ? Most authors that I've read say that it was never seen, Konrad had no reason to grant such rights to the Order and that Teutonic Knights were known to use similar (forged documents) techniques. I would be suspicious if Polish historians claimed this but it seems quite common among modern German historians as well. --Lysytalk 02:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

short answer, whatever rumors are spread about a supposed document or forged document granting Chełmno Land to Teutonic Knights seems to be inconsequential, because papal and imperial documents prior and after exist and Konrad of Masovia had recently conquered parts of Prussia, but it did not belong to him anyway.

I have in a book a copy of the Imperial Bull of Rimini of 1226 by emperor Frederick II, witnesses on the same document by a number of people and a translation. The witnesses: archbishops of Magdeburg, Ravenna, Tyrus, Palermo and Reggio, Bishops of Bologna, Rimini, Dukes of Saxony and Spoleto, Margrave of Montferrat, Albrecht von Habsburg, Richard the Marshall and many more.

It says in there ... that our devoted brother Konrad, duke of Masovia and Kujavia, promised and offered to furnish brother Hermann, Honorable Master of the Holy House of Spitale St. Marien of the Germans in Jerusalem (Teutonic Order).. with the Kulmer Land between his march and the Prussians and equip them (T.O.) well, so they may take Preussenland (Terra Prussiae) in posession... we recognize the visible piety of the Master (Hermann) in the conquest of the land and the fact, that this land is included in the realm of the empire, we trust the judgement of the Master... we recognize all land in Prussia as an ancient right of the empire ...

Emperor Frederick II declared this Golden Bull as Emperor of the Romans, King of Jerusalem and Sicily in March 1226 at Rimini.

At the moment I do not have any English-language sources, but I do know that they are lagging greatly behind and that the HRE imperial sources are extremely far spread in distance (as this sample shows) and that massive amounts of info has never been coordinate. This requires experts MG 3/6/2006

Finally! So you will start to no falsify and discuss instead of writing your own version incompatible with real world, right?
I have wrote to you about Culmerland history for five or six times. You have never even tried to discuss, you just insert over and over the same sentences. Despite Chelmno (Culm) mentioned in sources in 1065, you still continue to claim it was somehow "conquered" by Konrad I. He used time machine, or what? Culmerland was depopulated and devastated in Konrad's times, but it was not Prussian province. Szopen 08:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

For early history of Masovia at its beginning and Konrad I of Masovia read Miecław. This was under Maslav or Maslaw, as it should be, but for strange reasons was moved to Miecław. You are also mixing up Culmerland in Prussia and the land to the south, which was first conquered by Mieszko II and his cupbearer see Miecław, in current Wikipedia article. This land became known as Masovia. Maslav lost it again and it was re-conquered and kept by later Polish dukes for some time and again went to Masovian dukes.

Any good guesses, who the Polish duke, first time Mieszko II, and later other Polish or Masovian dukes conquered, lost and re-conquered the land from ??? MG 3/27/2006

Szopen, I am sorry, but I do not find a previous message here from you. I found Lysy's and I answered him several times.

To the question of accurate accounts on Wikipedia, I looked at conversations and the following two sum it up quite well:

Illogigal unfactual state of Wikipedia A conversation with Sca, as to the illogical unfactual state of Wikipedia and an answer by Kpalion

'I have debated at length with one of our Polish editors regarding the Polish view of city names in the context of the territorial changes and population expulsions of 1945. In the end one must conclude that Polish people of whatever political stripe tend to be acutely myopic on this issue. To argue that the city was not generally known by its German name for all the centuries it was inhabited (primarily) by Germans, simply because it was founded by Poles (or perhaps, West Slavs) a millenium ago, and because the Poles always have referred to it by its Polish name or some variant thereof, does not strike them as illogical, even though it does not correspond to historical reality. This seems to be the case even though, of course, they may be in general very congenial people in other ways. I believe the English version of this article should be edited by neither Poles nor Germans, but by native English speakers with a strong background in the relevant historical periods. Failing that, I advise anyone who is interested in this topic to study the history books, not Wikipedia. Wiki is a noble experiment in the marketplace of ideas, but one which is intrinsically flawed by the absence of qualified, disinterested gatekeepers.'

User:sca 24nov04'

'It's not myopia, I think. It's decades of Communist propaganda trying to justify the post-war border changes. Remember, according to the Commies, East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia were ancient Slavic, Piast lands, which were brutally occupied by those fascist Germans obsessed with their Drang nach Osten, and which were finally recovered and rejoined with the Motherland, for the sake of historical justice. I'm not trying to defend those of my compatriots who don't want to be taught anything else than they've been already taught at school, but it might be good if others try to understand why some Poles don't want to hear about Gdańsk or Wrocław ever being German cities. --Kpalion 01:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)'

Wikipedia is so full of it.

MG 3/20/2006

Anyone claiming that "some Poles don't want to hear about Gdańsk or Wrocław ever being German cities" is engaging in a grotesque exaggeration. The best proof to counteract that assertion happens to be Polish Wikipedia, obviously written almost exclusively by Poles, which prominently mentions the German name in most articles about cities that were under German rule at one time or another. See for example pl:Bydgoszcz, pl:Szczecin, pl:Gdańsk, pl:Frombork, pl:Gliwice, pl:Bolesławiec, pl:Elbląg, pl:Koszalin etc. etc. etc. Balcer 21:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, as you noticed and corrected yourself, Sca wrote that and he was talking about the English wikipedia. English wikipedia is nearly completely onesided POV in regards to any north-eastern European topic and the Polish-language group gangs up on and mobbs anyone not going along with all the always has been - all is Polish versions. Matter of fact, aren't you the one , who called for battle to rally and defend Copernicus at the Polish wikipedia board? You (plural) bring no proofs, just intimidation and constant hazzles in order to chase people away, who do not go along with your 'always everything has been Polish' edits.

I agree with you about Polish people today living in the (former) German cities or towns know and use the German names, as wikipedians on Polish wikipedia do.

I have personally experienced that myself, traveling through some of the towns and 'talking' (including sign language, writing question marks on paper etc) with the Polish people living there now and found them to be friendly and helpful. So why is the English Wikipedia so full of it? Are people like (earlier Witkacy, Emax) and many others and especially Molobo some kind of political agitators, perhaps not even living in Poland, having political motives? Or is Molobo 'only' some very twisted person? A large portion of supposedly English language Wikipedia simply looks like it needs translation before it is readable to anyone who does not know Polish.

Anyway, have a good day.

MG 3/20/2006

Hi MG,

I am definitely not the one who called for battle to rally and defend Copernicus. Just check the history of Wikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board. The "Mikołaj Kopernik under attack" was inserted automatically in some of my comments in the history, as I just happened to be editing that section. This is just something that Wikipedia does. I did not give that name to that section. I did mention earlier that there were edit wars over the Copernicus article and that a vote was started (by User:Ksenon), and invited anyone interested to participate. A similar announcement was made on Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. We have discussed the Copernicus' nationality issue at length on the relevant talk page so I will not repeat my arguments here. Incidentally, please point out to me when I have intimidated someone. Balcer 22:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As for Molobo, Witkacy and Emax, some people have suggested that the three may in fact be the same person, though of course no one has any proof. Believe me, I have had my fights with Emax which at one point escalated so badly that for a while I abandoned participation in editing any articles connected with Poland, at least until one day Emax left Wikipedia with no explanation and never came back. Anyway, I resent the fact that you are putting me in the same category as him.

I have also found that English Wikipedia is edited by strange people, often trying to push their particular agendas. Somehow, they think that if they manage to insert their POV into this "international" encyclopedia, they have somehow scored a point for their country or their nation. I must say I find that distasteful, and I daily ask myself whether it makes any sense to continue to participate in this project. Writing in Polish Wikipedia seems to be so much more peaceful and the people there more reasonable, and actually believing in the idea of NPOV (maybe too much so). So far I am still in it, but that might change. Balcer 22:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Are people like (earlier Witkacy, Emax) and many others and especially Molobo some kind of political agitators, perhaps not even living in Poland, having political motives? I urge you to ask for IP check. I live in Poland since my birth and I am not Witkacy or Emax :D --Molobo 13:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I have no proof. In fact I do not particularly care. Most of us are anonymous, so it does not really matter what nicks we choose to call ourselves. It is interesting to me though to look at the timeline of Emax, Witkacy and Molobo edits. Somehow they do not overlap. But of course that is most likely coincidence. Balcer 17:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, thanks for letting me know what you think. I would definately not even put you anywhere near above mentioned group.

I repeat what I said before:

Too many Problem Makers create very unfactual Wikipedia articles

Problems on Wikipedia Similar group relentlessly inputs too many twisted distorted none-factual extreme POV versions at EN/Wikipedia.

Excerpt: Regardless of the basis for the current dispute, that's precisely why I left the Polish wiki some time ago. Many people were willing to commit their time and effort to that project, but were (just like me) discouraged by the atmosphere and the behaviour of the admins. Many of them treat the Polish wiki as if it was their own project. I could accept that as far as as administration is concerned, but their monopoly for the truth is stretched to article content disputes as well. In other words, many a time the only sensible argument in content disputes in the Polish wiki has been "Because I'm an admin and you're not". Often it's much easier to offend people or call names than to find a compromise. Too bad the admins are often the ones to support that behaviour.

User Sca, after trying to reason for a long time, wrote, they will not let facts interfere with their versions at all and of the illogical unfactual state of Wikipedia.

It is time to stop. Wikipedia has too many entries like [12], [13] [14]

Who is copying whom [15] This is exactly the stuff that Molobo & Co write, the part about 'Nazis and recent fellow travellers claim Copernicus...' Is maxwellhouse in uk copying Molobo and wikipedia without giving credit to wikipedia, or ? MG 3/22/2006

Mieszko

I have remoevd the reference to pseudo-history book, because a) the theory is already referenced in links about "Scandinavian connections" b) there are HUNDREDS of book about Mieszko, i don't know why we should reference this one c) Mieszko was called by his contemporaries: Msko (in Arabian sources), Misico, Mesco, Mesico, Misika (by German sources). No German source call him Dago. Dynasty traditions uses names of Mieszko later, and contains tradition of coming from local peasants (sharply in contrast to dynastical traditions of Rurykowicze). There is one ABSTRACT containing mangled names written century later which call him "Dagome". Building theory on that is a prime example for pseudo-history. Just see the link scandinavian connections to Mieszko.

I know that this theory was once popular amongst certain circles of Germans historians, who tried to prove that Poland was in fact found by Germans/Scandinavians, but I thought those theories are long gone after 1945. Szopen 09:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Szopen,

Dagome Iudex reference was made mid 11th century, that is about a thousand years before 1945. The Dagome refers to someone known as Dago, Dagr, husband of Ote or Oda von Haldensleben and their three children. Boleslaw I Chrobry, son of Mieszko I and another wife, is not included in this Dagome Iudex. Many north Germanic rulers of the time are known under the Slavic names now, for example Waldimar, now known as Vladimir (of Kiew, Russia) etc.

This is my educated guess of what Mieszko could stand for:

Mieszko, for all I know, could be some type of attribute in Slavic language, as was done with all the Piasts. One later Piast named (translated): Curly Hair, Kraushaar in German and same name in Polish language sounding something like that. Mieszko sounds to me also like what one calls in some German dialects a cat Mietze Katze. This would have been spelled in earlier German something like miecze cacze also with double cz, miesczcze caczcze). Cz was centuries later replaced in High German Sound Shift to tz or tt. German words like Modern High German: Hitze (Engl. heat), Blitz (Engl. lightning) were earlier written as hiczcze, bliczcze. etc

What you call psedo-history really goes back to most of Polish history, which started 'in a fog', in myth and fables.

I added the reference to Miezko I talk and to Scandinavian connections Dagome Iudex describes Dago or Dagr (Mieszko I), husband of Ote

Dagome Iudex refers to Dago or Dagr, who was married to Ote (Oda von Haldensleben and they had three sons, Boleslaw I Chrobry was not included. Dago is the one later called Mieszko I of the Piasts. The Daglingers were a dynasty from Norway. Dagobert is also an old Frankish name of several rulers.

  • Book: (The Daglinger 'Piasts') 'Die Daglinger "Piasten" [16] by Jochen Wittmann

MG 3/24/2006

Thx for the reply.

I have edited somehow your addition to Scandinavian connections: moved the book to the end (to see also's) and removed your signature, since wikipedia is strongly against signing the articles (they are in public domain). Also, since Dagome iudex was already mentioned, I have incorporated your edit to not create the impression that Dagome iudex and "early document" are two different things. Also, Dagome iudex does not mention "Dago" or "Dagr", but "Dagome". which can be .. see below.

However you have to remember, that in X century Mieszko was called: Msko, Mesico, Misico, Mysco, Meschko etc by Germans and Arabs. No one called him Dago or Dagome. All the sources except for Dagome iudex mentions some form of "Mesco", "Mesconum" etc. Only one _abstract_ of some other document, Dagome iudex, mentions "Dagome". Build whole theory basing on one abstract of some other document, when person making the abstract had no idea about what document original was and already mangled other names (e.g. What's a "Schinesge"?) is quite bad idea. In short, yes, Mieszko is how we called him today, but this is close approximation of what we can read in chronicles. It is not invented name per se, as for example "Mieczyslaw" which was invented in some later chronicles. He called himself somewhat similar.

Just think: if Mieszko in fact was Germanic ruler, then why:
  1. He is consequently called Mesco, Misico, Mesconum in all contemporary chronicle, necrologues, years book by Germans, Czech and in arabian relation
  2. The name Dago does not appear again in dynasty - but Mieszko, Boleslaw and other do appear
  3. The name is not mentioned by anyone and anywhere else besides Dagome iudex
  4. His brother was called Czcibor
  5. The Thietmar, Widukind, who called him Misico or similar, do not mention any Germanic origins of him (look at http://www.newsic.de/theo/texte.htm): "...et dux Sclavonicus Misico..." Of course we can't say that "sclavonicus" here is about nationality or ethnicity, that woudl be absurd, but nevertheless Thietmar, who lived when Mieszko lived, called him "Misico"
  1. The dynasty's tradition, recorded by Gall Anonim, states the native origins of the dynasty (while other dynasties usually were boasting if they were descendants of invaders - i.e Rurykowicze)

What "Dagome" mentioned meant in Dagome iudex: there are several theories

  1. His christian name, Dagobert (Lowmianski)
  2. His second name, by which he was known by the vikings (Lowmianski)
  3. The editing mistake of the man who made the abstract (Labuda) - he thought it would be "Ego Mesco Dux" not "Dagome iudex"
  4. From German "degen" "famous by the sword", that is copy from polish "mieczyslaw"

Why "Dagome _iudex_"? Iudex means: judge, but also in some latin documents denoted the leaders of slavic tribes, so it's not totally improbable that someone could refer to Mieszko as "iudex" instead of "dux". IIRC, Mieszko was usually called duke of Slavs or, in one document, of mysterious "Licicavici". Boleslaw was first Polish ruler to be called "Polonorum", duke of "Polonia", IIRC - But again, I may be wrong. It could that Mieszko was also called duke of "polonia", though i doubt it.

Why we think Dagome was Mieszko:

  1. From elsewhere (Thietmar) we know that Mieszko married Ote, and that he divided his country between his sons
  2. We know from elsewhere (forgot the source, could be Thietmar too or maybe Kosmas) that Mieszko had sons Lambert and Mieszko from marriage with Othe

Why we then should assume that Mieszko in fact was called "Dagr" and was Germanic? What, except from one abstract of document from 1087, supports this theory against all other documents? Szopen 19:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Szopen; Whoa- first of all- thanks for all that information

What you changed on Miesko I and Scandinavian connection is fine with me, as long as it stays in and no Molobo-like person touches it.

Now- guess what?? German Degen, earlier Low German daggen to slit- English dagger, Italian and Spanish daga means in Polish [17] So yes, it is an attribution- our good old friend the dagger-wielder

Theophanu imperatrix cum filio suo imperatore tertio ottone paschale festum imperali gloria apud Quedlingesem peregit civitatem, ubi etiam marchio Tuscanorum Hugo et dux Sclavonicus Misico cum caeteris Europae primis ibidem confluentibus affuere; ad obsequium imperatorii honoris, quae quilibet pretiosissima possederat, pro xeniis deferendo

Loosely translated this refers to the imperial meeting at Quedlinburg where empress Theophanu and her son Emperor Otto III received the required imperial honors (oaths, pledges) of a number of dependend rulers, such as the margrave Hugo of Tuscany and duke Sclavonicus Misico. You are right, that does not mean ethnicity, even though centuries later Sclavonian was changed and assumed to mean the Slavs. Helmhold of Bosau wrote about the christianisation of the Sclavonians and at that time he wrote about the Saxons and the pagan slaves (Sclave, Sklave in German means slaves and the church considered everyone not yet baptised as slaves (to the devil). In the 17th century that was changed to Chronicle of the Slavs.

I could now act Molobo-Space-Cadet-like and insert in every article anywhere remotely related to Polish-like topics, that it was actually Germany, because the Polish dukes swore allegiance to the German emperors. That would be similar (only in reverse) to what is happening to many of the Prussia-related articles on Wikipedia, thanks to Molobo & Co.

Now- guess what?? German Degen, earlier Low German daggen to slit- English dagger, Italian and Spanish daga means in Polish [18], type in sword-translate to Polish and you know what! So yes, it is an attribution- our good old friend was the dagger-wielder MG 3/24/2006

MG, I am confused. You are trying to prove that Mieszko has northern european roots. What are your proofs? As i said above, and I will repeat again:
  1. All sources call him Mesico, Mesco, Misico, Msko etc.
  2. Mieczyslaw is name invented later
  3. ONE source called him Dagome. This source also uses words like "Shinesghe" instead of, probably Szczecin (Stettin) or Gniezno (Gnesen), and this source (which is ABSTRACT, not original document) author said he thinks it is about SARDINIANS.
  4. Mieszko, Msko does not mean "daggen". In Polish sword is "Miecz", which sounds totally different than "Misico", "Mesco". In fact ethymology of the name is nto known, but it is far closer to words like "Miszka" (Bear) or Slavic name confirmed in later sources, IIRC "Mieszek"
  5. No source mentions his northen roots. No trace of it anywhere. No chronicles, no archeological findings, no tradition.

Now, are you trying to insert as "fact" that Mieszko was in fact called "Dagon" just because in ONE document he was called "Dagome"? Just because one ABSRTACT call him "Dagome" (which may be mistake of the writer, or which can mean "Dagobert" or anything), and despite this abstract does not mention anything about northern roots of Mieszko, you are trying to say that Mieszko was in fact what, viking? How you will then explain all those things I wrote earlier:

  1. He is consequently called Mesco, Misico, Mesconum in all contemporary chronicle, necrologues, years book by Germans, Czech and in arabian relation
  2. The name Dago does not appear again in dynasty - but Mieszko, Boleslaw and other do appear
  3. The name is not mentioned by anyone and anywhere else besides Dagome iudex
  4. His brother was called Czcibor
  5. The Thietmar, Widukind, who called him Misico or similar, do not mention any Germanic origins of him

Building whole theory on ONE WORD is what I call "pseudo-history". Szopen 07:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Szopen, I certainly would not want to confuse you. I just moved the explanation of his name to talk. MG 3/27/2006

Articles and Names in Wikipedia needing translation A large number of articles and names in this supposed English-Wikipedia are not using English language and are in dire need of translation, in order to be readable and for persons and locations to be recognizable and formost to conform to official names used at the time and by historians throughout the centuries:

Thorn / Toruń

MG, I have removed all controversial informations from Toruń page, to avoid nonsensical revert wars over whether Culmerland was in Poland (as I believe) or in Prussia (as you, contrary to what i have wrote try to sustain). However it seems you are not interested in maintaining NPOV and compromise, you just want to establish _THE_ truth. if so, my advise is to search some other place. Wikipedia is about presenting all points of view, not about _THE HOLY TRUTH_. If you have a pouint about Culmerland, take it to Culmerland and present it in NPOV way. Thank you.

Similar case about "Poles boasting about parade through Brandenburg gate". This is ridiculous. Seems you have taken propaganda just before the war for actual plans of Polish gvt - wondering why then the only plan Poland ever had about war with Germany was deep defensive without slight plan of offensive. Szopen 06:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

To clarify myself: I think that you add additional value to wikipedia by knowing a lot about Prussia's history, also because you can contribute to establish neutral point of view in many articles. But the crucial point is whether yo uare ready to accept NPOV even if your opinion is different, or not. Szopen 12:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Szopen,

If a leader of a country and/or its military, in this case Poland, has in early 1939 an oil painting done (or painted it himself, as he was also a painter), where he rides triumphantly through the Brandenburg Gate, what do you think that means ? Combine that with several known speeches, where, supported by the promised help of Britain (and France), Poland also said, that there will be war, wether Germany wants it or not. And since Poland defeated the Soviets after WW I, they had every reason to believe themselves stronger than they actually were. That their 'good buddies' let them down, after they reached their goal (which was complete destruction and subjugation of a business/industrial competitor)- my - what a surprise.

I am all for a balanced true depiction of history. That is however not what is going on in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is very heavily overloaded with onesided Polish POV. I realize that this makes it very difficult even for the few Polish contributors, who are honestly trying to bring some balance, but the masses gang up on any one, including their own, who does not completely adhere to their always has been - always will be Polish- and even if it has not been - it should have been - propaganda POV. Most people who are trying to bring some balance, make some sence at Wikipedia, give up after a while. That is why Wikipedia is not reliable and user:Sca, who tried and gave up, suggests for interested people, not to rely on Wikipedia, but to get a good history book instead.

It is a simple fact that the first Teutonic Order built castle/town in Prussia is Thorn, now Toruń, Poland. To remove/delete this and a lot of other information , because to many Polish contributors it is controversial, means caving in to propaganda, caving into onesided mob rule POV.

Samples, why Wikipedia is not depicting historical reality and is not NPOV are mass deletions and/or input of substancial amounts of statements, which deliberately twist events to render Wikipedia versions far different from what actually happened.

Sample

Sample

Even the Wikipedia Polish board reflects this [19] keep reading

Molobo & Co need to read this: A Polish article about Falsification of Polish History

MG 4/7/2006

Your "signature"

Hi, could you please start signing with four tildes like everybody else? Or if you don't want to sign with the exact time and with the IP, at least add a link? [[User talk:24.23.39.36|MG]] or [[Special:Contributions/24.23.39.36|MG]] would both be great improvements, making it easy for other editors to see who you are and to distinguish you from other "MG"s. Just a suggestion, Kusma (討論) 23:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


re: discussion on Sciurinæ's talk page Hello, I hope you didn't misinterprete my silence in the face of Molobo's comment on you. I know Molobo's comments on others, me included, and so did not believe it uncritically. In all likelihood the webpage's author and the one of the article are not the same. To suggest that the article must be flawed because the webpage may or may not (I haven't really checked on it) represent material of a far right-wing ideology doesn't necessarily mean the article is flawed. For example, Voltaire is quoted at the bottom of the page ... is Voltaire a Nazi now? Wikipedia also presents a link to Mein Kampf ... is Wikipedia a Nazi page? Of course it is more likely that you found the article and not the webpage, and you unambiguously stated that the article gave a pretty good insight, not the webpage. I've only read a small fraction of the article but don't think it is very reliable or unbiased. Some statements seemed to me to be exaggerations, silly generalisations or just one-sided but that's possibly only my first impression. I fail to see why Szopen shouldn't want to discuss with you anymore. Hope he'll change his mind now that you've even distanced yourself from the article completely and only said the headline had been of sole importance to you. Bon. ... Happy editing! Sciurinæ 01:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sciurina

thanks for writing. I had already written the following message to Szopen:

"For you information here is the complete conversation [20], not only Molobo's twist to it. As you can see, the only reason why this sample was posted, is to show the frustration over the Polish inclination for twisting. Had I found the Polish article, I found later, I would have posted that one instead. Of course Molobo is not reading or forwarding to you the other link I posted from a Polish writer about Falsification of History in Poland [21]. You seem to be a fairly reasonable person and if only a few sensible people are willing to look at true facts, then all the hard work at wikipedia makes it worth it. But sadly Wikipedia is full of twistings and it is really a waste of time trying to make it at least a little bit compatible with reliable history books. The Molobos will not let this happen." MG 4/8/2006

I repeat again

Illogigal unfactual state of Wikipedia

A conversation with Sca, as to the illogical unfactual state of Wikipedia and an answer by Kpalion

'I have debated at length with one of our Polish editors regarding the Polish view of city names in the context of the territorial changes and population expulsions of 1945. In the end one must conclude that Polish people of whatever political stripe tend to be acutely myopic on this issue. To argue that the city was not generally known by its German name for all the centuries it was inhabited (primarily) by Germans, simply because it was founded by Poles (or perhaps, West Slavs) a millenium ago, and because the Poles always have referred to it by its Polish name or some variant thereof, does not strike them as illogical, even though it does not correspond to historical reality. This seems to be the case even though, of course, they may be in general very congenial people in other ways. I believe the English version of this article should be edited by neither Poles nor Germans, but by native English speakers with a strong background in the relevant historical periods. Failing that, I advise anyone who is interested in this topic to study the history books, not Wikipedia. Wiki is a noble experiment in the marketplace of ideas, but one which is intrinsically flawed by the absence of qualified, disinterested gatekeepers.'

User:sca 24nov04'

'It's not myopia, I think. It's decades of Communist propaganda trying to justify the post-war border changes. Remember, according to the Commies, East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia were ancient Slavic, Piast lands, which were brutally occupied by those fascist Germans obsessed with their Drang nach Osten, and which were finally recovered and rejoined with the Motherland, for the sake of historical justice. I'm not trying to defend those of my compatriots who don't want to be taught anything else than they've been already taught at school, but it might be good if others try to understand why some Poles don't want to hear about Gdańsk or Wrocław ever being German cities. --Kpalion 01:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)'

Wikipedia is so full of Molobos.

I am sorry, if I missed answering any ones message(s), but right now I feel like Sca I advise anyone who is interested in this topic (Eastern German - European history and people) to study the history books, not Wikipedia MG 4/11/2006

There's a Guardian article on The trouble with Wikipedia published today. But I think you need to create an account there first to read it. (I guess it would be useful for you to create an account for Wikipedia, too, or you can't have, for example, a watchlist). Sciurinæ 13:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Copernicus Please reconsider before making controversial changes to Nicolaus Copernicus. Somehow the revert wars over this article have stopped. We should try to keep it that way. Balcer 05:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Sciurinae, happy editing to you.

For you and Balcer

Here is the 1899 Meyers Lexikon Nikolaus Kopernikus [22] entry, where it states that he went to school in his home town (Thorn), where his other uncle Tilman von Allen, who also helped raise the orphans, was Buergermeister major. I had already input this with the Nicolaus Copernicus facts list above.

Copernicus did not only start attending school with 18 years of age, when he went to univisity at Krakow, as it now reads in the Wikipedia article. He did attend school as a child and young man previously.

With the teacher Albert Blar(look him up under the town he came from: Brudczewski ?), who had studied (read up on teacher) and tought astronomy at Krakow before N.C. time, he had conversations about astronomy.

Balcer, I would appreciate that you re-insert the information you removed. Thank you.

MG 4/13/2006

Your recent edits

Maybe you are having a boring week, but lately you have made a habit of inserting controversial, POV text into many articles related to former East Prussia. I sense you are looking for confrontation and controversy, and I ask you to stop.

Your recent edit to Royal Prussia, claiming it was an independent country, was just too much. Please, if you make such wide ranging changes to important articles, back them up with high quality references. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I was willing to tolerate your POV insertions in some obsure articles, and trying to clean them up as best I could, but this is something entirely different. Please reconsider your actions. Balcer 22:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I am only inserting facts. It is unfortunate that you seem to see confrontation and controversy in facts. That is not my intention at all.

I have added the version and the reference link, which however - you - confrontationally -removed, to the discussion page.

MG 4/17/2006

Talk pages

I removed your edits to some of these, because, as their name suggests, they are for discussions about the content of the article. They are not for storing alternate article versions, or information removed from main article. Anyone interested in other article versions can just look at the history page.

If you feel I removed vital information from some articles, you are of course free to put it back in. If I feel that information is not that vital, I can remove it. We can then discuss on the talk page, and hopefully reach some kind of compromise. Let's use that standard approach. Balcer 18:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Question I want to clear something up, as I got an email from a German Wikipedian about this. Are you by any chance the same person who was using the name user HJ, or HJ, IP 66.47.62.78 ? Apparently some of your edits are very similar to the edits of that user. Please clarify this. Balcer 22:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I get my information directly from the source, in this case the Teutonic Order on internet. So it is not surprising that a number of people also have this information. I try to get facts, whenever possible, not what a number of fanatic propaganda mongerers rant. Wikipedia professes to be balanced but it is a v e r y f a r cry from this and does not seem to get better. Looking at old wikipedia stuff from 2002/3 there was a user HJ, at wikipedia and the many mirror sites, there are a number of very strange people and I believe, some dangerous ones. I therefore adhere to this also: Most of us are anonymous, so it does not really matter what nicks we choose to call ourselves. It is interesting to me though to look at the timeline of Emax, Witkacy and Molobo edits. Somehow they do not overlap. But of course that is most likely coincidence. Balcer 17:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC) Let someone translate the Geschichte meaning History at the Deutscher Orden-Teutonic Order for you and you will find the references to 1494, when the grandmasters pledged allegiance to the emperor etc. Also that the emperor Charles V in 1527/29/30 appointed the grandmaster Walter von Cronberg the http://www.deutscher-orden.de/ The grandmasters were from 1530 - 1809/1834 Administrator des Hochmeistertums in Preussen, Meister des Deutsch Ordens-Deutschland und Welsches Land. I also find a lot of references ti original Prussian Preussische Regesten, documents etc on internet and take information from these primary sources. I do not believe the English language references too much, for example I got an old book on history of Prussia, from Oxford, UK which was used to train UK military. Well it states that the original Prussians were Slavs, this is also what you still read in a whole lot of books. How much can you trust any ones accuracy, that cannot tell Slavs from the completely different Baltic language people. Oh well, maybe wikipedia will be one of the few publications, that will have at least that fact right.

I do not have the time trying to keep wikipedia up and so the Emaxes and Witkacy's can take wikipedia over again. MG 4/22/2006

I advise anyone who is interested in this topic (Eastern German-European History) to study the history books, not Wikipedia. Wiki is a noble experiment in the marketplace of ideas, but one which is intrinsically flawed by the absence of qualified, disinterested gatekeepers. User:sca 24nov0

Another quote "What I am saying is that I have had numerous Polish history-book translations placed before me from a variety of periods in history and they all seem to differ from everyone elses versions of events. Christchurch 11:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)"


[edit] Clear question - needs clear answer

I ask for only a one sentence answer. Are you the same person as the one who used the nicks [HJ, IP User:66.47.62.78? A simple yes or no, please. If you don't give a clear answer, I will only conclude that the answer must be yes. After all, who would not want to make clear that they are not a banned user, if indeed they are not? Balcer 04:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Your refusal to answer this question, and the fact that you erased it from your talk page, only confirm my suspicions. Unless you issue a clear denial, I and the Wikipedia community must assume that you are the user HJ. Please, clarify the issue by answering my question clearly. Balcer 22:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

while searching for information we came across this Nicolaus Copernicus list.This contains a large amount of info. Very impressive.

If you come across further details on the life of Copernicus or his work please be so kind to post them here as well.That would also be very helpful to other students in doing homework. Greetings -Alex