User talk:Serafin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] License tagging for Image:Jan Dzierzon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jan Dzierzon.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dzierzon

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the page Dzierzon. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -WarthogDemon 04:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved your comments from my talk page to the most relevant spot, the Jan Dzierżon article talk page. Olessi 07:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] please stop your personal attacks

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you.

--Jadger 14:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IP User?

Hello, are you also posting from the IP 131.104.218.46 (talk · contribs), or is that a misunderstanding? (by others, I don't have followed Talk:Jan Dzierżon) -- Matthead discuß!     O       13:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess this edit answers my question. -- Matthead discuß!     O       06:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What is you concern about that?--Serafin 21:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The IP was blocked on January 2nd for edit warring in an article you happened to edit during his 3 day ban. If it had been you behind that IP, this would be a block evasion. See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:Banning policy. -- Matthead discuß!     O       22:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So you going to chaise somebody. What is the reason? I mean the “Sock puppetry” is nothing. The administrators can be wrong and nobody cares about done harm to user. Did somebody did you a personal harm or you are involved in some discussion where obvious lies are against you nation? Did somebody offend you personally? My impression is that administrators use their power for personal reason, favors to friends or shallow satisfaction. Can I know where come from the complains goes? Maybe I could use the way to engage some administrator in my problems with a TRROL. I never was successful with sending my request to mediation. Should I be a member of some national group? I see a lot of Germans. Any way if you have a subject regarding my objectivity or my opinions let me know we can discuss it. From the distance we will not harm each other, would we? AS>

Obvious lies backfire against the nation they come from. Not-so-obvious lies in Wikipedia articles offend me (and others) personally. The above mentioned Talk:Jan Dzierżon is the place to look for the origin of the "complaint", and administrators, too. -- Matthead discuß!     O       06:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some thoughts, Some help

Pan Serafin, please do not consider my notations regarding your English as an affront. I say this because I have taken the trouble to read and re-read your remarks and have come to the conclusion that many of your points are not only well taken, but true. Perhaps it is the bee-keeper in you that has made you so ardent in defending your position. Could you look into the ongoing debate concerning Laurynas Gucevicius, between many of the "participants" of these discussions, and give us some of your insight into the debate? Thanks, Dr. Dan 21:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Briefly when I reviewed the edition is an argue about Migańce (Migonys) name and similar others. Some party wants Lithuanian present names (I believe) the other some like historical Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth names. But I can be wrong. Could you specify more exact what you point is. I will attempt to express what is my POV when I can search the specific query. Regarding geographical names I prefer to have all of them in some time other since it is important for understanding historical -original sources. Bets,--131.104.218.46 23:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia. This edit summary is unacceptable; please tone down the rhetoric. Thank you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked from editing for 48 hours

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Enough is enough. Go read WP:CIVIL while you relax for the next two days. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This block is being reset and extended to 72 hours due to your abusive sock-puppetry on User:207.245.84.70. If you continue to attempt to bypass the block, this block will be extended. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your continued bypassing of the block on your account and your threats are tempting me to extend this block indefinitely. Consider this your final warning: If I see a single edit from you to anywhere other then this talk page before the block expires, I will extend the block to a month and propose a permanent ban.
I want this issue to be resolved without the need to block anyone, but that would require you to accept the rules of wikipedia and edit within them. Please review WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:BLOCK ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Due to your continued block-evasion, personal attacks and incivility, I'm extending this block to 1 month. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nietschke

Serafin, what book by Nitschke were you citing please ? --Lysytalk 21:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for another month

Checkuser confirms that you have once again used a sockpuppet abusively. Therefore, you have been blocked again for a month. Heimstern Läufer 23:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In light of your block evasion, I have reset your block and tacked on another week. If you continue to evade your block, I will soon seek a permanent community ban for you. Heimstern Läufer 07:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Deszcz made recent contribs that could be relevant in this case. -- Matthead discuß!     O       17:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I have reset this block to its original time because I am no longer certain that evasion has in fact occurred. Heimstern Läufer 17:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For Richard 25Feb07

Following text was removed from Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II by User:Olessi because of your sock-puppetry. You are welcome to send me Wiki e-mail to continue the discussion or we can continue the discussion here. However, I think you need to stop evading your block. --Richard 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, this is a good and worthwhile project. As I have said many times, Wikipedia is not interested in truth.
It means you Richard are not. I am, and every resonable person should. Without this the world go to be back of garbage.
  • Wikipedia is interested in what reliable sources have to say on a subject.
As already was mentioned many times by me and others ZgV is not realiable sources. It is the propaganda organization of money hunting revisionsts.
  • So, let's build up our list of reliable sources and then present as many of them as we can.
Please stop name sources reliable if they are obvious propaganda organization doing no research itself.
  • As someone mentioned earlier, it may be difficult to determine what the academic consensus is.
Particuraly if they are no academic sources. ZgV should not be mentioned as a source of information.
  • That may be too ambitious. Let us just cite the prominent sources and let the reader figure out what the consensus is, if one exists.
Do not forgot to mention who came from. Stil sombody is more sombody less prominent.
  • Can you provide a source for the assertion that the ratio is 1/10 rather than 50/50?
You Richard forgot already about the lecture of Nitschke book review. How convenient! Please open you eyes for the ratio subject. My feeling is you want push the ratio under carpet. Also Xx236 attempt to the point and you obstinately oversee it. Simply it is not polite.
Try to assume good faith. I don't remember everything that is posted here. Just post it again rather than berating me for my bad memory. --Richard 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but who were they fleeing from? No, I still don't recognize the flight as a German responsibility but rather an action coerced by a legitimate fear of advancing Soviet troops and "wild" expulsions.
That means what the Soviets and Polish are guilty because they attempted to destroy Hitler’s Germany.
No, the Soviets are guilty of not having trained their troops to behave with discipline and civility. The Poles who behaved barbarously are guilty of barbaric behavior. --Richard 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Be serious that was decision of Nazi government and/or the civilians what they did. Who should be blamed if they mix with military units on roads or decided live their home in freezing weather? Be logical Nazi Germany started the war and you want for its consequence blame others. You want blame Polish because they were in coalition with Soviets? You want blame both Soviets and Polish who were mass murdered 30 from 35 Europeans (not including Germans) were from those countries. Do not be funny Germans started the crime now you attempt blame Soviets and Polish for the evil what German stated. How obstinate and illogical are you.

  • I think we have to be careful when judging historical actions by contemporary standards.
Thank you Richard that is right, That is history and we should understand the events as they were and not put the new modern standards to them. I really grateful you express it.
  • Perhaps Churchill and Roosevelt thought they were doing the best thing for the ethnic Germans. But we wouldn't think so now. That was then and this is now.
Yes of course they attempt to demilitarise Germany and make a piece. At the same time they make their own business but for the demilitarization of Germany you want blame the. Will you?
I don't blame them for demilitarizing Germany. I blame them for abandoning Poland to the Soviets. Both Poles and ethnic Germans suffered for this. The only thing I can say in their defense is that both the US and the UK were war-weary and unwilling to battle the Soviets for Eastern Europe. (Except for Patton and he was a nut case.) --Richard 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • On what evidence could I "sense" this proportion?
I ask you to open the eyes. I pointed to the proportions in Meyers Konversations-Lexikon and Nitschke. Ask also Xx236 he also provided several enters in this point. Just try do not oversee it.
Do me a favor and just quote the relevant text rather than providing a link to it. I remember the Meyers K-L reference but I don't remember the 10% quote. I don't remember Nitschke talking about 10% but I didn't read it in its entirety. --Richard 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • But where in the text of the current article does it say that "the Poles and Czechs" are responsible for the deaths?
You need not to say it directly. It is enough if the title of the article is “Expulsion of Germans after World War II” and talk about 16 millions moved 500,000 to as high as 3 million deaths and “The early phase of expulsion was often particularly brutal.” That is falsified pictire nothing more, it is insinuation - probbly intentional.
The early phase of the expulsion was not brutal? Do you have a source for that? --Richard 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Revenge is understandable but not justifiable. The motivation of revenge is documented in the article as one of the reasons for the expulsions. What more do you want?
Revenges were a personal. Expulsion was a political process and the reason for it was not a revenge but demilitarization of criminal state. It is reasonable practical solution. The cost of it paid all not only Germans. On other hand, yes the moving of Germans from Polish territory was some kind of prevention of conflicts and revenges from German side also.
  • How specifically would you change the article text to make it clear?
We need emphasize the dependence of the “Polish” Communist government from Stalin. The government totalitarian ideology and status - the fact that they murdered bestially also Polish political opponents. The social and political background is essential for their actions.
Write some text that represents your POV and indicate where it would be inserted. --Richard 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Nowadays, however, I see nationalism as an evil and "self-determination" as dangerous. And, you know what? The events reported in this article have been the "nail in the coffin" that convinced me of that. In my opinion, what caused the suffering of those who were expelled was Polish nationalism in response to German nationalism. What's the common factor? "Nationalism".
You are right, but you forgot the start of think. There was no nationalistic party in Poland ever which could be compared to Nazi. In the case when Polish nation and culture is attacked the national spirit rise. It was not Polish nation but German Nazi who was attacker. You loosing sense of what is the reason and what is result. That is mistake. Let me say that we Polish are proud because our historical tolerance. That was Poland who first in Europe introduced religion tolerance, the document is old around 1565 and belong to UN items of world heritage. Please do not equalize Poland with Prussian/Nazi totalitarianism/nationalism. That is offensive for Polish people who suffer for ages because the aggressive country.
  • believe that evil was done. I am willing to debate all the other stuff but I personally will always judge this episode in history thusly - "evil was done to many who were innocent of any crime".
I hope only you will read the proportion of the evil and not separate reason from results. It is not good enough to say an evil was done. ZgV wants do that. If you separate reason from result and correct proportion they can hope to get material recommendations. You offend people/nation who suffered much more if you simplify: any way, “evil was done”.
  • Discussion of personal opinions doesn't belong on Talk Pages but I'm getting tired of your lectures and wanted you to know unequivocally where I stand.
I am very sory but the explanation for you are not a pleasure for me also. However I need to defend my nation against political manipulated propaganda. That’s all.
  • I reject your "nationalist revenge" line of argument above but have included it in the article out in an attempt to maintain an NPOV stance in the article.
I did not say anythink about revange. I say about justiful consequence. I told you: “There was and is some kind of common responsibility in international affairs you like it or not. Do not transfer civil law in to international politic for you convenience or revisionist issue.” Revange is when somthink was done otside the law in this case the powers and victours make the law because those units are no people but contries.
  • However, I would very much like for you to stop trying to convince me of it. It has gotten quite tedious.
I am sory again. This is the “evil” of Wikipedia - I do not like here so many think that it is difficult to express.
Fine but don't expect me to continue responding. This discussion has reached the point where we are starting to repeat ourselves. --Richard 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I'm sorry but I must disagree strongly. Wikipedia is here to report the opinions expressed by experts. We are not expected nor allowed to function as experts. Even people who are experts are not allowed to cite their own work here. Doing so would represent a conflict of interest.
ZgV is not expert. Anyway, expert to “expert” is not equal. Who decide who is expert? If “expert” id bribed should be consider as expert. Thus we need to expose such “experts”.
It is precisely the difficulty in deciding who is an expert that makes it difficult to write an NPOV article. I do not wish to say that the ZgV is right. However, their numbers represent the consensus of a large number of past and present historians. Their perspective clearly deserves to be presented to the reader. It is not our job to judge between them on one side and Haar/Overmans on the other side. Look lower in this Talk Page for a table that documents who those historians are and what their estimates have been. --Richard 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the entry by Jagder which you deleted was not entered by him but was copied over from Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II by me. Nonetheless, I can understand your negative reaction to his nastiness. --Richard 19:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry

Other users have already mentioned Wikipedia's policies on sockpuppetry and banning to you. I am mentioning them again in case there has been some misunderstanding. Although there are some exceptions, sockpuppets are largely discouraged. Usage of the IP address 131.104.218.46 to evade the block of the Serafin account is an unacceptable usage of a sockpuppet. If you want the privilege of being able to edit Wikipedia, you must abide by our policies and wait until your block has expired. Further disregard for our policies would be unappreciated. Olessi 01:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#Yet More Sockpuppets for more. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You were caught once again evading your block. I have extended this to six months and would support a move to ban you indefinitely. --Yamla 15:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Per this case that was moved to the archive, user:Lyzka, which I had assumed was banned for sockpuppetery, has resumed editing the Recovered Territories article. The original sock has spawned others, including 131.104.218.123, user:Garnekk, 190.47.233.156, 131.104.218.123, 131.104.218.46, and user:Garnek1. I propose semi-protection status to the article to prevent the sock puppets from vandalizing the article for a period of a week to see if the vandal is short-term or is here for much longer. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block extension

Due to the use of sockpuppets to evade the block placed on your account, I have extended the block to a year in length.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This block is now indefinite due to your unrelenting sockpuppetry. --Yamla 19:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed ban

A community ban of User:Serafin has been proposed here. I am looking for an alternate resolution that will result in a lasting peace. My current proposal is for me to mentor you if you will accept. In order for this to work, you have to accept that your current approach of harassment via sockpuppets is unproductive. It does not ultimately change the content of Wikipedia and wastes your time and ours.

Dialogue can be productive. I know that change has been slow in coming to the articles related to Expulsion of Germans after World War II but things are changing slowly as the result of the extended dialogue that you and I had a couple months ago. Re-read Expulsion of Germans after World War II, Expulsion of Germans from Poland after World War II and Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia after World War II. These articles don't completely incorporate your POV and, frankly, they never will. However, if you look carefully, you might see a subtle shift starting to appear. If it's not apparent yet, please be patient. I have become convinced that you have a valid POV which deserves to be given more emphasis in these articles.

I have been working on articles such as Occupation of Poland (1939-1945) and Deutsche Volksliste which have given me quite a lot of new perspective on the Volksdeutsche.

At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself which would be more satisfying... to engage in these pointless "hit and run" edits which get reverted quickly or to engage in dialogue that will actually wind up with your POV being presented in Wikipedia articles permanently (or at least as permanently as anything is in an encyclopedia that anybody can edit).

Your friend (and I mean that sincerely), --Richard 16:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I will answer you Richard because I respect you. I suppose you have some idealistic convictions. You believe that sinners can be reformed. I do not mean myself :)). I actually think I do the best in existing situation. I would be proud to be nuisance for Wikipedia and be baned. This is because the preliminary good idea become field to revengeful plays for such individuals as Jadger, Olessi, Yamla. To belong to the same company as those individuals is dishonour.

They have no proofs but only suppositions who and what is doing, and principle is “better to forgive culprit then make wrong to inocent”. The last event with Yamla convinced me totally the Wikipedia must be closed. I sent an e-mail to the adress as follow because the spying and traping on the base of sheer supposition are ill maners.

unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org In my first note I forgot to mention my IP address: 131.104.218.123.

Hi,

I would like to you to take a note on some administrators activity. I am a person who experienced the Wikipedia stupidity a lot. In simple words a person who attempt to do a unpopular changes become subject of witch hunting on any time.

Moreover in this case a few people who attempt to support my point of view become blindly named sockpuppet and followed in most unexpected way. For example the user Garnekk, although officially not blocked, got, I would like call it bad mark. When attempt to log from many other machines he found the IP blocked automatically after logging.

Machine (IP ) which I use most of the time seems to be remotely spied anyway.

At present complicated rules and witch hunting tendencies the Wikipedia looks like snake pit. Who like the imaginary sense of power and have a lot of time become the marshal law.

My suggestion is to simplify the rules and disallow the “sheriff” madness.

In general, I would propose total stop blocking users instead locking articles only - in the case of a conflict. For the further edition some randomly chosen administrator should be called. (I would rename “administrators” for "redactors" to remove the smell of power anyway.) This redactor should be out of users' group engaged actively or ideologically in the field of war - he just should be called for technical editions and examine of sources provided by fighting parties. In simple word for investigation, mediation, to make decision and to editing locked article. Complains on the redactor could be send to Editing Committee for further decision end editions. It would be much less fun for the power lovers, and “sheriffs”, was not be? :)))) But you must choose between the serious, sometimes tedious work for better editions or the snake pit fun.

Best regards, Andrew

For this comment and proposition I got: You were caught once again evading your block. I have extended this to six months and would support a move to ban you indefinitely. --Yamla 15:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ask chris@hypocrite.org how it happened. He answer to my e-mail to: unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. (the time differences are because local timing)

On Wednesday 28 March 2007 09:32, Andrew Serafin wrote: > In my first note I forgot to mention my IP address: 131.104.218.123.

Thank you. This address has now been blocked for your violation of the block placed on Serafin and the block on the Serafin account has been extended.

So Richard it is wasting of you time and mine. Those who like revenges, sense of power (in fact only the surrogate of power) or have similar sickness will in present system parasite on good will and effort of others. Wikipedia need work and redactors not the cranky sheriffs, self qualified Teutonic Knight :)) etc. I am not against free editions, different point of views but I am against exchange blows. The present complicated snake pit must be burn up. Andrew

[edit] Further activity

Sciurinæ,. As you remove others entrances to your page and do not answer to question as I remove your garbage. Instead trace others start working. Making shits around is not a work.--Serafin 00:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)