User talk:Nico

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Earlier discussion: archive1 (October, 2003 - January, 2004)

POST A COMMENT

Contents

[edit] Danzig

Nico, what was wrong with my version of the Gdansk intro? The "formerly Danzig" clearly isn't going to stand... john 03:22, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey Nico, I agree that it's useless to reason with User:Gdansk or whoever that is. I am currently going to stick with the formulation I've been using, as some form of it seems to have been acceptable to most everyone, and it is, so far as I am aware, completely accurate. It indicates that the city normally used to be called Danzig without denying that it might also at that time have been called Gdansk, which I think the Polish users object to. Let's not worry about this until User:Gdansk loses interest, at any rate. john 04:51, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Herbert Czaja

Czaja This is correct, that he was born in Teschen, but in this historic moment 1939 it is very confusing, because it suggests Austrian anschluss. In addition, I am not sure if he still lived in Polski Cieszyn or maybe he moved somewhere else in Silesian Voivodship. He seems to me more adhere to Silesia then to particular part, like Austrian Silesia. Better state simply, that all parts of Silesia were annexed by Germany at this moment, as simple as it is possible for avarage reader. Cautious 13:20, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pila

Nico, I've protected Pila now. Can you please stop and converse with the person you are reverting? Follow Wikipedia:Conflict resolution. If you feel it's broken down, request comments, request mediation, do what you have to do. Just please stop the revert wars. I know, it takes two sides. I'm asking you not to be one of those sides right now. Let's settle things. Thanks, Nico. Jwrosenzweig 20:57, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image centring

Hi Nico! Thanks for your response to my re-centring of the picture caption on Mozart. I have to accept what you say about IE5 making a mess of the picture positioning but I'm still puzzled (I have IE6). I've just done a count of how many pictures I have put on WP since I began in January 2003 and it's 800 (800 thumbnails and 800 larger versions).
Every single caption is centred so why has no-one told me about this problem before! Any theories? Best Wishes,
Adrian Pingstone 17:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] invitation

Please see Talk:American twenty dollar bill. You get this invitation because your name appears in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (US vs American). Feel free to ignore if you are disinterested. - Optim 05:16, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Rick (or John)! Why do you have to claim Polish like Copernicus were Germans? Aren't there any famous German people you could edit? Copernicus didn't even speak German. Mestwin 02:40, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Copernicus did speak German, BTW :)

Adolf Hitler claimed Copernicus for the German nation I have a collection of stamps by Adolf Hitler, issued in 1940, claiming the Copernicus was a German astronomer. I just thought they may be of interest for you.

Hi Nico - thank you for your kind words. I guess i am wikipediholic and couldn't stand more than a month away from wikipedia Szopen

Would You call planned mass extermination of Jews during WW II - Germanization?
And then, there are many Jewish holocaust deniers. World is a twisted place.
Space Cadet 15:36, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The comparison is ridiculous. And you know it. Nico 15:41, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can't say that I do. It's actually a very good analogy, despite huge differences in the historical era. But like I said, there will always be people who deny the most obvious.
Changing the subject: since you are the omly one questioning genocide/extermination, how about coming up with some sources for "Germanization". Not from some XIX century (or XIV century, for that matter)historian and not from some Landsmannschaft site, though, please!
Truly,
Cadet

And what's wrong with XIX century historians? Nico 16:03, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The same as with XIX century physicists, chemists, linguists, archeologists etc. Newtonian mechanics, although taught to this day in high schools, cannot explain high speed phenomena, spacetime curvature or twin paradox. Phlogiston theory although charming, loses to the oxidation as explanation of combustion. Vis Vitalis theory stating that no organic compound can be synthesised from non-organic matter outside of living organisms is a joke since the synthesis of uric acid. And so on and so forth. Science constantly moves forward, verifies and rewrites itself. While the Pythagorean theorem survived millenia, other "canons of knowledge" cannot survive half a decade. The number of resources available to scientists increased unimaginably since XIX century. Also science became more independent from the political indoctrination. The so called "scientific method" crystallized into a very well defined process.
Do you consider yourself an educated, well read person (as I always considered you to be)? Because if don't, then what are you doing at an encyclopedia? Making waves? Excercising shock value?
But at least I'm happy you don't question my request not to use Landsmannschaft sites. Theoretically, you could've asked what's wrong with them, too. After all, you made reference to them several times in various articles.
Hopefully, I was able to clarify some issues troubling you. Count on that always!
Sincerely,
Space Cadet

As you may have noticed, I have nothing against the Landmannschaften. But I don't think they in this particular case are more relevant as historical sources than, say, CDU, SPD, Labour or any political party or organisation.

And I still think genocide and extermination are not the right words when dealing with the issues of the Teutonic Knights and the Baltic Prussians or similar cases in history. Nico 19:17, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And that's your opinion, which I respect. Whether it belongs in an encyclopedia, is a different issue however.
Space

I can find no evidence that what you say is true. And aren't you the person who was claiming only the other day that East Germany should be about the lands currently described at Eastern Germany? Morwen 18:18, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Do you think you ought to write to dw-world.de to tell them they've made a terrible mistake here? [1]. They seem to be using 'Eastern Germany' to mean the six states, not areas annexed by Poland etc! Morwen 18:25, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Argh, I found another one. This time the german tourism board have got it wrong. They think that Berlin is in Eastern Germany, when you say it is in Middle Germany. Here is the link - [2].

And the British Council in germany have got it wrong too - see [3]. They say Eastern Germany is Berlin, Brandenberg and Mecklenberg-Vorpommern! In fact, I can't find anyone who has got it right! Morwen 18:28, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

But you must agree the _primary_ use of the term 'Eastern Germany' in English refers to a region entirely confined within the borders of the Federal Republic, whatever its exact boundaries may be. Certainly we should mention the historical usage of the term, but we shouldn't try and present that as the primary usage of the term. I will rewrite the introduction a bit to match what I found. Morwen 18:33, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Nico, Please don't get carried away with reverts on the East Germany article. It is enough to occassionally return to the article and edit it to your satisfaction, but please don't engage in revert wars. Fred Bauder 15:04, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Neumark is only part of East Brandenburg. Cautious 23:31, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, it comprised the area of Mark Brandenburg east of the Oder, as far as I know. Nico 23:37, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are ingnorant, as far as I know. Neumark was the Eastern part of Brandenburg. Frankfurt was not a part of Neumark, while Naumark never reached Oder river. I know much more about German East then you. Cautious 23:39, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Do you have any source that Expelees really make such a nonsense claims? Cautious 10:33, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why do you attack the Polish cities, forge historical articles, rename Polish cities into German, translate English language articles into German? Do you enjoy this??? Mestwin of Gdansk 22:23, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, I do, Grzez. Especially I enjoy cleaning up after you. Nico 22:25, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Do yoy fight ghosts, Nico?????? - Grzes is busy right now and have no time to Wikipedia, but he promised to come back soon. Mestwin of Gdansk 22:37, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fine. I'm sure you will let him know that I miss him a lot. It shouldn't be too difficult for you. Nico 22:41, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for speedy revertion of User:AntiNaziWatch in Szczecin despite controversion resolution in progress. Neverthless, please do not to mark reverts as minor edits. Przepla 15:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Nico, What I put on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (disputed place names) is so far only my sugestion and I suppose it would be better to wait a bit till more people actually agree it's either a good solution or adopt a different one. Kpalion 12:02, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

You have been invited to join in mediation regarding placenames in Central Europe. Please accept or decline this request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation# English/Polish/German/Nazi names of the Polish cities . You may also indicate who, if anybody, you would like to act as your representative if you do not want to participate personally, as well as your preferences regarding the choice of mediator. Tuf-Kat 23:18, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Nico, the fact that some morons do something does not mean that you have to act equally idiotic. It's something wrong with them, be sure not to let them infect you, since you're not striking back at them but at all Poles here and reliability of Wikipedia at all.Halibutt 15:15, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also, it was you who started it in October. Don't blame everythng on the others.Halibutt

[edit] BdV's struggle for our homes

I think "ancestral homes" implies that only the ancestors of the current expellees in Germany actually were expelled. This is not the case. Million of Germans living now were expelled themselves. It's not only their ancestral homes, but their own homes we are talking about. Nico 17:01, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is a contradiction in the message of BdV. One must chose between arguing to represent a sixth of the population, in what case one must include also the generations born after the war, or to represent only the pensioners, in what case one credibly can demand their homes back (although the actual owners in all but the rarest cases are dead). This doesn't bother BdV much, but now we are to write articles meeting somewhat higher ambitions, and the propagandisms will 1/ lower the credibility of the text, and 2/ give fellow wikipedians (who are not involved in the current disputes) an impression that you-know-whom deserve support (see: Wikipedia:Unencyclopedic).

This day is, by the way, symbolically a very gloomy anniversary. Although the crisis of international diplomatics that surrounded the invasion of Iraq temporarily led to closer contacts with the Russian post-Communist government, ultimately it only cemented the souring relations between Russia and USA, which in the long run means that we can forget any accommodations with respect Soviet WWII-gains, as cooperation on development of Karelia as many Finns had put their hopes to, or East Prussia, which could have been such a nice cooperational project serving to deepening the trust between Russia and EU. :-(((
--Ruhrjung 20:43, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Should we maybe elevate the debate from the most personal levels?

You know better than me what you've done. I propose that we remove your last comment[4] and my reply from Talk:Gdansk. If we don't, maybe someone gets the idea to dig up some examples of what you have done. (In other articles, but it will in any case neither be good for you nor for the goal I try to reach.)

--Ruhrjung 00:42, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have nothing to hide. There is no need to remove any comments. Nico 01:09, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't think that removing comments is a good way to accomplish anything constructive, especially as they're still available in history. To be honest, I don't think anything constructive can possibly be achieved so long as User:Gdansk continues to be involved in this dispute. john 01:16, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is there then maybe need for peace keeping forces from the rest of wikipedia?
--Ruhrjung 01:32, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do not believe so. In most cases, it's possible to cooperate with other people, even those with strong POVs - like me ;-) but also most Polish contributors. Caius2ga/gdansk was the only real problem in the Silesia case, and when he left, the remaining users reached a compromise, which also was defended by the Polish side. At the moment User:Gdansk is blocked from editing, after vandalizing numerous articles on German cities "in retaliation action for blocking Gdansk and Szczecin" - hopefully he will be permanently banned at some point. Nico 01:49, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I can only hope you are right. My fear is that we see a problem with an individual where he is only the visible representative for a localized POV.

BTW: ...if their issue had been only German actions during the world wars, it would have been much less of a problem. On that point they are in agreement with dominant opinions in the world (or at least in the West and in Wikipedia). But their problem is rather a long-lasting German dominance, which obviously hurts the national dignity, in addition to their feeling of having been betrayed by "Europe" and left to the eastern wolves. ...more than once.

This makes representatives for the opinion User:Gdansk mirrors problematic. It has parallells with bitternes nurtured by Finns and Palestinians, and shows pretty clear in how quick otherways lucid contributors, as for instance User:Space Cadet can detoriate. If wikipedia succeeds to chase User:Gdansk away, we might see other representatives for his opinions sooner than we would have wished. (And I do not think of sockpuppets.)
--Ruhrjung 01:55, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey, Nico. I'd like to ask you to refrain from editing and reverting Expulsion of Germans after World War II? For some time maybe, just enough to enter the discussion. Perhaps explaining what is factually or logically wrong with my header:

Expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the ethnic cleansing of the Germans remaining outside of German territory as defined by Potsdam Conference.

I'd really like to work out some compromise, defending even that ethnic cleansing but you seem to take no notice just forcing your views. Views that can be contested on grounds of factual accuracy. See Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II

Sorry, I have to revert Cautious' pure revionism. His edits are unacceptable, and he knows it. You should ask him not to revert.

Please do not ask me to resolve your own conflicts. Prhaps try to talk with people before acting. Moreover - below - you misquote my words to perpetrate your petty war. And yes, this makes me angry, because I'd like to be source of compromise not a tool for conflict.

Also, "remaining outside Germany" is offensive. When they were expelled, it was not outside Germany. The German government did not recognize these borders until 1990, and the areas are generally considered parts of Germany by the expellees. There should also be a link to the Eastern Germany article. Nico 22:46, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Did I really wrote "remaining outside Germany"? No, I wrote "remaining outside of German territory as defined by Potsdam Conference". Is this logically false or something? Note that I'm not speaking of Germany but of Potsdam Conferrence decisions! Are Potsdam conference's decisions offensive to you? Even if they are, they are the undisputable historical fact, the prime basis for expulsions and you should mention it. And believe me - for many Poles it is offensive and even traitorous as well. Poland has lost much more territory than Germany after all. -- Forseti 09:13, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gdynia

Would you support something like a very brief wording in the initial sentence? For instance:

Gdynia (formerly also Gdingen and Gotenhafen) is...

--Ruhrjung 14:52, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine. But it's not necessary to bold Gotenhafen. I'm only bolding names which have been used in English (Gdynia and Gdingen). Nico 14:54, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are right!
I believed there was a redirect from Gotenhafen, but it doesn't seem so, and I see really no reason to.
See also: User_talk:Cautious#Gdynia,_briefer and User_talk:Ruhrjung#Gdynia. --Ruhrjung 15:11, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Prussia and the land of the Prussians

Don't forget Wikipedia:How_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earlier_version#Revert_wars_considered_harmful_(the_three_revert_guideline)!

You ought to remember that the land of the Prussians predates the foundation of Königsberg!
--Ruhrjung 16:14, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Nico, if using the words please and sorry five times in two sentences [5] is insulting to you - I'm sorry. I listened you on Wikipedia:Requests for comment page. Take care.Halibutt

Nico, please explain your point in placing the article about St Mary's Church in Gdansk under a German title. It really doesn't matter that it was built by Germans or that it is now in Poland. Most churches described in Wikipedia are placed under their English names. And if you think the right name for St Mary's Church is Marienkirche, why didn't you try to change the titles of articles about churches in Germany? Kölner Dom for instance doesn't even redirect to Cologne cathedral. I don't want to accuse you of vandalism but I do hope that you'll either explain your reasons for that change or revert it. Take care. --Kpalion 22:35, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I then have moved the article to St Mary's Church of Danzig. The same reasons for why the Free City of Danzig should be called Danzig, not Gdansk, in the title, applies to this article. Nico 22:56, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't get it. What does the Free City, ąn entity which no longer exists, to do with a church? A church which perhaps was built in Danzig but is now in Gdańsk - just like the Imperial Cathedral was built in Aquisgranum but is now in Aachen. Please, let there be one article about St Mary's Church in Gdansk and a number of redirects to that article. Changing it at random will only cause confusion and technical problems such as double redirects. --Kpalion 00:05, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for comment

We ask that you please not sign posts on this page. I will be editing these statements out. If you have statements you wish to make, please make them on the subpage for Halibutt. You can use the template provided to create the subpage. --Michael Snow 23:12, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ethnic cleansing

Sorry to have reverted you~r minimalist change in the Expulsion introduction.

I am not happy with the current wording, but I must admit that the result of your change made it even worse. It made it seem like the article claims that "mass deportation" is another word for "ethnic cleansing" — then even the current "by some" is better.

regards!
--Ruhrjung 21:11, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"By some" is offensive and minimizing in my opinion. Imagine if I made similar changes to the Holocaust article, "by some seen as genocide". Nico 21:54, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

I agree! The question is: what to do about it.
--Ruhrjung 22:14, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Erika Steinbach

(hdr changed - was Gdansk - I got myself confused about which page I was talking about: Martin)

Please refrain from reverting the same page more than three times on the same day. See wikipedia:revert. Better practice is to revert less frequently and discuss more. Martin 00:24, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

But if the page is attacked by a previously banned vandal (User:Gdansk)? Nico 00:26, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes. There are always more editors who can help revert vandalism. Martin 00:31, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I reverted it. I never was banned. I asked User: John_Kenney to mediate. I am sure you will not call him pro-Polish.Yeti 00:38, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I was actually not discussing the Steinbach article, but the edits by various User:Gdansk sock puppets. The heading of this section was changed. Nico 00:41, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

[edit] Wik misconduct

If you have evidence to add at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wik, please do so. — Jor (Talk) 18:42, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Danzig Disambig

Please stop messing up Danzig. The page shall be a redirect, as already discussed at Talk:Gdansk with archives. This obscure band and unknown people does not justify making so an important city name a disambiguation. Neither should Washington, Berlin or Warsaw be disambigs. The band etc. are moved to Danzig (disambiguation), and a link will be inserted in the main article (Gdansk). Nico 19:37, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Uh, no. There has been no consensus at all on this. I only find one mention (other than your recent comment at Talk:Gdansk) throughout the entire archives that doesn't recommend changing it to a disambig page. Secondly, Danzig (band) is still more popular than the city (as far as search engines go), so they are not obscure. Please stop saying that they are.

Secondly, Washington is not a disambig page because Washington is a state, Washington, D.C. is a city and George Washington was a president and it is not needed at that page. Berlin and Warsaw don't have enough alternate meanings to require a disambig page, but Danzig clearly does. RADICALBENDER★ 19:45, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A comment to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ruhrjung&diff=3046632&oldid=3046368
--Ruhrjung 02:01, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Persecution

Nico, I'm not going to have an edit war with you over the "Pursuit of Nazi collaborators" articles. I hope you don't mind. --Uncle Ed 17:48, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

see your talk page. Nico 17:49, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Erika Steinbach

Sorry, I agree with Wik that the tag is inappropriate if you are the only one disputing it. I think you would be better continuing the discussion on the talk page, or just accepting the consensus that has been reached there. Angela. 21:12, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

Pardon? Which consensus? As far as I know, only the Polish lobby disputes the neutrality of my version. This was my article, and the only thing they have done, is inserting their POV. Nico 21:36, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Polish lobby? Everybody agreed that your version is unacceptable. Not only Polish users. Check on the talk page. The problem is that you even do not try to defend your opinion. Your only argument is a sentence from a website of Erika Stainbach. The article is not your property, even if you start it.Yeti 23:33, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Evacuation of East Prussia

The name for the article, how it is right now, seems apropriate. If you really think, that the Soviet crimes in East Prussia deserve seprate entry, please create an entry called Soviet crimes in East Prussia and it would be referenced in the main article, in section dealing with the reasons for evacuation. Cautious 07:20, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dawn_of_German_East

I am preparing the new article, dealing with the whole process User_talk:Cautious/Dawn_of_German_East, while Expulsion of Germans after World War II should remain the description of one of the phases of the process.

Please contribute your comments. Cautious 07:50, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

Nico, forgive my curiosity, but are you totally unable to cite your sources? I've asked you to do so several times, yet to no effect. Also, many people asked you countless times to use the discussion page instead of starting a revert war. To no effect.

What's the problem then? Do you think we are a bunch of liars who want to foul the rest of the World? Or maybe you believe that all those who question your version of history were fouled themselves? If you think that it's something wrong with us rather than with the articles - just give us a hint as to what is wrong and what should be improved. It seems to me that you started a holy war to defend the one and only truth. Am I correct?

Anyway, the community agreed here that nobody wants you to be banned since some (perhaps even the majority) of your contributions are good and wikipedia really needs your knowledge. Do you want us to change our minds?

A sign of good will would be more than enough. Just try to drop in to the talk page and answer some questions others ask you. Join the discussion. Please.

Sincerely, Halibutt 00:32, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Organised persecution of ethnic Germans

good edit. it is really distressing that someone tried toi link the one to the other, glossing over germans who were severely mistreated after the war. Sam Spade 06:04, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


You know the policy, but just to be 100% sure, here's the link: Wikipedia:Quickpolls policy.

Please realize, that there is a serious danger in making people upset: The definition of "rampage" is not clearcut. In general, wikipedians have been unwilling to ban for rampage, but the more upset you make people, the lower the treshold will be for them to support banning you.

One could think that the ban is only for a short time, but I believe most wikipedians (and most of them who have been banned) in reality see it as a loud and collective "Shame on you!"

I can tell — from personal experience from other communities — that also when one has put great pride in being an individualist truth-teller, it's not fun to hear from say 80%-90% of them who say anything at all that they consider one's efforts bad for the community.

So, now it's time for you to read and re-read the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. Since you already have made quite a few people upset, you'll have to behave holier than an acolyte. You'll have to sit on your fingers and endure bad prose and horribly biased versions while you wait for others to edit (or revert). You'll have to convey happyness, friendliness, wit, and if possible also understanding, for people you really don't want to be friendly or understanding towards. If you don't, the end result will be the victory for people with an anti-German agenda. (I won't mention the names, it's unnecessary.)

And, just since certain contributors are fond of sockpuppets doesn't make their ways popular in the eyes of the general wikipedia community. I advice you to keep to your current user account.

I have opposed Quickpolls on the sole base that there was no explecite warning in the context of giving the user a fair chance to improve their behavior. You ought to consider my friendly intended words above as such a warning. In case of a requested Quickpoll against you, I'll consider you warned, if not before at least from now on.

regards!
--Ruhrjung 06:13, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm actually not completely sure what you are referring to. After Wik's quickpoll attack some time ago, I'm very carefully trying not to break any of the rules. Why should anyone ban me? Nico 06:25, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Why should anyone want to ban you? Well, honestly and unfortunately, since you make people angry. I've noted that you've been careful with regard to the three-reverts rule, and I think this is one of many proofs that Eloquence's idea works! Wikipedia has improved thanks to his Quickpoll-scheme. However, there is some space for interpretation even of the 3-reverts rule, and particularly with regard to what to understand as "rampage". If you make too many too upset you can count on them interpreting the Quickpoll-policy in that way that is unfavorable for you. So, also if you believe to have played by the rules, the danger is that you are accused of not doing so, and that none will argue for giving you the benefit of the doubt, resulting in your ban and as a second consequence boosting the prestige of your antagonists (whose prestige also I might wish to see diminishing instead).
--Ruhrjung 06:59, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, some people from the Polish lobby may want to ban me, but in most cases I want to ban them as well. Some of them are banned already (User:Gdansk). So there we are. Nico 07:24, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

P.S.
...and of course Hallibut is right above. If you can't dig up credible sources (and that means credible in the eyes of other wikipedians, not only in yours!) it might be a good policy to reword your proposals, and back down from your claims. It's not enough that you know you're right. You must also convince!
--Ruhrjung 06:20, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have actually already done it and cited my sources. I also realized that "over 2 million" would be more precise than "until 3 million". Anyway, I'm not going to talk with User:Halibutt as long as he is attacking me publicly, listing me on various unpleasant pages pages etc. Nico 06:25, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It's hard to convince people if one has the policy to avoid talking with them.--Ruhrjung 06:59, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your changes to Expulsion of Germans after WW2 makes no sense and were not aproved by the community. Why you put Eastern Germany, when Potsdam conference called for transfer all Germans remaining outside Germany?? Hungarian and Bohemian Germans were tranfered from outside even 1937 border. By the way, I haven't removed the photos. I moved #2 to the implementation and #1 to the article about the evacuation. Nico, you probably know, that expulsion was made by train?? People walking during the winter, it must have been an evacuation. Cautious 08:06, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The physical Britannica from 2002 used Gdansk for Schlutter and Free City. In XVII century the city was still in Poland. Stop trolling. You woke me up. I have to get up early tomorrow. Good night. Space Cadet 21:35, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you don't mind my alias "Mruk" is reserved for my friends only. And if I remember correctly, you consider my offer of friendship offensive and you never returned my e-mails. So just stick to calling me "Space Cadet", "Cadet", or "Space". Thank you.

The adress on my user page didn't work for a couple of weeks, don't know why, but at least now it's working again. Sure I will call you Cadet if you want that (Helga told me a bit about you). Nico 04:27, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mate, I'm from Australia. I don't give a stuff about Poland. Or Germany, for that matter. As you know, I had my attention drawn to that page by your incessant reversions to it, and failure to follow community consensus as expressed in the page history and on the talk page. Tannin 08:23, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have tried to discuss with those persons, but they do not wish to discuss, just insert their POV. My latest version is roughly based on the proposal by Kpalion (who is Pole). Nico 08:24, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

re chronological order, here's Tannin's first post. As you can see, I have preserved the order of his comments from there. Martin 12:42, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No! His first post was an illegal quickpoll which was deleted. Silsor then adopted the poll, but my comment was written when his attack was not there. There doesn't need to be three complaints/frivolous personal attacks before the facts (my comment). I tired of the hiding of my comment. Please restore all the comments. Nico 12:47, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No.
You have got your say. Tannin has got his say. Now leave everyone else to have their say. I'm sure people will be careful to examine the facts of the matter before voting - if you don't trust your fellow editors to be that careful, that's a matter of regret. Martin 12:55, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] West and "Middle Germany" reunited?

I read that at Ruhrjungs talk page. I live in 2004, what year do you live in? Get-back-world-respect 22:23, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

You have a spiffy little template on your user page, but hasn't image thumbnailing been superseded with the extended image syntax? - Fennec 15:47, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nico, it absolutely was German-occupied Poland. The article also notes that the region was, at the time, annexed to Germany. I'm not going to change it back. john 05:33, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, it was a part of a German province. It was in Germany, and Polish POVs on it are irrelevant. If a German province shall be called "occupied Poland", we are also going to call Breslau "Polish-occupied Germany" until the recognition of the borders as factual in the 70-ies. If you do not restore the page I have to do it myself. Nico 05:37, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's not just the Polish POV. It's the British POV, the American POV, the French POV, the Belgian POV, the Dutch POV, and so on and so forth. After the war, the German government made no claim on having any right to these territories. So far as I am aware, the judgment of international law is that this area remained part of Poland, despite the German occupation and purported annexation, until the restoration of Poland at the end of the war. The areas taken from Germany in 1945, on the other hand, are recognized, well, to have been taken from Germany in 1945. It may not be fair (although I'd hesitate to say it's not fair, given the enormity of German crimes during the war), but that's just the way it is. john 05:44, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Certainly the German government officially considered Eastern Germany "occupied".

Also, France did not dispute the borders of Germany. The (de facto (Pétain) ) government of France during the war was not in war with Germany. Anyway, various POVs on the de jure status of German provinces are irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia which according to the guidelines uses NPOV, not POV, so we shall just stick to facts. If NPOV applies to Breslau, NPOV also applies to Rahmel. Nico 05:58, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mexico recognized the annexation of Texas in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. And France was at war with Germany throughout the Second World War, although there was an armistice. No peace treaty was signed, and French POWs remained in camps in Germany. So far as I am aware, the French never signed anything which recognized the German annexation of Polish territory (nor did they recognize German de facto annexation of Alsace-Lorraine). john 06:14, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nico, I didn't say that the expulsions were justified. I said it was probably justified for countries to recognize the Polish annexation of these regions, while not recognizing German annexation of Polish areas in 1939. john 06:21, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

May be, as the Axis powers lost the war. But that is a matter of Realpolitik. I don't see any reason for why Wikipedia should recognize Soviet/Polish actions, but not German actions. Nico 06:40, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Soviet/Polish actions stuck. German actions didn't. john 06:42, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's still not an argument in regard to NPOV. Should Rahmel also be called Prussian/German-occupied 1772-1919? Should it be called Polish-occupied 1919-1939? Etc. Nico 06:49, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 3 millions

Nico, there's a question to you waiting to be answered here. Halibutt 09:54, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Danzig

  • Danzig is a perfectly good disambiguation page. Leave it alone. RickK 04:54, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whether you think the place should be called Danzig or Gdansk or whatever, there are a bunch of other Danzig's disambiguated on that page, and I think I can confidentally predict that no matter how many times you delete them, somebody is going to revert. The other Danzig's are not little known or insignificant - as Mkweise pointed out, by the "Google metric", it's clear that the city of Danzig/Gdańsk is considerably less significant than the band. :-) --Stormie 04:59, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

The obscure persons are moved to Danzig (disambiguation), and a link to this page inserted in the temp version of the main article (Talk:Gdańsk/temp). Nico 05:02, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nico, could you plase take a look here: [6]

[edit] 1970

Nico, sorry to ask this question over and over again, but you still haven't answered it. What's wrong with you and the 1970 treaty? Why do you keep erasing any mention of it? Was it non-existent or what? [7] Halibutt 21:52, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Centre Against Expulsions

Nico, as you started that article, and obviously have insight into that subject, I'd like to ask you for adding some sections, dealing with started controversy, and describing POV of ZgV critics. Or critics of the form of Centre BdV and Steinbach propose.

You dont have to agree with them, just describe their concerns, worries, etc. from neutral point of view.

Main sources are in German, but even from English sources its clear among critics are heavy-weights of German, Polish and Czech politics, culture and history research. So it cannot be fixed by some sentece like it as very inappropriate and offensive as well as ridiculous and irrelevant that Poles and others object.

Some links

http://www.markusmeckel.de/pdf2/zentrum-vertreibung/Aufruf-Englisch.pdf http://www.bohemistik.de/zentrumgb.html http://lists.delfi.lv/pipermail/minelres/2003-August/002908.html

In my opinion trying to decribe POV you propably dont like in objective manner would be also very beneficial for you personally.

Wikimol 20:30, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Germany being identical with Germany, there is a difference between the geographical entity, the land of the people, and the political entity. See User talk:Bobblewik. (Besides, I agree that trying to put POVs of others in words acceptable for them is a very good and beneficial practice. Übung macht den Meister. :-)
--Ruhrjung 22:23, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Regular daily reverts

Nico, it seems you now have a habit regulary reverting certain articles (Erika Steinbach, Expulsion of Germans after World War II), which you believe don't reflect your POV correctly. Please, stop that. Its realy discouriging to contribute to an article, if I know, some hour in the afternoon someone will come and revert to his version, discarding changes.

Such developement cannot lead to good ends. Its possible others will give up; but, as some other users are also enthusiastic in advocating e.g. Polish POVs, its more propable more and more people will get angry, and finaly solve the conflict by forcible means.

I'd like to come with three alternative proposals

  1. Dont revert that articles. Resolve issues on Talk pages, work on version you reverted against, and abandon policy of not talking to your opponents.
  2. Let that articles live alone some time, e.g. one month. Dont edit them, and do something else. IMO it's possible you would be surprised that articles developing in direction you favour. As last day I had reverted yours edits and vice versa, I offer I'll do the same thing, dont touching that articles for a month. Or, if someone who you call Polish POV pusher would be willing to participate, lets say user Tannin and you will abstain. This way ballance of POV will be conserved, and User:Jor may represent your view. You cannot loose much by accepting this proposal - in worst case, for a month few wikipedia articles will be POVed.
  3. Change your oppinion on participating in mediation procedure.

Regards Wikimol 16:49, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I only revert changes I consider incorrect. You know that. I do not revert valuable edits.
Your second proposal is intriguing, but I'm not sure if it would solve anything. It seems like certain users are not listening no matter what I or other people are saying, and as long as they are reverting on a daily basis, they force me to do the same. A good start would be if they leaved the article alone, and answered my questions: Shall also Breslau be referred to as occupied Germany?
Anyway, I have no policy of not talking to opponents. However, I see no reason to talk to people who engages in continued ad hominem attacks on me, especially not User:Gdansk and people like him. Nico 17:52, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
From you wrote on Erika Steinbach talk, I assube you've decided to let that articles evolve for a while. Thanks. Wikimol 20:10, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nico, what you say is only partially true. You are not a holy person and you know it. Also, it happens to you to erase some useful info or erase questions rather than answering them ([8] or the recent Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nico thing ([9]). However, none of us is. Also, please note that the changes you consider incorrect are not equal to changes that are incorrect or changes the rest of the community considers incorrect.

However, what Wikimol proposes might be a good solution. Some users started an edit war over certain articles. They were running it for months now -- yet noone achieved anything. Other users dropped in from time to time, took part in the discussion or the revert war - yet they simply lost their time and effort.

And so the spiral goes on: Gdansk does not listen to you, you don't listen to Gdansk, both of you ignore the discussion and the main victim is always wikipedia. Nobody asks you to love Gdansk nor to agree with him. But how about asking you, him and all the people considered to be taking part in the revert war to refrain from editing the articles in question for, let's say, two weeks? Even if one of the guys will not accept the agreement, it would have lots of sense: the bad guy who declined to back down for a while would surely become bored and leave the page in peace. And then the rest of the community could clean up the article and finish the job.

Maybe me and Wikimol are just a pair of ideallists, but I still believe in the wikipedia spirit. The edit war proved itself senseless, because noone won or convinced anyone. There are only two options:

  1. Continue the edit war until you or Gdansk or the Wikipedia dies
  2. Back down for a while and see what happens.

You write that as long as they are reverting on a daily basis, they force me to do the same. You are wrong here. Nobody forces you to do anything. Perhaps if you showed a good will or simply backed down a little, the community could see if they just revert your versions or if they revert all versions. If their case is the latter, I'm sure noone would oppose to banning them. However, the way it is now they are somehow excused because their POV replaces your POV, that is also being considered as rather extreme.

As a final note, if you consider me to be a vandal, one of the people who engages in continued ad hominem attacks on you or one of the people like User:Gdansk, then perhaps as a gesture of goodwill I could refrain myself from any edits to those articles too. How about that? Halibutt 19:02, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I do not have time for wikipedia the next weeks (due to exams etc.). I might answer later. Nico 10:34, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nico,

I appreciate your efforts on Soviet Union, but I reverted the page back to AndyL's last version. The intro paragraph in Soviet Union briefly goes over things like formal name, the capital, when the country was founded and when it dissolved, the government constitutional structure, etc. The issues that you brought up really only can be addressed in proper detail in the articles on Soviet history. 172 02:45, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

There is some suspicion that Augusta is an alternate accounts created and run by yourself. Is this true? See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2/Evidence. Martin 22:53, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration committee decision

For using sock puppets to provoke a revert war and harass Wik your editing privileges are revoked for one day. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2/Decided for the details. --Camembert


Good news I have added to the Junker article I thought you would like to see them.WHEELER 13:28, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mozart screen pic

Nico, I was wondering, do you still have use for this photo: Image:Scr.mozart.jpg? Or can I delete it? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 22:29, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Hallo

vieleicht kannst du mir helfen, ein paar polacken mucken auf, sehe: Warsaw/Vote--Schlesier 17:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Eastprussia_flag.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Eastprussia_flag.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 18:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Lm-niederschlesien.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Lm-niederschlesien.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Niederschlesien_civflag.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Niederschlesien_civflag.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)