User talk:Sciurinæ/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Mind reading

Again, your edit to the George W. Bush article is fine, was made in good faith and isn't in any way controversial. The edits you removed were as well. It isn't necessary for Noitall to back up what he inserted because we are dealing with subject matter about an American and the information he inserted isn't POV or uncommon knowledge, at least not in the U.S. I can't read minds and I have no idea what you are talking about on that. Anyway, happy editing!--MONGO 02:43, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't put the information in there to begin with. Not everything in the article requires a reference link especially if it isn't very controversial. These items are common knowledge...maybe not in Germany but they are in the U.S.--MONGO 14:39, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Please do not restore personal attacks"

Official policy on Wikipedia: No personal attacks --Witkacy 01:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

That's really no excuse at all to delete all of TShilo12's statements, including the non-personal ones, especially not, Witkacy, if you're a fine one to talk: on the talk page you wrote in bold letters "If you are looking for Anti-Polish racists - check this talk page", which is much worse than TShilo12's statement([1]) and although I don't actually care, I doubt these are the only statements by you which comment on the editor rather than the contribution. Why don't you delete it or them first? This is a good example of a double-standard. I told you: you can strike out his alleged personal attacks but as you do: don't forget yours. And this revert is not the self-criticism I demanded either.NightBeAsT 02:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
"If you are looking for Anti-Polish racists - check this talk page" was not a personal attack.--Witkacy 02:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
So when you call several persons "anti-polish racists", then you don't comment in a negative way on contributors instead of contribtutions? He commented on you in a negative way, too, but he didn't insult you([2]). And speaking of personal attacks, this wasn't maybe a personal attack very similar to TShilo12's either? But since you now know the policy, let's forget about it.NightBeAsT 12:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rudi

Hey, you exaggerate a bit on Gazeta Wyborcza the title of the article is Szef ziomkostwa Ślązaków oskarża Polskę o dyskryminowanie Niemców which transltates as The chief of Preußische Treuhand accuses Poland for discrimination of Germans and the article does not contain any sentence like Pawelka blamed Poland for WW2. Instead it relates what from the usual Preußische Treuhand arguments is in the speech and then covers in a detailed way the paragraphs we discuss on. In particular, this means it also contains a passage głęboko zawstydza mnie, co narobiło państwo narodowosocjalistyczne (I am deeply ashamed of what the Nazi state did). Alx-pl D 16:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

(Response [3] NightBeAsT)

Oh it simply said that Pawelka blamed those events(made by Poles) as responsible for WW2, that started much earlier then 1939 or 1933. But I see you are resorting to cenzorship ;) So in effect Alx was deceiving you when he claimed that there is no sentence that mentions Pawelka blaming Poland for WW2 So i let him translate the sentence : Według niego Polacy nie przyznają się do powojennej grabieży, powszechnie przemilcza się też "cierpienia 2,4 mln Niemców w Polsce przed 1939 r." oraz "polskie agresje" po I wojnie światowej (wojnę z Rosją, wkroczenie na Górny Śląsk w 1921 r. oraz zajęcie Zaolzia w 1938 r.). Tymczasem wszystkie te wydarzenia wraz z "dyktatem wersalskim" w 1919 r. należą zdaniem Pawelki do historii II wojny światowej, która wcale nie zaczęła się w 1939 czy w 1933 r., lecz wcześniej. Of course if you want to censor facts be me guest, if you have no arguments besides"delete". --Molobo 23:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] America's Army

Hi Nightbeast, danke für deine Antwort zu meiner Frage auf der Talkpage zu "America's Army". Wie du es schilderst — und wie ich es mir schon gedacht habe — scheint ja die Vermarktung von "America's Army" ganz gut auf amerikanischem Heimatsboden anzukommen. Umso wichtiger finde ich es, in dem Artikel auch darauf hinzuweisen, wie das Spiel im Ausland, wie eben auch bei uns in D-A-CH, kritisch wahrgenommen wird. Und auch trotz Wikipedia:No original research bin ich der Meinung, dass man ohne wissenschaftliches Belegen in den Artikel reinschreiben darf, dass es vielen Deutschen eher missfällt, auf so eine Art Werbung für die eigene Armee zu machen. Ich werde mich daher mal in den nächsten Tagen mit dem Artikel nochmal beschäftigen und ihn diesbezüglich erweitern. Ciao, --Abdull 19:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm having a good bit of difficulty trying to edit the "America's Army" article, which is both wordy and riddled with POV. Apparently every time I try to make an edit you are re-posting the entire original article! As far as I can tell this is because you feel you "own" the article in question, which is no appropriate on an open-source venue like Wikipedia. Permit me to suggest that you store your own version of the article off-line for later use, and let the rest of the community participate in what Wikipedia is supposed to be all about! Tchuss, -- me 199.21.28.13 17:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bismarck's Kulturkampf

(Response to Witkacy's revert: [4])

Yeah, we have a problem - you know nothing about the Polish history... You should read more about Poland under the partitions, and Prussian/German anti-polonism during the Kulturkampf--Witkacy 01:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I asked for proof of your allegations, not new accusations. I still don't see reliable sources proving Bismarck was motivated by anti-Polonism when he fought the Catholic church in Germany. You say I don't know anything of Polish history? Well, if you're so enlightened about it, why don't you just verify your claims? Simply saying that when Bismarck's Kulturkampf happened, there were anti-polonistic feelings in Germany doesn't justify anything. People at that time, for example, also built houses. Is there any need to add the category 'Architecture'? So let's be consistent with these issues and delete categories unconnected to the Kulturkampf. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category(Wikipedia:Categorization).NightBeAsT 01:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=pl&q=Bismarck+anti-Polish&lr=N --Witkacy 01:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
You've 207 hits for 'Bismarck' in connection with 'Anti-Polish'. http://www.google.com/search?hl=pl&q=Bismarck+architecture&lr= I've 147,000 hits for 'Bismarck' in connection with 'Architecture'. How does it prove your point?NightBeAsT 01:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
"Neubach, Helmut: Eduard v. Hartmanns Schlagwort vom "Ausrotten der Polen". Antipolonismus und Antikatholizismus im Kaiserreich. Mit einer Vorbemerkung von Gotthold Rhod. [5]--Witkacy 01:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
What is this? A book? Post claims of the book if you like but don't distract from your inability to prove the Kulturkampf was motivated by an "irrational fear or malicious hostility toward Poles". Your link to anti-catholicism is acceptable because it is rather self-evident and uncontroversial but your link and category to the poorly written article for anti-polonism is not self-evident and at best controversial, at worst laughable, at any rate Witkacy's mere POV. If you cannot prove the self-evidence and undisputability, the official guideline says no to this category.NightBeAsT 19:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Nightbeast please... buy some books about Polish history and then contribute to the Polish-related articles on Wikipedia... Good night--Witkacy 01:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know yet whether or not you've realized it, but Polish history is a looking-glass through which only Witkacy sees clearly. His reverts are a reflection of the simple fact that nobody other than him understands TRUE Polish history. You have no hope, all your base are belong to us, after all, someone set up us the bomb. :-p Tomer TALK 11:13, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I know just what you mean, Tomer. Witkacy, don't take it personally but Poland is not the centre of the universe - not that Germany is but, if anything, the Kulturkampf is part of Germany's history so buy some books on German history.NightBeAsT 19:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

NB wrote :"I still don't see reliable sources proving Bismarck was motivated by anti-Polonism when he fought the Catholic church in Germany. You say I don't know anything of Polish history?" NB then erased an answer proving he was wrong: http://h-net.org/~german/gtext/kaiserreich/speech.html "When I think about the reasons for this, there comes to mind the Catholic department [of the Prussian government] which, until its abolition by my direct intervention as minister-president, possessed the character of a Polonizing organ inside the Prussian administration. (Unrest in the Center Party and among the Poles). Under the direction of Herr Kraetzig--I hope he lives still, it had become an institute of a few great Polish families, in whose service these officials pushed Polonization in all the contested German-Polish districts. That is why it became necessary for me to agree to the abolition of this department. And this is actually the reason I generally concurred in the Kulturkampf." Bismarck. --Molobo 13:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Finally a readable response except that you still haven't learnt to avoid jumping to conclusions (2nd sentence, what allegedly disproves what I've said). Anyway. So what do we have? A speech by Bismarck to convince someone. A speech is less likely to be his true opinion than for example his diary or something - a speech is a rhetoric, to convince the listeners. In Germany nationalism had its heyday in the German Empire, never forget that, so it is probable that nationalism could be used at that time to excuse something, say, an unsuccessful fight against the roman church. So he could say the strengthened Catholic church after his unsuccessful fight: "hey, I just wanted to promote Germanization". The German Wikipedia said next apart from the causes that the Kulturkampf allowed to ban teaching in Polish in Polish-speaking areas, but not because of Anti-Polonism but because it this would be against German national consciousness and from history lessons I remember that there was in fact a critical national consciousness at that time, so no matter how you put it, it is controversial whether this was really Bismarck's intention. Controversial categories are to be removed according to the official guideline. It is not self-evident, nor uncontroversial -> remove. But this wasn't your entire response, was it? Thank you for improving your response.NightBeAsT 19:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
"but not because of Anti-Polonism but because it this would be against German national consciousness a"

And we can also say that killing Jews wasn't an act of antisemitism but simply attempt to create pure German society-using your logic.Thus holocaust doesn't fall under antisemitism-again using your attempts to justify vandalising pages dedictated to persecution of Poles. --Molobo 00:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What has national consciousness got to do with anti-semitism? Is a Jew a citizen of another nation? Ever heard of Walther Rathenau? Anyway, do you really think that Germans at the time of Bismarck liked to teach in Chinese, Hungarian, Spanish or what have you? The language is a huge part of one's identity, and in Germany Bismarck wanted it to be German. That's it. Be honest, would you want German as the language used in Poland? You don't even want the German name of Danzig next to the Polish so you're no different than him, and that's meant as a compliment. Anyway, I think you're missing my point of my previous post.NightBeAsT 13:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
"Anyway, do you really think that Germans at the time of Bismarck liked to teach in Chinese, Hungarian, Spanish or what have you?"
That is absurd, they had no control over China, Spain, of Hungary, however they had control over Polish territories which had autonomy in Prussia for a long time with guerantees that the Polish populations will have its rights preserved.Bismarck attempted to destroy Polish identity and ethnic group which was living there in the first place and wasn't even part of Prussia till partitions.

"Be honest, would you want German as the language used in Poland?" German is tought at schools in Poland for German minority without any problems. --Molobo 14:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You're trying to change the topic desparately and you're trying to avoid commenting on the my two last comments as a whole. Be honest you don't even want the German name of Danzig next to the Polish even though it's against a wiki rule so you're no different than him. Your next comment will certainly be something like "even though it's against a wiki rule". The rule is some months old". You know I'm right but you hope that just for the sake of discussing you could gain anything.NightBeAsT 15:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
It is you who is trying to change the topic by using absurd arguments.There was no Chinese or Spanish population or territories that were part of the German Empire at the time.They were Polish territories and population, which Bismarck sought to culturally eradicate(as he shows in his speech which you are so eager to delete)by creating laws against religion, culture, language, and property rights-to which he admitted before Parliament.Learn more before you comment or "edit" (in reality vandalise).

--Molobo 15:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

So it's the Spanish population that makes the difference whether Bismarck was anti-polonistic or not in his Kulturkampf. I see. You're only accusing me and avoiding to come back to the crucial post: So what do we have? A speech by Bismarck to convince someone. A speech is less likely to be his true opinion than for example his diary or something - a speech is a rhetoric, to convince the listeners. In Germany nationalism had its heyday in the German Empire, never forget that, so it is probable that nationalism could be used at that time to excuse something, say, an unsuccessful fight against the roman church. So he could say the strengthened Catholic church after his unsuccessful fight: "hey, I just wanted to promote Germanization". The German Wikipedia said next apart from the causes that the Kulturkampf allowed to ban teaching in Polish in Polish-speaking areas, but not because of Anti-Polonism but because it this would be against German national consciousness and from history lessons I remember that there was in fact a critical national consciousness at that time, so no matter how you put it, it is controversial whether this was really Bismarck's intention. Controversial categories are to be removed according to the official guideline. It is not self-evident, nor uncontroversial -> remove. That's where it begins and ... that's where we still are. And the next time that you're accusing my edits of vandalism but cannot provide proof of it, I'll delete your statement and tell you to reword it because my talk page doesn't need your libelling.NightBeAsT 12:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

You used example of Spain..If Spain was under German occupation and it would experience persecution by Germany it would be anitspanish policy like German occupied Poland experienced persecution aimed at Polish culture and ethnic group, as confirmed by Bismarck(which you are so eager to delete).Your deleation of Bismarck's speech where he confirms the antipolish reasons for Kulturkampf is irresponsible and makes me suspect you have a personal agenda on yoru mid.As well as your lack of knowledge since you claimed Kulturkampf has nothing to do with Polish people. + --Molobo 01:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Georg Forster

I've blocked you for violating the three-revert rule on Talk:Georg Forster, just in case you're confused. I'm pretty sure that you can still edit your talk page here, so just reply if you need some help or something. --Merovingian (t) (c) 17:11, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I've checked the history, and you have indeed broken the rule, by re-adding {{Talk:Gdansk/Vote/Notice}} four times. --Merovingian (t) (c) 17:17, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for deciding to unban me after further research.NightBeAsT 18:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome; I should have looked into the matter a bit more. --Merovingian (t) (c) 18:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gdansk/Danzig

Hi Nightbeast. The Gdansk/Danzig thing has a long history, and SpaceCadet, Witkacy et.al. don't seem to agree to a compromise unless it is their compromise. Thanks for your kind words. Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 16:32, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I have blocked Witkacy for 24 hours, details on his talk page (unless he removed it) -- Chris 73 Talk 14:18, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Witkacy's talk page

Could you please stop leaving comments on my talk page? Thanks.--Witkacy 17:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Have I said anything offending? No, I just criticised you and very justly in my opinion. Contribute in a detached way and your feedback will improve accordingly. Good luck!NightBeAsT 17:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mezmerize etc.

Thank you for your help and your welcoming. I am simply trying to get these pages in conformity with Wikipedia policy. Pasboudin 16:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yup, I know you've a point there. I've made small edits to the articles in the past and put them onto my watch list so I could see one of the most absurd disputes in the history of Wikipedia. If you ask me, your dispute will be over very soon so don't worry: just try to make it public knowledge - try Wikipedia's IRC channel and other administrators for example or try an RfC. Soad is a great band so I'll try to keep an eye on the article and your standpoint seems very, very much closer to the truth than his (I've just no idea why he insists on it). I'll support you when it comes to an RfC or anything but please never forget that our aim should not be to make Mike angry (not saying you did but you've been attacked so many times that it's easy to forget one's principles).NightBeAsT 16:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
You're right, and I do try not to make him angry. If you check my edit summaries they are generally very calm and objective, whereas his summaries are often laced with profanities and insults (calling me insane, calling my edits vandalism, etc.) All I want, for MONTHS now, is a simple source... if he can't provide it then it should simply be left out. With your permission I would like to change the edits back at Mezmerize and Hypnotize since EVERYBODY except Mike Garcia agrees that there should be a source. I don't see why it should stay just to please one person when the consensus is that it shouldn't be there. Besides he is blocked now. Pasboudin 17:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I cannot give permissions, I'm not an admin and even admins couldn't do this (they can even be banned for the 3RR, well, except maybe for Jimbo Wales or after a dicision by the Arbitration Committee). Anyway I guess, somebody beat us to it: already deleted. So happy editing and good luck with your account =) NightBeAsT 17:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Dispute over the number of killed Germans after the expulsion after World War II

You claim that 2 milion Germans were killed.That is untrue.The number indicates Germans that didn't register after the war. You don't know that German colonists are counted among expelled. You don't know that colonists from other regions of Poland were counted as expelled. You claim that Silesia and Pomerania were German, when in fact they were partly Polish before the war.


You also claim that Hungary and Yugoslavia were German provinces which is plain bizarre.--Molobo 23:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

1. I never claimed that the number is 2mio - I reverted to that claim (that you changed) because any claim that is accepted on the page is in my eyes more reliable than any claim you make until you can convince others.
2. I don't know whether the former or the latter claim is true or not, but you've all but convinced me of the former being wrong and the latter being correct.
3. You say I don't know that German colonists are counted among expelled, nor that colonists from other regions of Poland were counted as expelled.? How do you know what I know? Did you know that, to my knowledge, claiming to know what other people know sounds arrogant? You know, you should know and should have known that I don't know how I could know that you know (or don't know) the truth and want it mirrored? You never know.
4. You claim that I "claim that Silesia and Pomerania were German, when in fact they were partly Polish before the war"? Not that I know of! When and where should I have done what?
5. You claim that I "also claim that Hungary and Yugoslavia were German provinces which is plain bizarre"? More bizarre is that I've never claimed so.NightBeAsT 16:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

NB-all people moved to Germany, by Nazis, by their own will, by Soviets, by Poles are counted as expelled.That includes people that moved into those areas after 1939, including those who were part of colonisation efforts of the Reich.Right now the article shows an incorrect information claiming that the expelled were all from German provinces which is incorrect-Hungary or Poland weren't German provinces. For example : http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/children.html Within a few short months, the Warthegau was cleared of Poles (and, of course, Jews), the Polish language was prohibited, and street signs were changed into German. By the summer of 1941, the Warthegau had been settled with 200,000 ethnic Germans, and it looked as if it had never been part of Poland.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005473 Following the annexation of western Poland to Germany, Hitler ordered the "Germanization" of Polish territory. Nazi governors (such as Arthur Greiser in the Warthegau and Albert Forster in Danzig-West Prussia) expelled hundreds of thousands of Poles from their homes in the Generalgouvernement. More than 500,000 ethnic Germans were then settled in these areas.

http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/1939b.html This system was designed to separate the ethnic Germans from the inferior beings in order to create an idealistic, racially pure Reich. Since West Prussia and the Warthegau were designated as newly Germanic land and subject to colonization, the Polish deportees had to be put somewhere before any Germans could move in. This became the task of the General Government, which became a "trash bin" for all Poles, Jews, Gypsies and other undesirable people in the Reich. Hitler gave his usual vague orders by giving his 3 eastern despots 10 years to complete Germanization, with "no questions asked" about their methods. This gave them a free hand to do as they pleased, and they could not only choose who was racially pure enough to stay, but also who would settle the land. This was not always an easy task because many of the colonists were ethnic Germans living in Soviet territory, so they too had to be ethnically approved. Eventually 750,000 Germans moved into the former Polish territory at the full expense of the Poles.

These deportations were not a civilized undertaking, but rather very violent affairs. It was common for German troops to drive into a neighborhood at night, burst into a home with weapons drawn and yell orders at the family to get in a truck to be taken away. One 10 year old girl named Anna Jeziorkowska saw a team of German soldiers rush into her family’s home, rob their valuables, beat her parents and ship everyone off to a camp as a German family moved into their home. This was typical as Franz Jagemann (an interpreter on these excursions) attested: "The worst thing for me was to see an elderly couple; they were over 70 and clearly did not understand what was going on. They were beaten up and thrown on a truck." By the end of 1939 the Germans had deported 1.5 million Poles to the General Government with an additional 200,000 sent to Germany for slave labor.

This people are classified as expelled by German government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Expellees Expellee status also includes Germans who had only gone to their new homeland with the military occupation.

--Molobo 18:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite get your meaning.I'll reread what you've written tomorrow. Good night.NightBeAsT 21:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Have a nice weekend!

Mwah!
Mwah!

Shauri 23:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)






[edit] Thanks for your support

Hello NightBeast! Thanks for your Support of my edits of the Anti-Polonism page! Basicly I agree with you, that bold edits are not the best way to deal wit this bullshit, but Volker and I tried to discuss with Molobo and all the other crazy guys but it did not work. So now I am at a point where I think that bashing this bullshit and voting for deletion is the only way to stop these brainsick guys from writing such a propaganda. Best Greetings, Micha.

P.s.: the kissing mouth is not from me...
You needn't tell me: I've my own differences with Molobo & co and we're not the only ones. But even as the subject of many edit and revert wars, the article was decided by the majority to continue to exist and so long as this is the case (I've only little knowledge of RfDs) we should try to make and keep the article neutral and keep it that way, firmly questioning new (dubious) claims by dubious contributors. I won't give up the article and will have an eye on the contributors. I hope that you will do the same. The more, the better. I'll also try to collect ammo for an RfC, just in case. Keep up the good work.NightBeAsT 14:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please take care with your tone

While I understand your frustration at Witkacy's behaviour, it's not helpful to make comments like this one. You're testing the bounds of Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia:no personal attacks, and I'm pretty sure you're well over the line of our Wikipedia:civility policy.

Witkacy was blocked because he was abusive of other editors and engaged in edit warring to fan the flames of the German/Polish naming dispute. Since he is blocked, any inflammatory editing by him is now contained to his own user pages, and can be safely ignored; it is not productive or useful to taunt him.

I encourage you to participate in reasoned, constructive, polite debate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Listen, I'm sorry. I didn't know that even this can be seen as incivil. After his offensive comments I just thought his behaviour deserved to be made fun of a bit. I knew this could hurt him but after lies and insults (insults that when deleted would and will be reverted by him calling their deletions "vandalism") I just thought maybe some tit for tat might show him that putting the conversation on the level of verbally hurting one another can turn out to be a double-edged sword - a double-edged sword even putting him at a disadvantage because even as he tries to hurt as much as he can, he still doesn't really hurt and he seems to be so angry that even small teasings hurt him to a high degree, even if he can delete them immediately. That he was already punished for abusiveness was something I did not know. Abusiveness was never named as reason for his bans and personal attacks weren't criticised beyond telling him that "Calling people names [...] don't help to resolve the issue". So from that indifference to personal attacks (they're still not deleted) it's easy to conclude that this doesn't matter at all in the dispute and is just another legitimate means to try hurting one's opposing interlocutor. With the civilty rule page opened I can see that I was wrong there, so I'm sorry because not making an effort to get to know the rule is no excuse at all to break it. I'll try to be more nice in the dispute (or disputes because it was surely not the last).NightBeAsT 18:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort. I know that there are a number of editors involved in this naming dispute, and some have made more of an effort to be civil than others. Converting the issue from one of content into a clash of personalities definitely won't result in any sort of satisfying resolution.
Witkacy's blocked from editing everything except his User and User Talk pages, so while it can be ugly, it may be best to let him vent. You will note that there haven't been admins rushing to unblock him, which suggests that readers of his Talk page have a reasonably good understanding of the situation. If you take shots at Witkacy there or elsewhere, those same admins will begin to identify you as a hothead, too.
Once again, thank you for making the effort. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schon klar

Moin Nightbeast! Im Prinzip haste ja recht, aber ich bezweifle, daß sie meine IP blocken werden, da die Admins genau wissen, daß sie dann auch 15.000 andere Leute blocken, die über den gleichen Proxy ins Internet gehen... Trotzdem vielen Dank für die Warnung!

Micha.

[edit] Kulturkampf

I wish I could join. The problem is that I know very little about the period of history and the Kulturkampf itself. I would have to learn a lot about this period to contribute in a considerable way. This I find difficult now. I can watch the article together with its talk page and react on personal attacks and vandalisms. My general advise is to add more info instead of erasing. If the source you fight against is irrelevant, then ask Molobo and others to explicate which parts are relevant and why. If there is no ansewer for a week then the source may be deleted, I think. Alx-pl D 22:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

I'm truly sorry about being away from your Talk Page during these days. I just wanted to drop by to thank you with all of my heart your lovely gift. It will always be proudly displayed on my User Page. I hope that you return very soon and that you're doing fine, and please take good care - people like you are rare to find. *Smooch!* Shauri Yes babe? 02:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Polonism

Christ, don't give up on this page. If left alone it will read "Germans are murderers who only want to murder Poles." Ya, Molobo, I presume you're watching but, you know, need to stop POV where you can find and I've never found it as mangled as on this page. Anyhow, I have no doubt it will get to the "I'll push you don't try to push me" to 3RR bit. Editors needed. Marskell 00:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Artikel für meine Beobachtungsliste...

... trage einfach auf meine Diskusssionseite ein. Ich schaue dann mehrmals täglich nach POV-Einträge unserer Freunde nach ;-). Leider ist mein Englisch noch nicht so flüssig wie es sein sollte, um stärker in die Diskussionen eingreifen zu können. Gruß --Revvar 18:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC) I am afraid you have to engage in discussions on the talk pages to justify NPOV or POV.Untill you do that such changes without giving reasons are unacceptable.And how can you change articles you don't even understand.That's pure vandalism. --Molobo 19:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kulturkampf

Actually, I set off this current edit war when I deleted these sentences in the History of Germany article a month or so ago. I did so because they were not clear and had a sensational tone. I guess when Molobo saw this recently he reinserted them, and then you noticed his edits. I think the best solution would be to expand the issue in the Kulturkampf article and leave the History of Germany article with either no mention or a very small one. I think the problem is convincing Molombo that this issue can be explored without expanding upon it in the main history of Germany article. Perhaps I can try to discuss it with him because you guys don't seem to be communicating very well through all of these edits. But I think it would be best if you tried one more time to compromise. Maybe working on an intelligent discussion of the issue with both perspectives in the Kulturkampf article would be a good way to reach out to him. Best, Tfine80 23:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smear section

The genocide paragraph in the Germany article seems to be inserted by the user Gidonb. Judging by his talk page, he seems to be a Dutch Jew who has serious problems with Germany and very dishonest motives for editing this article (see Germanophobia, Anti-Germanism). Such POV pushing cannot be accepted.

No other country article at Wikipedia has a section called "genocide". Try insert it in United States, United Kingdom or Israel, and you will be immediately reverted. I see no extensive sections on the many US and British genocides, and I see no extensive section on the Nakba in the Israel article. Treating Germany different is racism. The point with the history section is to outline the development of the history of Germany as a state. It is not the place to list any alleged wrongdoings. The section on national socialism is already far too long compared to much more important periods like "The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation", "Restoration and revolution" and "German Empire". Extending it with a section called "genocide" which is as long as the entire HRR section (covering 1000 years) is outrageous and unacceptable because it is completely out of proportion! And it has very little with the main purpose of the section, the development of Germany as a state, to do. BoroughPeter 15:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Molobo's RfAr

Dear Nighty. I and Dbachmann are discussing that inevitable RfAr against Molobo. You are welcome to gather both evidence and those you know who have been afflicted by him.--Wiglaf 11:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Also check this comment by dab. --Ghirlandajo 09:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article for December 25th

I noticed you have listed yourself in Category:Atheist Wikipedians. That said, you will probably be interested in my suggested featured article for December 25th: Omnipotence paradox. The other suggestion being supported by others for that date is Christmas, although Raul654 has historically been against featuring articles on the same day as their anniversary/holiday. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 08:29

[edit] Halibutt's RfA

Thanks. WikiThanks.
I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Username change

Your request has been fulfilled. Regards — Dan | talk 03:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] German Empire

You appeared to make the Poles appear unimportant in your Edit Summary. Please try not to use language like that if you are having a dispute, or other users will be tempted to intervene in an otherwise private quarrel!--File Éireann 21:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, in the quick revert war that Molobo wanted to drag me in to punish me for further involvement in the article on George Forster, I must admit I shouldn't have called his edit 'nationalistic' but it's just that I find it increasingly hard to assume both good faith and intelligence at the same time. An ignorant user might not be aware what "fight" implies here for example but with this guy claiming to be a student of journalism, I'm just not buying it. Furthermore Molobo was told that a similar case happened to the Danes and French minority as well so it's very easy to call this overstatement of the user's own nation nationalistic. If such an incidence attracts attention and gets other users involved, it would have a desirable aspect I think. It's really absurd right now because whenever I write on his talk page, he delets it, when I make a "personal remark" on an article's talk page, he deletes it as well. So now I'm already deleting his to make him understand the Golden rule but then again he's no child anymore and might be aware of it already (intelligence<->good faith). If you like to try to settle the case on the German Empire, just go ahead because I think a third party can assess a German-Polish or Polish-German conflict with less bias. Besides unlike the Russian-Polish conflicts he's been involved in lately, this one is still fresh. Sciurinæ 22:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Germany

Were you born in East or West Germany?

[edit] German noticeboard

Is there one? I cannot find anything at Wikipedia:Regional notice boards. A place to leave a message for many German editors would be quite useful - for example, to discuss stuff like this. At the moment the only thing I can do is ask several German native speakers I know from various edits, like you, Wiglaf or Chris - but it's not really very useful. Having one place for such notices would be much better. What do you think?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Info

This may be interesting for you. Alx-pl D 20:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Examination Rejected

You requested a copyright examination regarding Kuma: War. Sadly copyright examinations is not the right place for your request. The most common reason is that the content has already been added/uploaded to Wikipedia. Such cases (violations or not) are taken care of at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

Your request will eventually be moved to List of requests which don't belong here on the copyright examinations page. Please try to find the right place for your request as soon as possible. We hope that your request will find the right place and get answered. --Easyas12c 01:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Cimoszewicz

"We have never hidden our desire for Polish oil companies to finally have access to sources of commodities," former Prime Minister of the Republic of Poland Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz stated in July, 2003. [6]

If you have any sources that connect mission to protect Gulf from pollution with statements of Foreign Minister of Poland indicating help in modernising Iraq's industry then be my guest. However polish military isn't under the command of Foreign Minister of Poland(which you changed for PM) and I don't see any relevance in this. You can add this to Cimoszewicz if you want. --Molobo 14:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA votes

While your assessment of Yodo may be correct, rather than striking out his/her votes, you should just comment on the votes, explain why you think s/he is a meatpuppet, and leave the decisionto the closing bureaucrat. Thanks. Guettarda 15:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, if my behaviour was wrong. I'm sure that there are borderline cases, where striking out another person's vote is certainly not okay. But I couldn't find any guidelines for that case in WP:GRFA or Wikipedia:Sock puppet - they didn't say non-bureaucrat users cannot do that. If users are allowed to correct the vote count, you can easily conclude that they can correct the count if another user clearly doesn't belong to the electorate. Anyway, the evidence is the number and kind of contributions, implying this is no such borderline case. If there really were guidelines, which I overlooked, I stand corrected. If not, you might like to add it to the rules. Sciurinæ 16:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
What evidence is there that Yodo is voting on someone else's behalf, and is not, for example, a newly registered account by a former anon? New user voting on RFAs is always suspicious, but that is not evidence of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. I don't quite understand why you see it as clear-cut, and more importantly, I don't quite see why you see it as meatpuppetry. If there is evidence, please point me that way. I am not saying you are wrong in your conclusion, I am just saying that I am unaware of what the evidence behind it is. If you suspeck sockpuppetry, ask someone with Checkuser to do a sockcheck; if you have evidence for meatpuppetry, you should present it, but again, let the b'crat make the final decision. Guettarda 20:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
How am I supposed to give evidence when wikipedia is concealing his identity? Should I simply guess who it is? Only bureaucrats can know for certain. I don't think it's okay that a user with only 19 edits (eight of which are votes in RfAs) is eligible to vote. After my striking off was undid, a "new user" "discovered" Wikipedia and found it necessary to vote, too. He has 11 contributions, five of which are RfA votes cast today. If you compare them to the other "new user" 's contributions, it makes sense to assume they're from the same contributor, don't you think so too? Or they just happened to have the same views on the candidates and happened to edit the article Romania around the same time. 'Crime does not pay', some say. So what is the wikipedian safeguard against possible sock/meat puppetry? Sciurinæ 22:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and here goes Mr User:Boxero with the total number of edits being 12, four of them votes in RfAs. I'm not going to investigate what I regard as a vote fraud any further but it will surely make me laugh if their votes are actually counted. Sciurinæ 10:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
And there goes User:Sine Qua Non, total number of edits is 5, one vote in RfA and four on his own talk & userpage. Interestingly, however, he voted for support. Looks like the other party starts to cheat as well. Yeah! Sock puppet war! Sciurinæ 14:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
While you may not think its okay for this person to vote, Wikipedia does not exclude anyone from voting on AfDs. Mike 02:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think the RfA was less in danger from excluding a person than from having a person vote several times. Anyway, the case is solved more or less: Boxero and Monor were found guilty of being sock puppets of Bonaparte, while Yodo, though he has the very same traits of edits, managed to have a different proxy. In the end, the adminship was rejected in spite of 75% support, yet parts of the strongly emotional opposition may have paid a higher price. Sciurinæ 02:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm the RfA for killerChihuahua hasen't ended, so it hasen't been rejcted yet. Mike 04:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't (really) about that adminship. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Juro were only important to the socks. See also Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Suffrage_requirements and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Bureaucrat.27s_closing. Sciurinæ 13:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a little piece of information - the tally at the top of the voting is not what decides whether someone is admin'd or not. The closing bureaucrat decides, and like the closing Admin on an Afd, may or may not decide to dismiss certain votes. That's what a bureaucrat does. Like Afd, sockpuppets or meatpuppets may affect the tally of all votes, but not the outcome. that's why Guettarda suggested you post your comment, to make the closing bureaucrat aware if there were anything to investigate. If you feel the process is inadequate, bring it up at the Village pump or on the Rfa talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks. WikiThanks.

I would like to express my thanks to all the good people who spent their valuable time time and effort working on my (failed) RfA voting. Especially for those who actually voted to support me :). Lets move on and make together our Wikipedia an even greater place abakharev 09:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] List of German concentration camps

Hi, I just wanted to leave you a note that the rules of the vote at Talk:List of German concentration camps have slightly changed since you've voted there and probably you might want to reconsider your vote there. --Lysytalk 13:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bundesland-level categories

Hello! I see you are listed in Category:Wikipedians in Germany. I have made subcategories for each Bundesland in case you would like to add yourself to the appropriate one. See Category:Wikipedians in Germany for a list of the subcategories (they use the English names, the same as their Wikipedia articles). --Angr (tɔk) 16:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frombork

Hello, Sciurinæ. Regarding this edit to Frombork, there is an ongoing discussion about the disputed sentences at Talk:Frombork#Years of partition. Olessi 00:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Molobo

Hi there. Look how our mutual friend avoids violating 3RR. --Ghirla | talk 07:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

IMHO you should have posted your request either on WP:ANI or Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser --Ghirla | talk 13:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forgetfull ?

What do you mean ? Neved hidden that that IP is mine[[[7]].It sometimes logs me off. --Molobo 23:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to your previous edit summary, "restored information from Polish news agency that was deleted without explanation" (forgot you made that?) and yes, indeed, you forgot to disprove the Guardian, the Independent and the Associated Press before claiming they were disproven. Sciurinæ 23:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The link disproving Guardian's allegations is already in the article. --Molobo 00:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic that you once accused me of not reading what the other person writes? Look:
"Regarding your edits at Lech Kaczyński, you claimed that Nicholas Watt (who I consider an active and experienced political correspondent) was wrong in writing that the European Commission warned Kaczy´nski over its anti-gay and pro-death penalty stance. As source crucial to understanding the case, you posted one in the Polish language, but I cannot speak Polish and one source is a bit miserly, don't you think? On the next day I couldn't find an entry in Guardian Unlimited's Corrections & Clarifications section that would confirm your assertion. And today, it still doesn't seem to me Guardian Unlimited thinks it was wrong after I read a comment by Jonathan Steele, which included the sentence "[...]Lech, whose election was greeted in Brussels with warnings that he would be watched for any violation of EU standards." The Independent wrote a similar article. Both the Guardian's and the Independent's articles are written about here. The New Zealand Herald's articles goes byPolish president warned over ultra-right shift. I could also find that of Yahoo News [8], this and not to forget the Associated Press's Poland could lose E.U. voting rights under newly elected antigay president." Sciurinæ 01:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no source contradicting Polish News Agencies. Case closed.Either find one or stop puting POV statements. --Molobo 01:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Of what ? --Molobo 01:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you at least finally translate what the source says at all? I'm sorry for being distrusting towards you. Sciurinæ 01:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I will translate it to you tomorrow. --Molobo 01:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you've got some time to do so ;-) Sciurinæ 00:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Why ? Molobo

[edit] Hakata

Historia 1871-1939 Anna Radziwiłł. Wojciech Roszkowski. Page 82. "...it was an lobby group, representing German nationalists from eastern territory of German Empire. which aimed to influence administration, to pursue and continue to fallow an antipolish course on territories of Prussian Partition." Now please provide a source contradicting that Hakata was an antipolish nationalistic organisation. Molobo PS:To stop from using the usuall "Its Communist propaganda" card-the book is from Polish Ministry of Education year 2000.

[edit] Hey

Hey, I notice your dispute on the Kulturkampf page. Well, I'm just telling you that your efforts on the article are being labelled "Vandalism" on the Wikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board, which is a network for Poles who wish to sway votes and decision in their favor, such as Polonizing names, etc (you should add it to your watch list, it can be funny). Anyways, I'd suggest that you might as well give up now. - Calgacus 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC) You are misinforming: Vandalized articles or needing attention --Molobo 21:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2003 invasion of Iraq

Hi there, when trying to go over the discussion at 2003 invasion of Iraq I saw it has become a big mess. If I see it correctly there was a conflict between an anon and others and now the page has been blocked. I think the anon had a point that an encyclopedia article about any military conflict should not be written exclusively by three members of one the conflicting parties, in this case Pookster11, Swatjester, and Dawgknot who according to this comment all belong to the US military. I therefore suggest to get more people into the boat, that should take the wind out of the sails of bias allegations. As I saw you also edited on that page, would you be willing to help out? Get-back-world-respect 22:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bismark on the Purpose of the Kulturkampf

Don't take this a critique of yourself, but the link that you provided was full of spelling errors and the meaning of some sentences was skewed into total ambiguity by poor expression.

That being said, I agree that the source provided for the German original indicates that it is reliable, though the source Molobo gave for his Bismark Speech is also well refenced. It is most likely a case of Bismark contradicting himself in a tight situation. Unfortunately "most likely" is a phrase that doesn't belong in Wikipedia, especially when I determined that for myself.

I think it would be best to reference both speeches in the article. I also think that the section on the effect on the Polish minority expands the scope of the article to include things it need not mention. The only place where I see it a appropriate to mention the Polish is in reference to Bismarks attempt to talk his way out of the situation with the catholics.

In short:

  • Remove section "Effect on Poles"
  • Remove reference to Poles in Introduction
  • Leave reference to Poles in Overview, but only in reference to Bismark's excuse.

Let me know what you think.

Uebrigens. Ich verbrachte letztes Jahr in Deutschland, allerdings in tiefstem Ostvorpommern, also koennen wir uns auch auf Deutsch unterhalten, wenn das dir lieber waere.

Bobby1011 02:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicolaus Copernicus

The plea is "Guilty as charged..."
...but I found it difficult to resist.
Thank you for your message.--FocalPoint 14:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

You are cordially invited to the Grand Reopening of my Bumper Sticker Gallery User:Space Cadet/Bumper Stickers. 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)

[edit] German wikipedian's notice board

Since it is much needed, I created the Wikipedia:German_Wikipedians'_notice_board. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) Image:UW Logo-secondary.gif 02:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edition War on Erika Steinbach

I have just made some remarks in "Talk" on the article on Erika Steinbach. I can see an edition war going on for some time. You have just removed the points Space Cadet put and I can be pretty sure he will restore them and then you or someone else will remove them and so on...

These points (apart from the on on collaboration - I removed it before) are however worth discussing. Have really such statements been made, if so are there justified and so on. I mean:

*It claims Gdańsk was founded as a German city in 1224/25. In fact Gdańsk existed centuries before(first mention in 997) and was part of Poland. + - + - *It speaks of Nazi colonists that were part of colonisation effort in Expulsions of Poles from Reichsgau Wartheland area as resettlers, while avoiding mentioning the fact that they were part of colonisation effort during state organised expulsions of Poles from that area. + - + - *It claims Partitions of Poland made by Prussia were supported by territories annexed by Prussia. + - + - *It takes the lowest estimates of Poles expelled by German government while taking the highest estimates when speaking about German expelled. The number of Poles expelled is listed as 460.000, while Polish historians estimate it at around 2,478,000 milion[9]. + - + - *Also absent is information of expulsion of around 200.000 Polish children kidnapped by German authorities[10] from Poland in order to be Germanised. + - + - *It lists only one expulsion of Poles by German govenrment, from the Reichsgau Wartheland area. It ignores and doesn't present at all, explusions from Zamość, Warsaw, Silesia and Pomerania.

I would welcome a substancial discussion, not just edition war. Regards, Jasra 23:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haka

Vandalising sourced pages. If you have problems with content adress them on talk page.However on recent page vandalised by you they are already two links to sourced articles, and on talk it was done with.--Molobo 19:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, while you love to accuse me of not reading your sources (though I would), you should finally do the same and read Wikipedia:Vandalism. You were told before. Once you've done so, start with WP:ATTACK. Sciurinæ 19:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are self explanatory. Deletion of sourced information without any explanation and after it has been solved on talk is pure vandalism. Yes I repeat-Sciurinæ you are beheaving like a vandal I stick to that statement. --Molobo 19:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Without any explanation? The talk page is filled only with just that dispute. It's just that you decided to play revert warring today and as usual met with resistance. It's good that you stick to your statement because even after you were RfCed you can still be quoted on statements. Sciurinæ 19:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's just that you decided to play revert warring today and as usual met with resistance. No, the only problem is that I brought links to scholary works, which you deleted at sight without even reading them. And of course the usuall GHerman nationalistic talk about "national unity" "promoting Prussian culture" when talking about eradicating Polish nationality from territories taken by Prussia in Partitions. --Molobo 20:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think I didn't read the source? Because I didn't take it at face value in the view of your God-given, ominiscient source, or because you only accuse me of what is actually only true of you? Believe whatever you like, Die Gedanken sind frei... Sciurinæ 20:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

So no comments ? I thought so. --Molobo 19:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Why so hectic? Patience is a virtue. You can't expect another user to reply within five minutes. This is not a chat room. ;-) Sciurinæ 19:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's one sentence confirming a fact. Of course we entered the debate before so I am painfull aware of possibility that you will deny the source, claim eradicating Polish culture is neutral, etc. --Molobo 20:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless you stop deleting links to sourced information like the one above -yes I will insist that you beheave like an vandal. --Molobo 20:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What links do I continue to delete??? Sciurinæ 20:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Da der "Adminship eintrag" jetzt schon läuft, werde ich ihn nicht mehr entfernen. Aber danke für die info. helohe (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User_talk:Jadger#Personal_attacks

Hi there. I noticed your comment at User_talk:Jadger#Personal_attacks and I must say that you're completely wrong about me. Neither did I take part in the voting nor did I post any links there. Also, the matter of the "BB" was pretty well explained during my RfA and I'd really appreciate it if you read the explanations before you continue to claim that there was some of my bad will in it. Thanks in advance. Halibutt 04:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)