User talk:Nico/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi there, Nico. Since noone else has yet, I'll say welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page or how to format them visit our manual of style. Experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
You might wish to take a look at Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot; try to avoid getting into edit wars. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 20:42, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot, Infrogmation -- Nico 18:44, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Hi Nico! I think, up to now I didn't say anything nice to you, and perhaps it is about time. It may be, that you thought, I should have been more grateful for your support yesterday. The thing is, that I as an admin protecting the page must be absolutely neutral in the conflict; Wik was claiming, that my page protection was in support of you, and I wanted to assure, that this was not the case. So I largely ignored your support, because I feared, that Wik could draw wrong conclusions.
Let me say, that I was obviously in error, when I said, that you are not interested in creating an NPOV article. Although I am now keeping out of the Silesia article, I still watch it. I am glad to see, that Krzysztof (Kpjas) has entered the discussion as one of the most experienced Wikipedia editors. And it is good, that you listen to other peoples' opinions and try to find a compromise.
About Wik: I don't think, that he will enter the discussion. I keep to myself, what I think about his behaviour, but most important is: If an article can be written, that Szopen and Krzysztof agree with, I cannot imagine, that Wik will revert it. And if he should: sooner or later Ed Poor or someone else will have a look on the article again and will hopefully initiate the stronger steps, which he announced.
I was somewhat rude to you, but in my opinion it was not completely out of place. You made some comments, that should not have been made. But I see, that your behaviour has changed now, and learning from errors is a commendable trait. It is difficult to stay polite, when someone else is insulting you, but it may do wonders, and at least it will draw negative feelings of the observers exclusively to your opponent. So I recommend to try it.
Take care -- Cordyph 21:45, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for your nice words. Of course I understand that you had to be neutral in the conflict, and I wasn't expecting you to be grateful or something like that for my support either. I will try to take your advice. -- Nico 15:28, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Nico, I see you have restored some of my older text to the History of Poland (1939-1945) article. Naturally I think my text is good, but the Polish nationalists and I had almost arrived at an agreed text on these matters, and now we will have to have the fight with them all over again. Or rather you will, because I'm not going through it all again. Finally, I actually don't know what happened at Jedabwe - do you? does anyone? Adam 03:26, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I see, Dr. Carr. But not to mention Polish anti-semitism in an article like that is quite POV, and it's correct that a large proportion of the Jews were killed by Poles, not directly by the SS. According to the Holocaust in Poland and Polish anti-semitism it was also an important point that Poland expelled the whole Jewish population as late as in the 60s. Besides, it's just Polish nationalists(/fascists) who deny the Jedwabne massacre, and in my opinion there are no difference between this and Holocaust denial. Nico 04:16, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I agree we need to mention Polish anti-Semitism. But it is not the central point because the Poles were not in charge of their own country during this period and were mostly passive bystanders.
- I don't agree that "a large proportion" of Polish Jews were killed by the Poles. The large majority were killed in the death camps, by the Germans. So far as I know very few Poles directly participated in this. Most of the non-Germans employed in the camps were Ukranians and Balts, not Poles.
- What happened in the 60s is not relevant to thisarticle.
- Detailed discussion about Jedwabne should happen at the Massacre at Jedwabne page, which needs lots more work. Adam 04:50, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Problem user page
Hello, a hitherto unknown user named User:NiceGuy removed your complaint against User:Szopen from Wikipedia:Problem users. Given that this account has only been used to make changes to Problem users and given that the user crudely tried to cover his/her tracks by making a formatting edit and marking it Minor afterwards, it seemed suspicious and I reverted the deletion. Since this complaint doesn't seem to be prospering, perhaps the best thing would be for you to remove the listing yourself. I will ask the same of Szopen. -- Viajero 17:09, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hi Nico, if you want to create a temporary alternative version of an article, it is best to do this within your own namespace. I have moved Silesia 2 to User:Nico/Silesia. Angela 03:57, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)
As you know, I am currently trying to help resolve the conflicts around Silesia and Görlitz. Please note that I will remain strictly impartial as to content issues but will try to help in the discussion. Methinks it is time to return to debating facts on the talk pages of these two articles and it would be appropriate for you to take part.
As there have been numerous examples of less-than-cooperative behavior around German-Polish matters, I would urge you to remain factual and abstain from each and all personal attacks (which are not allowed on Wikipedia anyway). If this attempt to reach a compromise remains unsuccesful and/or reversion wars are restarted after the protections are lifted, I am rather sure that there will be calls to ban both of you. This is your chance to prove the pessimists wrong. The same message goes to Wik. Good luck. Kosebamse 13:38, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
You should kiss and make up with szopen. Then you can both be taken off the problem users list, and there will be much rejoicing. Martin 00:10, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Nico, no problem. I also apologise if any of my sentences offended you. szopen
- (cross-posted) Thanks Nico - and you too, szopen. I'm sure you didn't do it for my benefit, but I do love it when people work out their differences. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. :) Martin 18:59, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for returning to debate on the Silesian matters. I guess Görlitz is not much of a problem, but the Silesia introduction might need some (little) refinement. And I agree that there will be much rejoicing once this affair is over, so let's finalize things. Kosebamse 08:22, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- but let's not be hasty. It is good that you agree with szopen about a compromise text, but it could perhaps be improved, and there are others whose view matters, so please let's be patient until we are all sure that the best solution has been found. Cheers, Kosebamse 16:16, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Of course. And you have some good points at the talk page. But temporarely, I think the most important is an introduction both Poles and Germans are happy with. Cheers, Nico 06:26, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
That's what I think too. Would you perhaps like to discuss it a little more on the talk page before it can go into the article? Cheers, Kosebamse 22:59, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense. Although, in that case, if he so desired, Caius2ga could simply never respond and keep the page protected forever. I'm pretty sure he's edited the talk page since I originally put up the alternate version, which suggests he's seen it. So my question is, if he doesn't say anything, at what point can we say "screw 'im, let's get on with it"? john
I agree. If he don't respond now, the version must be considered accepted. Nico 16:29, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hi, Nico! Actually, I know nothing "perfectly well". Scio me nihil scire - as the great Copernicus once said. But I am under a great deal of an impression, that not mentioning "Polish province" can be misleading to the general population, who tends to associate anything with the word "Prussia" in it, with Germany. I am no exception - I found out that Royal Prussia, together with its second largest city, known at that time under its original Polish name - Torun, was an integral part of Poland for over 300 years, yesterday.
And one more thing: I don't really consider you a vandal. You are a valuable contributor, with a sensitive heart, sometimes very emotional.
And me - I'm just a sarcastic bastard.
I encourage You to write me personally; my e-mail: spacecadet123@inorbit.com
Sincerely
Space Cadet 04:39, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I've protected your user page to prevent vandalism from Caius2ga. If you want me to unprotect, I shall do so. john 05:18, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thanks. Just keep it protected. I don't use it for anything else than the templates. -- Nico 16:19, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
He's saying the same about you though. :) I'm sorry but I don't think the current article disputes the two of you have rise to the level of vandalism that would permit me to block this user. Angela. 03:54, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Please get me banned for trying to keep wikipedia meritoric, please do. Matusz 00:38, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It's not acceptable to hide the discussion, and some comments were only some minutes old. When you archive stuff, please just archive the older talk, not recent comments. And the size of the page required not archiving yet. Nico 00:42, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Why do you fight about Poland and its regions, facts are facts, isn't they...? --Egon 21:54, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yes, facts are facts, and in English we for instance use English names. Nico 21:56, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. The whole thing with Silesia is very frustrating. john 22:25, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I know the English Wikipedia uses English names but I can't express any preference when I protect a page. The aim is to stop the edit war, not to make a statement about which version is right and I don't believe in reverting protected pages, so it will need to stay that way until someone unprotects it. Sorry. Angela. 22:46, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I don't understand why you insist, that all members of the Vertriebene were expelled. The formal requirenments is that one must be born in the respective province. Haven't you heard about the late migrants? Please correct the statement to be precise. Thanks in advance. WolfgangPeters
Even the mmigrants must be considered expellees, since their homeland was under occupation and Germans generally was discriminated and threatened in these areas. Nico 01:15, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Are you joking?? People who voluntarilly emigrated weren't expelled. Some of them waited many years for emigration. WolfgangPeters
Well, the degree of voluntariness is questionable. Why do you think they had to emigrate? In any event, they name themselves expellees. Nico 01:35, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The reasons have nothing to do. Members of the associations consists from 3 groups of people: expelled, evacuated and those who emigrated or their ancestors did. If one applies for emigration and waits, beacause he is not allowed, he cannot be considered expelled. This is question of meaning of the words and precision. We shall use precise wording. WolfgangPeters
Well, if you say. Nico 01:45, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
You will be the best to apply the corrections. Danke Schön! WolfgangPeters
Sorry for our misunderstanding, Nico. I thought the page had been reverted after I had protected it. Instead it seems as I protected it you reverted, but that did not show up on the screen. As to the vandalism, I am not sufficiently aware of the facts the article covers to express an opinion. But I have no time whatsoever for vandals. As I had no knowledge to decide which version was correct, I simply protected the current version, the standard procedure. If that was the wrong version I apologise. I have been in a similar position and know how frustrating it is. The best route is to leave the page protected for a while and explain in a factual format exactly how the other user's edits are POV. But again sorry if I conveyed the view that you had reverted a protected page. All the information I could find suggested that it had been reverted after the protection, and as the contributions consisted of just three people (me, who did not revert) an anonymous user who could not and you, I presumed you must be a sysop and had used your power to revert, a not uncommon phenonemon in edit wars. Apologies for the misunderstanding. FearÉIREANN 03:47, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
You know that "WolfgangPeters" is "GH/AM", right? From the discussion on their talk page it seems like you may be confused. [1]. Maximus Rex 05:58, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
He is? No, I really didn't know that. Nico 06:01, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but the way he suddenly appeared at Gabriel Fahrenheit, saying the same thing as AM makes me believe this. I could, of course, be wrong. Maximus Rex 06:04, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Nico, I have no idea why he moved those comments to my talk page. I suggest the issue is continued on the talk pages of the articles in question rather than on my talk page anyway. Angela. 20:07, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi Nico, what do you think how we should proceed on the Silesia talk page. I noticed, that there has been little traffic in the last days. The current version of the article is obviously not accepted, and we do not have another version. I would be pleased, if you could give your feedback on Talk:Silesia (above the "Silesia (moderated) always has the consensus version" line). Or, if you want to e-mail me, you may do so: my address is mt AT mirko HYPHEN thiessen DOT de. A similar message goes to Space Cadet, Kpjas, Szopen and Matusz. -- Baldhur 17:31, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I actually don't know what to do with that Silesia article. I feel all discussion is fruitless, as long as caius2ga never will accept another version than his own, just wants Auschwitz in the intro and never participate in the real/realistic discussion. I proposed a new version which would be much better from his POV even than szopen's proposal, and where almost everything he strongly disagreed with was removed, and he did not respond. I'm quite tired of the war with him, and have given up to find an agreement with him. And like szopen, I have less time at the moment. Everything has been discussed ad nauseum, and maybe the best solution would be to let some trusted wikipedians decide what to do with the intro. Nico 09:43, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Caius2ga announced a couple of days ago that he was leaving the project. Maximus Rex 09:46, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi, as Caius2ga has apparently left now, I've unprotected your user page. Just leave a note on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if you ever need it re-protected. Angela. 00:26, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi, Nico! The answer is: I don't have the first darn clue why Cologne or Köln have the Polish name in introduction. But I don't see anybody implying that it was an "official name of this Polish city". Tell you what: put back the german name for Warsaw, together with, for example, the French and Spanish names. That's fine. What's not fine is inserting ONLY German names on all Polish rivers towns and villages. Also, not doing the same in articles about Czech, Slovak, Slovenian, Hungarian, Rumanian and Croatian places(not to mention the Hungarian names). Finally not mentioning the Polish names for Lithuanian, Belarussian and Ukrainian geographical features. Together with your often displayed tendency of holding the Poles responsible for the consequences of WW II, (that includes putting blame for Jewish holocaust on Poles - the nation who lost tens of thousand of it's people (the most in the world) for their efforts to shelter Jews. More Jews were saved in Poland than in any other occupied country, even Netherlands!), with your consistent implying that any Polish contributor is "a known vandal" or a "revisionist" (did you finally look up this word, like I asked you?) makes it easy to believe that you are on some anti-polish crusade.
But changing the subject drastically: as far as the naming conventions for Gdansk, check Bratislava. Maybe the analogy isn't the best, because there was more than ten names for Bratislava and only two names for Gdansk, but the idea of listing the names and then using just one consistently throughout the city history makes sense, is NPOV and we already agreed on it for Oder river during pre German times.
Any questions, doubts, unclarities please use my e-mail: spacecadet123@inorbit.com
Space Cadet 14:22, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I added a new suggestion in Discussion:Germany. What do you think about it? Answers: there. If you have good arguments we could leave the RAF sentence out. 82.83.0.236 14:45, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't understand you. There is nothing like English name of Gdansk or Danzig - in contrary to Pomerania or Silesia. English speakers always used the local name - usually the German one but sometimes the Polish as well. An English name would be written according to English pronunciation, not the German. The word formerly suggests that the name Gdansk was artificially created after 1945, what is obviously untrue, beacuse the name Gdansk is earlier than Danzig: pronunciation of Gdansk and Gyddanyzc (997 AD) is exactly the same.
So please, calm down.User:Yeti
The names Gdansk and Danzig are both variations on the originally name. I think the problem here is that it's exceedingly difficult to devise an adequate formulation between the relationship among the two names. Before 1945, the city was normally called "Danzig" in English. It is also normally called "Danzig" when people writing since 1945 have referred to the city as it was before 1945. The city since 1945 is increasingly called "Gdansk". Why don't we just have "or Danzig"? john 22:35, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think Wik objects to "or", because he, like me, think Danzig is the former name (in English). On the other hand, I'm actually not sure what User:Yeti wants. In my opinion both Danzig and Gdansk are English names, because they have been in use in English. I don't think Silesia is more "English" than those names, as an English not necessarily needs to be different from names in other languages. Silesia is a Latin name, for instance. Nico 22:43, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think ambiguity is our friend here. "Formerly also Danzig" implies that Gdansk was also the name at that time, which it really wasn't for the period when the city was part of Prussia or a free city. (And I'd argue that it wasn't particularly named "Gdansk" for several centuries before 1793). On the other hand, "formerly Danzig" implies that this was the exclusive name, when, in fact, "Gdansk" was in use prior to 1945, and is really rather the same name. "or Danzig" doesn't imply much of anything, except that "Danzig" is an alternative name, which is, I think, true. So long as we explain in the article that usually the city is known as "Gdansk" today, I don't see why this should be offensive. For a similar case, see Ceredigion, where it just says "Ceredigion, or Cardiganshire". Ceredigion is the Welsh name for "Cardigan", so the situations are roughly similar, although perhaps less emotional since all the English-speakers of Cardiganshire were not expelled in 1945, after being in charge for six years of terror over the Welsh people. john 00:05, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
1. I can not agree that Gdansk and Danzig are variations of the original name. The oldest known name is Gyddanyzc. It is a Latin transliteration. Gdansk is prononunced exactly the same way, but is written in Polish alphabet. You can check it without any problem. 2. john expressed quite clearly my intentions. 3. Or between Gdansk and Danzig looks fine for me.
Nico von Zernichow or Czernichow Your name indicates that you are a Pole. Your ancestors not dobiously spoke Polish and lived in Poland.
Cautious 16:07, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You are correct, although the Zernichows have lived in Denmark (and Norway) for centuries, where they came from Brandenburg in the 17th century. Most of my ancestors are of German origin, though. -- Nico 17:32, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Rather Pomerania, that was annexed by Brandenburg in 1631. Anyway, your ancestors must prefer Danmark to Brandenburg. Your stamina is obviously after the Slavic blood. Cautious 20:20, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
http://www.lysator.liu.se/runeberg/dbl/4/0125.html He wrote himself Czernichow, that is little simplification to Czernichów. Cautious 20:35, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I know that. Zernichow is the modern spelling, used for the last 300 years.
I don't see why someone should prefer Denmark to Brandenburg? A lot of German noble families are of Slavic descent. That makes them not less German. I am also of French, Italian and Swedish origin, however, I do not consider myself an Italian etc. Nico 20:52, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Your ancestor obviously preferred to serve for King of Danmark over Hohenzollern Elector. Half of Germany are of Slavic or Polish origins. Recently archeologist found the layer of Slavic-like houses (dug indept in the ground) in Christiania and dated on AD 1000. Cautious 21:28, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hi Nico,
You wrote:
- "At the moment Berlin has the world-wide fastest growing Jewish community, and more Jews (particularly from Russia and former Soviet republics) immigrate to Germany each year than to Israel."
- 11:33, 26 Jan 2004 (source: American Jewish Committe)
Please precise your source, URL is best. TIA. --Ann O'nyme 04:11, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think I've read it here: http://www.berlin-judentum.de/berlin.htm (slightly more information can be found here: [2]) -- Nico 14:18, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Province of Posen
Could you list it on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion? I don't want to get into the middle of any wars. And shouldn't it be Province of Posnan? RickK 00:47, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Province of Posen is now moved. I'm not sure that's the correct name, but now the original is deleted, anyone can move it back if they want to. Angela. 01:19, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
Gdansk
It's only temporary until someone can mediate the situation. Maybe you should ask for official mediation at Wikipedia:requests for mediation. Angela. 06:47, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
