Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:25, 31 March 2008

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/German collective guilt

You should be aware of this. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Agnieszka Arnold

Can you help some in support of the stub on this Polish person whom I respect? Thanks for your consideration. --Ludvikus 17:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Reinhold Curicke

I disagree with you about the importance of the Hanseatic status of Gdańsk in that article. (or any other article about a Gdańsk person of that period). I'd say it would be akin to ignoring the special status that Hong Kong and Macau currently have in China that differentiate them from cities such as Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Harbin. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Your examples might have validity if not all of Saudi Arabia were part of OPEC or not all of Poland were part of the WTO, or conversely if every Polish city of that time had been a Hanseatic city. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Gamma World City then ? Really, guild arrengments to make cabbage sale cheaper aren't that important.--Molobo 01:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The Hanseatic League provided diplomatic representation for its members at one time and its colors of red and white (which coincidentally are also the Polish colors) are still found in the coats of arms and flags of its former members. Indeed, the current flag of Gdańsk is the same as it used before it became part of Poland. Hardly something you can say about something as insignificant as Gamma World City which no one has of yet bothered to write a Wiki article about. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You are also in need of history lessons. (Indeed who isn't?) The Hanseatic flags (indeed, the whole concept of using flags to identify where ships came from and to identify states instead of individuals) developed during the period when Gdańsk was under the suzerainty of the Teutonic Knights and the use of red and white as the Hanseatic colors applied to all Hanseatic cities regardless of where they were located. Also the earlier pre-Teutonic period town is to my mind more properly considered Pomeranian than Polish. If one goes only by the nationality of the ruler that decided he needed an outpost to establish control over a foreign area, then Dublin would be considered a Norwegian city. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

XIX Century as the start of Germany? Setting aside the usage since the XV Century of the full term, Holy Roman Empire of the German People, your argument would have more merit if the short lived German Empire had been called the Prussian Empire instead, thereby emulating what the Duchy of Polans did in the X Century. But the Poles are only the largest segment of the Lechites, and the Piast kingdom splintered before the Pomeranians could be reassimilated back into a single people, and the Pomeranians remained largely outside the Polish orbit unlike the Masovians, Vistulans, Lendians who were largely inside it and assimilated back into a single Polish people, much as the separate tribes of the Heptarchy were merged back into a single English people, but the lowland Scots were not, despite coming from the same ethnic grouping. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Polish children

My first impression is that there are language errors in first lines of the article. My English is rather poor, so I would prefer to not correct your text.

"larged", "which in reality selection camps were".

Names of places are strange: "Zwierzyńc", "Łosic". Are you sure that the children were transported from Zamość to Chełm? It's a short way. Xx236 08:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Karl Dönitz FAR

Karl Dönitz has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Peter Andersen 22:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:

I think there is none, you should start one. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 21:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Notes to myself

Molobo (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

LUCPOL

I noticed your comments at User talk:Space Cadet about threats made by LUCPOL. Threats are absolutely inacceptable; you might consider WP:ANI. Olessi (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Polish looted art

Do you know if on Polish wiki there is an article that would describe this in more detail, that we could translate? It seems like a fascinating subject that deserves its own article - including stuff like Soviet looting of Poland and later Soviet Union forcing Poland not to demand any returns from Germany (and SU, of course).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Your vote

Would you mind casting your vote again here, with regards to this template, which I created? Much obliged. --Poeticbent talk 06:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Bans on languages in Russian Empire after the January Uprising in 1863

Could you comment at Talk:Lithuanian press ban? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Russian census reliability

Not sure if this is Russian census, but what do you think about this? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Siemienowicz

You havent understood a word of what i said. 1. He was born Belarusian. The term White Russia (trans: Belarusian) always existed, and the people from the area were refered to as White Russian. 2. Slavs are not the same and when i talked about that and lastnames it was already not about the text but a "by the way" explanation why for the Belorusians it was easier to assimilate with the Poles then with the Lithuenians.

The fact is that he was born Belarusian and i referenced it. The question if he himself considered himself a Belarusian or Ruthenian. Belarusians and Ukrainians are both Ruthenians, simply Ruthenians is a larger roof-term. Russians are Ruthenians to, Ruthenians mean Rus'. Next time, please, if you dont understand changes or something ask before you make the changes. Or maby i have a not 100% understood English since i prefer writing in Hebrew. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you got confused why you revert me. Forget all i said, maybe my English was not clear. I explained the history of Belarusians and you got confused. The proces i talked about, the Ruthenians of White Russia becoming White Russians happened centureys before the man himself was born. He was borb to the Belarussian ethnicity, and to that i gave links. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If you ask: "The text is about one man, why the hell are you writing the history of Belarusians that accured centuries before he was born, and by that confuse people?", Because a man theur asked me about if he was Ruthenian or Belarusian. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Polish War losses

Go to the link I posted to Pitrowski's revised estimate of Polish losses. The important point to remember is that the 1947 estimate of war losses, 6,028,000, included only ethnic Poles and Jews and excluded ethnic Belrussians and and Ukrainians. In 1947 the authorities assumed all Poles had left the USSR. Historians in Poland now now that over 1 million Poles remained in the USSR and losses were 5 million not 6 million. The demographic loss is 3 million Jews, 2 million Poles and 500,000 Other(Ukrainians and Byelorussians) I hope this makes the issue clear.--Woogie10w (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wesołych Świąt

Cześć! Życzę wesołych Świąt Bożego Narodzenia i wszystkiego najlepszego w Nowym Roku. - Darwinek (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Holodomor genocide

It was in my eyes, however if you include a subsection about that in the denial article it will become an edit magnet with nasty things happening. I think letting the article grow and establishing itself for a few days or weeks is beneficial first.

Russian reactionaries are at present trying to rewrite their opinions - revisionism saying that the Holodomor affected Russia (Northern Caucases) and Kazakhstan - but if you investigate these areas you will see that these were the areas with the highest concentration of Ukrainian speakers within the Soviet Union outside of Ukraine. In the case of the Kuban in the Northern caucases the Ukrainian ethnic population dropped from 65% (1927) to .9% (Current). A similar trend happened in Kazakhstan and the Volga areas. Unfortunately the smoking gun documents specifically nameing the Ukrainians as a target have not been found. Keep in mind that many documents in Ukraine disappeared in 1934 with the switch of the Government from Kharkiv to Kyiv and the burning of documents before the German invasion and the fact that most documents i Moscow dealing with the Holodomor are in Moscow and despite Yushchenko's attempts to get them open tis has not happened. Wesołych Świąt - Bandurist (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Of interest

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Evacuation_of_East_Prussia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks for the notice, he must be kidding or something like that. I can't believe. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 10:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

quitting?

Since your message on userpage is rather old, perhaps you could update your userpage to be less misleading? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 1st Class
		I, Tymek (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC), am awarding you this Barnstar in appreciation of your hard, arduous work on everything that is connected with our beloved country

Stop vandalising, thanks

All your edits consist of pushing Polish nationalism in a very POV-way. While that may not necessarily be offensive, it crosses the line to vandalism once you start reverting agreed-upon solutions. JdeJ (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Search for

"Schrecklichkeit" policy in WW1. --Molobo (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Slavic Peoples

Trying to assume good faith, I will assume that you're not trolling the article on Slavic peoples and that you really believe that your edit is correct. It's not. And, if I may say so respectfully, a very general knowledge of European history is enough to see the flaws in it. You're claiming that East, West and South Slavs aren't just a linguistics grouping but also a religious and cultural grouping. I'm reverting this, as it is obviously false and consist of original research. I know that you have provided a source, but the problem is that the source doesn't support your claim. To take Slovenes, Czechs and Slovaks as examples: Czechs and Slovenes are both Catholic (religious), belonged for a long time to the Austrian Empire and was influenced by it (Culture and History). Bulgarians, in contrast, are Orthodox and were influenced by the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires. Before inserting your claim again, please answer the following questions

• Which religion is common for the South Slavs (they are Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims)?
• Which religion separates South Slavs (as a group) from West Slavs or East Slavs?
• Which common cultures are shared by the South Slavs, but not by the West Slavs or East Slavs?

JdeJ (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"as it is obviously false and consist of original research." Your claim that EB is false and OR is interesting but is there any evidence ? Furthremore EB per definition can't be OR. Third the quote mentions clear religious division between West and East Slavs as one of the divisions, that is all.South Slavs fall into political history divisions as they became part of Ottoman Empire.--Molobo (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... No, I claim that you're interpreting EB in your own way. When using a source, make sure you use it correctly. I've explained this on the talk page already, I'm not repeating it here. As for the Ottoman Empire, the Slovenes and Croats weren't part of it. I note, in passing, that you weren't able/willing to answer any of the three questions I posed above. That's not surprising as they cannot be answered, thereby proving that Slavs cannot be divided into three convenient groups based on culture or religion. JdeJ (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting theory, but do you have any sources ? EB mentions clear cultural divisions. The religious divide between East and West Slavs and Orthodoxy and Catholicism is clear division as well. --Molobo (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Any sources for what? That Slovenes and Croats were part of the Austrian Empire? Well, open any book on European history, read their articles on Misplaced Pages, check it in EB. I know that EB mentions cultural divisions, but it does not say that these divisions are the same as the linguistic. Nor does it say so for religion, it mentions the divide between East and West Slavs, but there are quite a lot of South Slavs people as well and they don't conform to this divide. JdeJ (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but there are clear religious divisions as there is East-West division and even in South Slavs Croat-Serb Catholic-Orthodox division. The religious division between East and West is enough to note that divisions exists on religious level as those two groups are numbering over a hundred million people with clearly defined religious differences that have been remarked by Encylopedia Brittanica as sign of divisions in Slavic groups. I assure you that more then EB notes this and besides EB more sources can be added about those divisions--

Precisely. To quote yourself, even in South Slavs. South Slavs aren't defined by religion nor by culture nor by history. What is more, I'm tired of explaining the basics of European history and geography on three pages, please reply on the talk page for Slavic peoples JdeJ (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry sources clearly state that East-West religious division is present also in South Slavs.--Molobo (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, then please tell me which religion that defines being South Slav and present a source for it. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't say so, as you can see if you check the entry on South Slavs. JdeJ (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In the South Slavs Croats and Serbs are clearly divided by religion. Of course it pales in numbers to the enourmous East Slav-West Slavs religious division that needs to be noted.--Molobo (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my question as you obviously did not understand it. You claim that South Slavs are defined by religion. Which one religion is South Slavs, as a group, defined by? Orthodox, Catholic or Muslim? If none of them defines them, then religion is not defining the South Slav groups. JdeJ (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I claimed that West and East Slavs were clearly noted by scholars as being divided by religion, similar division exists between Croats and Serbs in South Slavic group.--Molobo (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, that is correct. In other words, religion does not separate South Slavs from West Slavs and it does not separate South Slavs from East Slavs. The division of Slavs into East Slavs, South Slavs and West Slavs is not based on religion but on language. JdeJ (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if in your view is no clear division between South Slavs and West Slavs and South Slavs and East Slavs it doesn't change the fact that there is clear division between West and East Slavs.--Molobo (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote

Hello. I haven't read that book but watched the film, which is great. Unfortunately I don't recall that quote you have mentioned. As for the inserted quote, to be honest with you, I expected some nationalist or extensive pro-German quote but that one seems quite neutral. - Darwinek (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dresden

I would prefer hard data about non-German victims - numbers, mistreatments (not allowed into shelters). There is also the October bombing.Xx236 (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Truman

For the record when I removed Truman from the Paderewski article, it was because I thought it to be irrelevant trivia. Paderewski was a great man who met tens of thousands of people. The fact that as a twenty-something farmhand, Truman went backstage for an autograph, and shook Paderewski's hand is not notable or important. If you read Paderewski's own autobiography and the various other biographies about him, you must know that we could pepper the article with I.P. meeting this Emperor and Empress, this King and this Queen, this Prime Minister and that Business magnate and his wife. Hope you'll agree that it's really unencyclopedic useless information, and you didn't revert it because you saw my involvement there. At least if you think it should stay, I think the emphasis should be that Truman met Paderewski, rather than the other way around. But I really think it's simply trivia. I suspect that if the information was added to the Truman article it would be removed as irrelevant on the larger scale of things. The information about Truman and the piano (have heard him play, and his daughter sing), also seems out of whack in this article about a great virtuoso and patriot. Btw, can you help me with the earlier request to find a way to look up former members of the PZPR? Dr. Dan (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies

I'm starting to discover I've misjudged you. When we first met each other over Slavic peoples, I've got a picture of you that was too harsh and I apologise for having come across too strongly. I still don't agree with all your edits, far from it, but you've shown yourself to be well acquainted with many relevant sources and to be willing to discuss changes, and I appreciate that. Regarding Slavic peoples, I think a compromise is possible. You want it stated in the introduction that there are other divisions between Slavs than just language and I want to keep the sentence regarding the linguistic division of East Slavs, West Slavs and South Slavs. The compromise I would suggest is to leave that sentence intact, but to add another sentence about the cultural and religious division directly after the sentence on linguistics. The only thing is that it should not use the same distinction since, as I've written, the large cultural differences between religious and cultural groups within the South Slavs isn't as neat as between West Slavs and East Slavs. Perhaps we could divide it into two groups: Catholic Slavs who were culturally influence by the Holy Roman Empire (Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes and Croatians) and Orthodox Slavs (with a Muslim minority) who were largely influenced by Byzantium and the Ottoman Empire (Russians, Belarussians, Ukrainians, Serbs, Bosniaks, Montenegrins, Macedonians and Bulgarians). Do you think that would be a satisfactory solution? JdeJ (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting historic WW1 poster

Historic US poster --Molobo (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

League of East European States

I would prefer to have this conversation at Talk:League of East European States. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:

Hi, I've never heard about that. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 19:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Attacks on Poles in Germany increase-devasted cars, attacks on Polish children in schools

--Molobo (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As the article proves, vandalism and hooliganism, do not only exist on WP. Two weeks ago my on automobile was likewise vandalized by punks with an ethnic agenda (I live in a changing neighborhood). It's sad. On the other hand I'm happy that you and Space Cadet are pleased with the poster you uncovered. War propaganda posters are always a hoot. So are the movies. BTW, the star you gave him, the one that made him cry, made me a little verklempt too. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What I actually want

My guiding principles on the Silesian matter are these.

1. The article should be named Duchy of Pless. This is what I knew it as before Misplaced Pages existed, and the evidence strongly suggests that almost all English-speakers who have heard of the now extinct title know it under that name.
2. The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article.
3. Efforts to evade #2 by periphrasis should not mislead the reader, much less introduce palpable error.

I would oppose moving Pszczyna, and, as WP:NCGN also says, this is a separate question. Use of Constantinople does not imply moving Istanbul; use of Leningrad Symphony does not imply moving Saint Petersburg.

There are those who disagree with my principles, and would indeed like to wipe Poland out of Misplaced Pages. You should consider whether your tactics are in fact strengthening them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Good; we agree on #1 above. That's progress. Now let's discuss #2, that we should therefore use Duchy (or for the nineteenth century, Principality) of Pless when discussing it, for the same reasons of comprehensibility we use it in the title; and #3: above all, we should not be erroneous or vague in avoiding the natural usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is no problem, then we can amend the article in compliance with the sentence quoted above from WP:NCGN, and fix the errors listed here; two already have been. Good. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If...

Powiedz to też jemu ;p. Mogę liczyć u ciebie na sprawiedliwość ;) Hę? LUCPOL (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiedziałem. Dzięki że nie napisałeś dokładnie tego samego również Space Kadetowi :) O to mi chodziło. A co do języka polskiego to można się posługiwać dowolnym językiem poza główną przestrzenią nazw (w tym np. w dyskusji). Ja często w dyskusji artykułu pisze w obu językach: angielskim i polskim, angielskim bo to en.wiki a polskim aby userzy umiejący jezyk polski mogli zrozumieć o co mi chodziło jeśli w języku angielskim tekst wyszedł "jak wyszedł" ;p LUCPOL (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Star

Thank You from all my heart, I don't know what to say, I'm crying here. Space Cadet (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful poster, I'm speechless again. Dobrze, że schowałeś przed Niemcami. Space Cadet (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I award you with this star for your continuous effort in reverting articles to NPOV and for your work. Keep working! ≈Tulkolahten≈ 16:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust in Lithuania

Seems Misplaced Pages lacks the article. Interesting make notes. "According to estimates, about 7�8,000 Lithuanian Jews of those who were evacuated from the Baltic States on the eve of the German retreat survived in Germany. About 1,700 Jews survived in Lithuania, among them about 900 as partisans in the forests and the rest in hiding or with the help of Aryan documents. Some of them were aided by local people, those "Righteous Among the Nations." Out of the 203-207,000 Jews who had remained in Lithuania under German occupation, less than 5 percent survived; among them, less than 1 percent within Lithuania and in the forests of west Belorussia. This number (or percentage) of surviving Jews was one of the lowest in comparision to other countries in Europe under German occupation. The explanation lies in the widescale collaboration with the Germans on the part of the local people and the large numbers among them who enlisted voluntarily into the police units that carried out most of the murder actions against the Lithuanian Jews and participated in the killings of Jews in Belorussla, the Ukraine, and the Generalgouvernement of Poland."--Molobo (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Polen-Erlasse

Found this on de wiki (de:Polen-Erlasse) but since I don't know German I cannot even stub it... seems relevant, though.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_Digwuren

Arbcom are voting on applying discretionary sanctions across EE articles. Martintg (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

'German Empire' article

Dear Molobo - your English isn't very good, but you thwart my efforts to make your edits comprehensible by just reverting me. You see, this passage:

However, Poles founded a similar organization to compete with the German settlement commission.

means THE SAME THING as your version:

Poles tried to defend themselfs by creating an organization that would oppose the German settlement commission.

In no way does what I'm proposing obscure the notion that this Polish organisation was working for the rights of the Polish population of imperial Germany. Colonel Mustard (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The word 'similar' was carried over from a previous user's edit. I didn't even think about it. As you say, it's an unsourced statement so I removed it. The thing is, you have no sources to back up the following claims:

1. Poles tried to defend themselves by creating an organization...

2. Efforts of Polish associations to fight for their rights were without success...

3. the small number of Polish deputies in Reichstag was overwhelmed in votings by German deputies.

I'm not saying that any of this is untrue but you should have secondary sources, otherwise that's well, OR. Colonel Mustard (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Chillax, bro. I removed that source because two items in a row were sourced by the same citation. For example, this is unnecessary:

Until the late 1960s, anti-German sentiment formed a major part of government ideology in Poland and the Czech Republic. Walter Ulbricht and Władysław Gomulka had a poor personal relationship.

and can be streamlined to this:

Until the late 1960s, anti-German sentiment formed a major part of government ideology in Poland and the Czech Republic. Walter Ulbricht and Władysław Gomulka had a poor personal relationship.

Colonel Mustard (talk) 05:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Molobo, I have re-expressed your material in German Empire without changing ANY of the content, although I have no idea as to the precise accuracy of some of the statements. Please accept my new wording so we can move on to less trivial matters, like finding citations. Colonel Mustard (talk) 05:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Junkerland

--Molobo (talk) 04:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Review

--Molobo (talk) 17:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick note

Just FYI, you've been mentioned on the admin noticeboard at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#How can I complain against an admins actions?. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Repressions against Catholics in SU

M. Iwanow, Polacy w Związku Radzieckim 1917-1990, Polacy w Kościele katolickim w ZSRR, pod red. J. Lewandowskiego, Lublin 1991, Polacy w Związku Radzieckim 1921 - 1939, W-wa - Wrocław 1995 --Molobo (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits in the Russian election page

Hello, I've noticed a number of your edits on the page in question are uninformed and incorrect. Regarding this edit , you said "the only organisation is CIS, all others are individuals not official representatives of organisations whose members they are."

This is false. The head of PACE, the only western monitor, was also quoted, and he mentioned nothing of mass fraud. Further, none of the monitors reported "mass fraud" by and large, a fact that supports the sentence you removed. I'm asking you to please return the article to its former state, and please be aware of the three revert rule.Sbw01f (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nor is it allegations of "mass fraud". Their position was clearly stated. Sbw01f (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how media works. If there was mass fraud, it would be reported, no ifs ands or buts. They don't report on things that didn't happen, that were largely seen as western propaganda in the first place. The fact that they didn't report mass fraud is confirmation that no mass fraud took place.Sbw01f (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for "denial" to report something of this nature. Was there "denial" that there was no fraud in the last Australian elections? No, but we still report that there was no fraud. The fact that no one reported mass fraud at the elections is confirmation that there was no mass fraud. This is indisputable, now stop arguing and trying to push your POV views.Sbw01f (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

An often overlooked fact

Good job, Molobo. Space Cadet (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ustka, Polish Corridor

I´ve got a problem (as you might have expected) concerning your adds to Ustka, East Prussia and the Polish corridor using the term it “returned to its former status as an exclave...”

• talking about Ustka it´s absolutely irrelevant
• would you call it neutral to add something like that : “In 1939 Gniezno returned to its former status as a town in Germany as it enjoyed (!) in 1772 – 1918 as part of Brandenburg-Prussia.”

Off course that´s not neutral - it would be unbelievable, but that´s what you are trying to imply concerning the Corridor and East Prussia. We should try to find a really NEUTRAL POV. The neutral facts are

• the corridor was built in 1919/20 after Versailles

• East Prussia became an exclave

Btw: was East Prussia an exclave of Brandenburg until 1772 or was Brandenburg an exclave of Prussia? Interesting question(HerkusMonte (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

I see nothing POV in here. The original state of East Prussia is notable. We should not treat it as something extraordinary.--Molobo (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And in 1939 Poland returned to its former status of being divided between Russia and Germany - NO POV??? The point is, what´s your definition of the original (normal) situation.

I can´t see any relevance of the East Prussian "return" to 1772 situation and the history of Ustka, maybe you could explain. (HerkusMonte (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Why it is notable that certain historic situation has repeated itself. Furthermore, it is somewhat POV to portay an return to original state of things as something new.--Molobo (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Which state of things is the ORIGINAL ? 1937, 1914, 1772 ? That´s POV, that´s all. And returning to the original situation depends on your very own definition. You should really STOP vandalizing all the Prussia / East Prussia articles!! (HerkusMonte (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Why I am only correcting about how Versailles "isolated" East Prussia. For most of the time, East Prussia was an exclave, it was return to original state. As to your claim that 1772 isn't original state of things before 1918 and this is POV, well I am really not able to guess how that is POV. --Molobo (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ziemia michałowska

Witaj. Czy mógłbyś zmienić Michelauer Land na Michałowo Land ? Sam nie bardzo wiem jak się do tego zabrać. Trochę już poprawiłem treść po tym niemieckim wywrotowcu, ale o zmianach tytułów nie mam zielonego pojęcia. Dzięki z góry. pozdr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.191.34 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust in Lithuania

Molobo, you should know by now that you can't move text by cut-and-paste like that. If the problem is the redirect, you can request a speedy deletion G6. If you want, I can delete it for you. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it for you. I do not support the move back so I'm not moving it for you (which you can do yourself). Always remember you can request speedy deletion of an edited redirect, esp. if it prevents you restoring an old name. This will save you cutting and pasting and perhaps getting blocked as a result. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, your source is a blog. Have you actually read what is written in this book, as opposed to what is claimed in the blog? Paul B (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll correct that. Frankly, I think this book is in error, if it is being accurately quoted since no other source that I know of make any comparable assertion. Its references to statistics are also very odd. 37% believed in the "Extermination" of Jews and Poles and exactly the same figure believed that Jews and Poles should not be on German territory. The latter statistic makes sense, and I suspect that one survey is being mistakely split into two quite separate assertions. The term "extermination" may be either a mistranslation or misrepresentation of the concept of exclusion from citizenship and expulsion from German territory. One would have to know the actual wording of the question. Of course that's an obnoxious view in itself, but it's hardly too surprising given 10 years of Nazi propaganda, and its a long way from endorsing mass murder. Paul B (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Extermination is an English word. Germans are not surveyed in English. There are questions of translation and interpretation. There is no OR rule about comments on talk pages, but if you are going to quote policy you should also be aware of the concept of 'undue weight' given to minority opinions and the concept of consensus of scholarly opinion on a subject. Paul B (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems you haven't read the book or checked its sources (neither have I), so frankly this is all moot. And the fact remains that the book itself is not even a specialist text on Nazism, but a general survey of the whole of post-war Europe. Detailed confirmation is required for such implausible assertions to be presented as though they are undisputed facts. Paul B (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? "The second work" is what exactly? And you can repeat the same statements as much as you like, the fact remains that you don't really know what was said in the actual survey. Paul B (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you have not answered my question about your "three sources", (though they all seem to be the same person). You mysteriously claim to have one beside you, but provide no information about it that's not copied from webpages. This is getting to be rather silly. Statements should be made based on scholarly consensus, with emphasis on specialists, as I have said. I see no point in repeating the same statements over and over. Paul B (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read it, but it is so vague that it is meaningless (an unidenitfied "scholarly bulletin" you have seen). This conversation is becoming silly. I see no point in continuing it. Paul B (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You are now playing childish games. Either you refer to sources or not. You don't say you have them and then get all coy about it. I will not respond to you any longer. Paul B (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Rocznik Polsko-Niemiecki Tom I "Polska a Niemcy; ludność, odbudowa, przemiany polityczne w pierwszych latach powojennych" Edmund Dmitrów Warszawa 1992--Molobo (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

slavic countries

Have a look at what category this article was in. Ostap 04:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Polacy

Niestety nigdy o czymś takim nie słyszałem. Sytuacja w Kongresówce przedstawiała się tak źle, że nawet cywilni mieszkańcy miast czuli się raczej polskimi Rosjanami i prawie nikt z nich nie zasilał Legionów (dlatego Piłsudski podjął próbę samobójczą w Jędrzejowie w 1914). Z resztą legioniści Piłsudskiego często wspominali, że w wielu bitwach walczyli z Polakami z wojsk rosyjskich. Być może chodziło o zbratanie Polaków walczących po obu stronach po zawarciu pokoju brzeskiego w 1918. Mathiasrex (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Chodzi Ci zapewne o Kaniów. (). //Halibutt 14:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If

You'd have been studying humanitarian scientific discipline called history you would have known that "Three lists have been preserved by Lietuvos TSR Centrinis Valstybnis Archyvas which the names ranks names family status and addresses of sixty nine Sonderkommando members who lived in their own homes in Wilno" is rather equal to the story of weapons o mass destrucion in Iraq. Main problem is, that if someone trying to be historian points to the archive that a.) has long ago changed his name, b.) has a clear structure, funds (even printed books with references with funds names and numbers) but does not have a clue where to the right document is stored, it just means one thing: he did ot read the source. And the citation of such source, as one of the professors I had pleasure to be though by called such references naked, stating that it is about time to stop such pornography and stop discrediting the scientific discipline called history Please, take your time reading WP:V.--Lokyz (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Question

Just read proper article and its talk. M.K. (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

For myself-Ukrainian nationalism source

Baluk Walenty, Koncepcje polityki narodowościowej Ukrainy. Tradycje i współczesność, Wrocław 2002, ss. 270.--Molobo (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Soviet repressions against Polish minority 1920-1939

--Molobo (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Fraud

--Molobo (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Soviet diplomacy

--Molobo (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC) --Molobo (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC) --Molobo (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Soviet demand to Britain in 1939 that Finland and Baltic States would be awarded to Soviet Union

--Molobo (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Stalin wanted Britain and France to agree to occupation of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania in 1939 talks about alliance

--Molobo (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Good article

Key points: Churchill, Roosvelt an Stalin agreed that removal of Germans from non-German countries will end agression. Nazi Germany used German minority to establish domination over other nations and countries. They were benefits to ethnic seperation which are overlooked in scholarship.--Molobo (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Material gains a reason for support of Nazi genocide among German society during WW2

--Molobo (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming debate at Sněžka-Śnieżka

As a participant in the last, unsuccessful bid to change the name of this article, you should be advised of a new debate to move the article about Sněžka-Śnieżka. Your views on the current proposal would be especially welcome. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 05:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Question

Aye. Surprised you didn't know this, but yeah name was changed a wee while ago. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)