Misplaced Pages

Spasibo

No offence taken, thanks man. Could you please take a look Talk:Kiev#Summary_of_older_discussions_over_names_in_the_articles, I would be interested in your opinion. Thanks, --Irpen 18:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources for Lithuania

Could you give sources for "The Polish population was expelled after 1945" in Lithuania article? Because as far as I know, that's not true. And without sources it's unverifiable and thus should not be here. Renata3 00:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

But were they expelled or moved out voluntary? Like thousands of russiands voluntary moved from Lithuania in 1990's after declaration of independence, but nobody forced them to leave. If you do find something to back up your story besides dentist family, then please provide a little more information about it. And my name is Renata, not reniu. Renata3 03:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The same goes for Ukraine and Belarus. The same anon user added the same sentence to those articles too. And I did not know about Reniu... Renata3 13:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

There are two things I don't like about it: (1) it was added by anon IP who is clearly pro-Polish and potentially is very POV and (2) this sentence is not backed up by any other info (by who, when, where, why, how many, etc.) and thus is very suspicious. If it is true, please provide more info so no one will have any doubts about this. As far as Lithuania goes, there are lots of Poles living around Vilnius so the entire population clearly could not be expelled. So I question this "fact." I don't know about Ukraine or Belarus, but I just see a suspicious patern here and I don't like it. Renata3 17:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, Gdansk

You are simplistic. Nobody says that Texas should be (or Gdańsk should have been) returned anywhere. It's just obvious that if Texas ever becomes a part of Mexico, the respective article should say returned. Your putting words in Molobo's mouth and accusing him of desire to have anybody expelled or killed is childish and ridiculous. Your calling him an ultranationalist is highly offensive and unacceptable. Space Cadet 02:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree. It would be one thing if some province or provinces of Country A were occupied for a relatively short time by Country B, then returned to Country A, as was the case with Nazi Germany's occupation and (attempted) annexation of the so-called "Wartheland" in 1939. This area was indeed returned to Poland, only 5 years after it's detachment. Although the Nazis persecuted the Poles living there and expelled quite a number of them to what remained of Poland at the time (the so-called "Gouvernement General"), the area didn't lose its Polish character, and this act of geopolitical theft was not accepted internationally, as it was an act of aggression.

It's different when an area goes from one country or national group to another gradually over a long period of time in which the area develops in accordance with the later country or national group's culture and economy, and becomes thoroughly populated by the later nation. This was the case with the parts of Germany annexed by Poland and the Soviet Union at Stalin's insistence in 1945. They had been gradually Germanized over a period of centuries beginning in about 1250.

In the modern era, Germans from these areas contributed much to German culture and commerce. Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig and East Prussia were distinct regions of the German realm, and their loss was for Germany like an amputation of limbs from the body. I realize that this cataclysm was set in motion by German aggression and atrocities, but that does not change the fact that what happened to the Germans of this region was in every sense an act of ethnic cleansing, and the second-largest example of it in recorded history. This should not be ignored.

My analogy with the former Mexican states of the U.S. is not a perfect one – all analogies break down somewhere – but it does offer one notable parallel: When part of Mexico, this area was thinly populated; after it became part of the U.S., it developed quickly and within half a century was home to growing cities that became important to the U.S. economically and culturally. Today California is the most populous state in the U.S., with a population over 30 million. When it was Mexican, it had perhaps a few hundred thousand inhabitants.

In broad terms, development of a similar magnitude occurred in Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig and East Prussia during the centuries they were within the German "reach." Major German cities developed – Breslau, Stettin, Danzig, Königsberg – and before WWII the territories were home to about 10 million Germans. In relation to Germany's population, this was roughly comparable to the proportion of Americans who live in the ex-Mexican states today.

Space Cadet, please understand I am not suggesting the territories should be given back to Germany now or ever, nor do any Germans outside the lunatic fringe suggest that. I'm just saying that this whole episode was a very major geopolitical and ethnographic upheaval in recent times, and should be known along with all the other horrors of the WWII era.

Sca 20:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a tidbit of information, there is a substantial movement in Germany calling for Stettin (Szcezcin... I can't spell it, so I use Stettin) to be returned to Germany, as it is west of the Oder River -- perhaps one day if Russia cedes Kaliningrad (Königsburg) to Poland? Antman 02:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Over the last several years, I've heard more rumors of the Kaliningrad Oblast being returned to Germany (who doesn't want it). This is the first I've heard of anything regarding Szczecin. Olessi 20:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

edit summaries

Please avoid inflamatory or misleading edit summaries. --Irpen 20:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR

You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours as result of breaking 3RR on Kulturkampf. Please refrain from doing the same in the future. Regards, Shauri 23:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Diplomacy in Recovered Territories

Look, can we work this out diplomatically? I would rather solve this dispute PROFESSIONALLY. Neither of can afford an edit war, since those are stupid and do not solve anything; they make matters worse by destroying any information the article might have had.

My primary issue is that you are injecting a substantial amount of Polish-Nationalist propoganda into specific articles referencing the former Eastern German territories, primarily former Prussia, Silesia and Pommerania (which half of my family happens to originate from). The fact of the matter is is that the phrase "regained" is extremely point-of-view, the Polish had not owned what are considered by Nationalists to be Recovered Territories for many, many centuries -- they were still tribal when they did. Plus, Poland is the -only- nation that refers to those areas as Recovered Territories; any other nation considers them War Reparations -- it was the USSR's influence in Potsdam and Yalta that caused you to get them in the process -- they were Poland's reparations for the USSR taking Eastern Poland (which, in turn, Poland took from the USSR during the Soviet-Polish War).

I am more Polish than I am German -- the Kuklinski side of the family originates near Danzig (as it were called then), and emigrated during the early 19th century as a result of Prussian reforms of the Polish culture. Also, I noticed that you referred to me as not belonging on this Misplaced Pages; I live in Chicago, and seeing as there is no American Misplaced Pages, I believe this is the most logical place for me to edit.

All I ask is that you refrain from injecting propoganda or point-of-view statements to an article -- perhaps we could work together and come up with a compromise that is not point-of-view in either direction (regained is PO-pov, annexed is DE-pov)? We could set a good example for future conflicts in articles pertaining to the territories Germany lost after the first and second World Wars. Antman 02:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Moje RfA

No, akurat w to że potrafisz zbajerować właściwą panienkę nigdy nie wątpiłem :) Miło jest Cię mieć znowu pod ręką, zwłaszcza że czasem służysz mi za piorunochron (w ściąganiu na siebie gromów co aktywniejszych adwersaży zawsze byłeś niezły) :) Halibutt 20:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Witam,

i pozdrawiam kosmicznego odkrywce. =) Z ta SoCal to wciaz aktualne? :)

Tymczasowo w L.A. aegis maelstrom δ 21:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ermeland is also English for Warmia

Ermeland is used as the primary name for Warmia in the following and should therefore appear in the text of the Misplaced Pages article with Warmia:

• The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001.
• Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911.
• Encyclopædia Britannica, 2005. (in text)
• Historical Atlas by William R. Shepherd, 1911.
• Cambridge Modern History Atlas, 1912
• EuraAtlas Online Historical Atlas (small print)

LuiKhuntek 07:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Miłej Lektury

http://www.znak.com.pl/forum/index.php?t=wydarzenia&id=2857 --Molobo 12:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Kątowicze

Jako mieszkaniec Katowic chetnie bym sie dowiedzial wiecej o historii mojego miasta - moglbys moze dodac w artykule zdanie albo dwa o Kątowiczach i jakies zrodlo? Dzieki.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Dzięki! A jak cie zaintersowało user categorisation, to polecam Misplaced Pages:Babel - najprzydatniejsza z tych zabawek. PS. Ładny hełm u góry :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

UIA image

Hi, could you please add a source to the Image:UPA.jpg, if possible. I am interested in using it in other articles but I would like to know first where it comes from. Thanks, --Irpen 00:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Bromberg

Can you please use the Talk:Bydgoszcz page for this? You haven't given any real reasoning or argument for your edits. — Matt Crypto 12:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Jadger: Vanished Kingdom

where do u get these quotes? it seems like every other article that u have ever published, in that they are unsourced and unauthenticated as well as misguided. Have u ever actually read the book personally?Jadger 19:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

and your reviews are horribly wrong, the last one didn't even carefully read the book and skips words he doesn't like. he says it was wrong in the book, saying the great elector did not have the title of King of Prussia as he says the book says. the book however does not say that, the book states his son assumes the title in 1701. your sources are uncredible and inaccurate, as well as totally wrongJadger 19:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

if you know so much about the topic, then why do u not publish a book? wait, I know why, your bias and conclusions are total bullsh*t, and no one would ever read it unless they want an example of how well propoganda works on a person, who may outwardly seem rather intelligent. amazon.com cannot be relied on for reviews, anyone can review on there, I could review any book on there by saying that chocolate milk comes from brown cows, and nothing else. what is needed is authoritative sources for reviews, peer reviews for the author, like those that are contained on the back cover of the book.Jadger 19:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

why on my user page do u only quote reviews that are to your point that it was a bad book? I found many more reviews on amazon.com that were better written then your own contradictions and there were many more of them, by just as credible of sources as yours.Jadger 20:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

and you did realize that those reviewers on Amazon.com almost all have had bad reviews and very few ppl find there review useful.Jadger 20:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Space_Cadet.PNG

Hello. I just want to know what are the birds that have the red x through them. There is nothing wrong with the image, I think it is very clever. You are a good artist, btw. Zach 09:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Nicolaus Copernicus#ref nationality

"Not all people regard Copernicus as Polish. See Copernicus' nationality."

With reference to your recent reversion, I am wondering what you find misleading in the above. Please let me know.

Regards, David Kernow 20:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Space Cadet! Excuse my confusion about your position concerning the "Copernicus debate": You voted for "Polish astronomer" but you agreed fully with ] who prefers "no nationality in the lead" (see Durova's Talkpage)? Did I misunderstand you? Cheers --Dagox 14:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Suvorov

Care to explain what exactly makes you unhappy in the article before throwing about tags? I wait for your apologies. --Ghirla | talk 16:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The tag

Αндрей, izvini pazhawsta! Thousand apologies. I suffer from a "brain cloud" (my own term), due to adverse effects from the medications I'm taking for my illness. Kid you not. When it peaks I lose focus, concentration and partially memory. Being serious here. The good news is I'm getting better. Tvoy droog, Kasmicheskiy Pyeshekhod Space Cadet 17:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. I hope that you'll get well soon. Happy New Year. --Ghirla | talk 17:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Copernicus' nationality

Hi. I was looking through contributions by Informationguy and I noticed this article, Copernicus' nationality, where apparently three of you have been having a discussion on the article page. I don't know (and don't care) who started it, but as I'm sure you're aware, discussions of that nature are supposed to be on Talk pages, so I've moved the comments to Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Nationality which is where the article's talk page is redirected to. From now on, would you please use that talk page for that particular discussion, and if anyone else starts a discussion on the article page, please either move it as I have done, or re-write it from a neutral point of view. Thanks. --LesleyW 12:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem RE: Image:Wilno.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Wilno.PNG. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Misplaced Pages because of copyright law. We need you to specify two things on the image description page:

• The copyright holder, and
• The copyright status

The copyright holder is usually the creator. If the creator was paid to make this image, then their employer may be the copyright holder. If several people collaborated, then there may be more than one copyright holder. If you created this image, then you are the copyright holder.

Because of the large number of images on Misplaced Pages, we've sorted them using image copyright tags. Just find the right tag corresponding to the copyright status of this image, and paste it onto the image description page like this: {{TAGHERE}}.

There are 3 basic ways to licence an image on Misplaced Pages:

• An open content licence
• Public Domain
• Fair Use

• The copyright holder gets the best protection of their work by licencing it under an open content license such as the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence. If you have the express permission of the copyright holder to licence their work under the above licence, use the image copyright tag: {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. The GNU Free Documentation License is another option. Again, if you have the express permission of the copyright holder, use the tag {{GFDL}}.

• The copyright holder can also release their work into the public domain. See here for examples.

• Images from certain sources are automatically released into the public domain. This is true for the United States, where the Wikimedia servers are located. (See here for images from the government of the USA and here for other governments.) However, not all governments release their work into the public domain. One exception is the UK (see here for images from the UK government). Non-free licence governments are listed here.

• Also, in some cases, an image is copyrighted but allowed on Misplaced Pages because of fair use. To see a) if this image qualifies, and b) if so, how to tag it, see Misplaced Pages:Fair use.

For more information, see Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags. Please remember that untagged images are likely to be deleted.

If you have uploaded other images without including copyright tags, please go back and tag them. Also, please tag all images that you upload in the future.

If you have any questions, just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again. --Romeo Bravo 20:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Are you doing ok ? Its been long since you were here. I hope everything is ok. --Molobo 19:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Warmia i Mazury.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Warmia i Mazury.PNG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. CLW 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Krolewiec.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Krolewiec.PNG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. CLW 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ostpreussen.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Ostpreussen.PNG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. CLW 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Elbing Westpreussen.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Elbing Westpreussen.PNG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. CLW 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Praha.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Praha.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. CLW 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Rece precz!.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Rece precz!.PNG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. CLW 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:RejestracjaWPL.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:RejestracjaWPL.PNG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. CLW 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lwow.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Lwow.PNG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. CLW 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gdansk.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Gdansk.PNG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. CLW 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Królewiec

Thank you for your contributions on the Simon Dach page. They were both informative and educational. But here is a suggestion: How about you try to stick to your Plant Science(?) and stop making a fool of yourself by voicing your annoying opinions about the things you have no inkling about? To show my appreciation for your future cooperation I commit myself in advance to stay away from any Plant Science garbage. Yours truly - Space Cadet 22:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Space Cadet, my post regarding your reverts was made in response to a request for comment. I came in as a neutral outsider, having no knowledge of the discussion prior to reviewing the page and its history. You clearly have good intentions and have a lot to contribute, but it does not help your cause when you make personal attacks. People who are well-meaning and correct get passed by on Misplaced Pages sometimes when they make personal attacks, multiple reverts, and other aggressive activities. It was for that reason that I was so quick to judge you. Having reviewed the facts again, I see I may have been in error, and you certainly know more about the discussion than I. I am assuming that the insulting language you used in your message to me is because of the strong convictions you have about the quality of the material on Misplaced Pages. It is not my intention to do anything other than improve Misplaced Pages here. Maxwahrhaftig 22:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Max, I take everything back! I apologize, but your comment made me incredibly mad at first. Buds? Space Cadet 22:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad we could resolve this so quickly. Maxwahrhaftig 22:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Russian troll

After vandalizing Belarusian language and History of Belarus article (and totally dirupting editing of these two articles), the Russian troll Kuban Kazak continued his activities on the article about my native town Vorsha (). I would like to ask Misplaced Pages admins and Misplaced Pages community members as what I should do in such a situation. Thank you very much. --rydel 14:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Rydel speak for yourself. And you my dear Cosmonaut from a country whose spacemen flew only in Russian capsuels know that you are supporing a POV pushing person who compleately lost an edit war (although succeded in blocking me for an hour) yet after which the admin looked into the history and saw what really is the truth behind his simple, cheap, provacational edits. Robi nie jest dupa...--Kuban kazak 23:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"Are you gonna stop the name calling, or do you want me to call you a bitch?"

No idea what you are on about. If you see my descriptor as a personal attack you are correct to call me on it. It's hypocritical to respond to perceived personal attacks with attacks of your own. I did not think that my descriptor was a personal attack. Your threat of retaliation, attack for attack, most certainly WAS. Guettarda 00:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention, given the illustration on your page, you seem to be advertising a hatred for Germans. In that context, my interpretation seems accurate (although, of course, if you consider the descriptor a personal attack I will happily refrain from using it - truthfulness is no excuse for personal attacks). Guettarda 00:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ponowna próba

Wymazania informacji o zbrodniach popełnionych przez żółnierzy niemieckich podczas Kampanii Wrześniowej, tym razem w artykule: http://en.wikipedia.org/German_17th_Infantry_Division --Molobo 22:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sudovians

Could you check the changes to this article? I am out of my depth in this subject. Rmhermen 21:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hej

wpadlam zobaczyc ten strong bias na Twojej stronie, i chybe chodzi o te kaczke. Teraz nie moge przestac sie smac. Rzeczywiscie, niezly argument w dyskusji o artykule :)--SylwiaS | talk 02:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, dobrze, ze to zmieniles. Kaczka jest duzo fajniejsza niz beret.--SylwiaS | talk 18:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Your Reversions

Could you maybe join the discussion on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus instead of just reverting everything. You didn't explain what problem you had with my solution. Let's be fair, you are really obliged to do this, and otherwise it may look to some like you're engaging in revert warfare for its own sake. - Calgacus 00:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo

Do zobaczenia dzielny Kadecie ! :) PS:Uważaj podczas lotów na ptaki ;] --Molobo 22:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting

You might want to know that there was a voting started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography_of_Poland#Vote. Halibutt 00:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

It would be nice if you could provide an edit summary when you perform a revert, especially when you enter a content dispute like here. Would you mind to explain why you agree with Molobo on this issue? We are having a conversation at Talk:Georg Forster, and discussion there would be nicer than a revert without even an edit summary. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 02:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. As a member of the Misplaced Pages community, I would like to remind you of Misplaced Pages's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Misplaced Pages. Thank you! Sherurcij 12:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Zobacz sobie tą interesującą niemiecką stronę

http://www.ety.com/berlin/ Jest to o czym mówi się w artykule o rzekomej opresji Niemców-żądania o "sprawiedliwość" wobec rzekomych powojennych ofiar Niemieckich są przykrywką dla propagowania antysemityzmu i nazizmu na tej stronie. --Molobo 01:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Erika Steinbach

Hi. I have listed you and Maria Stella for a 3RR on Erika Steinbach. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for details -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked you (again, sigh). William M. Connolley 11:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

Kopernik

http://www.mimuw.edu.pl/polszczyzna/PTJ/b/b58_031-035.pdf. BULLETIN DE LA SOCIÉTÉ POLONAISE DE LINGUISTIQUE, fasc. LVIII, 2002ISSN 0032–3802WITOLD MAŃCZAKKrakówNaród a język, państwo i religiaSwego czasu był w Polsce młody historyk o nazwisku Krzysztof Pomian, który w r. 1973 wyemigrował do Francji i odtąd publikuje tylko po francusku. W r. 1990 ukazała się jego książka pt. L’Europe et ses nations, która w dwa lata później została przetłumaczona na język polski jako Europa i jej narody. W książce tej w pewnym miejscu autor powiada, że „wojny spowodowane przez Rewolucję i Napoleona otwierają w Europie ostatni rozdział epigenezy narodów, która rozpoczęła się ponad tysiąc lat wcześniej, gdy barbarzyńcy przekroczyli limes. Przebiegała ona zarazem w dwóch wymiarach: poziomym, gdzie każdy naród samookreśla się wobec innych, zwłaszcza wobec tych, które nad nim panują lub nad którym sam panuje albo wobec obu naraz albo też wobec tych, które są po prostu jego sąsiadami; i pionowym, gdzie z kolei każdy rozwiązuje konflikty między tworzącymi go grupami – konflikty rozją-trzone lub wywołane przez innowacje gospodarcze i techniczne – wyłączając własne elity z kultury ponadnarodowej i rozciągając się tak, by ogarnąć również tych, którzy zajmują na drabinie społecznej najniższe miejsce”. Z kolei autor omawia „tory, po ja-kich poruszają się poszczególne narody”, i dochodzi do wniosku, że „tory, które łączą punkt wyjścia z punktem dojścia, plemiona z narodami, są wypadkowymi gry sześciu sił, już to współdziałających, już to ścierających się w różnych kombinacjach”. Oto one:1) Dynastie panujące, które uosabiają kraj w oczach jego mieszkańców i zagra-nicy, które, często traktowane jako święte, budzą przywiązanie i wierność i wokół których krystalizuje się poczucie zbiorowej tożsamości.2) Państwa, czyli aparaty administracyjno-militarne z ich hierarchiami, z ich włas-nymi tradycjami i symbolami, posługujące się zorganizowaną przemocą i przymu-sem i sprawujące kontrolę nad poddanymi.3) Związki terytorialne – miasta, prowincje, kantony – gdzie pewne uprawnienia państwa należą do ogółu mieszkańców lub do instancji wybieralnych i gdzie poczu-cie tożsamości zbiorowej skupia się nie wokół osób, lecz wokół zwyczajowych form życia społecznego.4) Elity i instytucje kulturalne, w tym piśmiennictwo, wiedza i sztuka, które wy-twarzają uprzedmiotowione i trwałe nośniki zbiorowej pamięci, zbiorowych wyobra-żeń, poczucia wspólnoty języka, terytorium, przeszłości i przyszłości.

Page 2 32WITOLD MAŃCZAKNARÓD A JĘZYK, PAŃSTWO I RELIGIA335) Instytucje i autorytety religijne – Kościół katolicki ze swoim centrum i lokalny-mi odgałęzieniami, Cerkwie prawosławne, Kościoły protestanckie, rabini.6) Same narody wreszcie lub pewne ich składniki, które od czasów plemiennych reagują na naciski z zewnątrz i naciski własnych instytucji, a niekiedy, przejmując inicjatywę, stają się współtwórcami własnych dziejów, a nie tylko biernym przed-miotem.Osobiście uważam, że pojęcia narodowości nie da się wtłoczyć w jakąś uniwer-salną formułę, że pojęcie narodowości w różnych krajach i w różnych epokach przed-stawia się różnie, jednak sprawy nie są aż tak bardzo skomplikowane, jakby to suge-rowały przytoczone wypowiedzi Krzysztofa Pomiana. W moim przekonaniu istnieją tylko trzy wyznaczniki narodu: państwo, język lub religia. Jeśli chodzi o narodowość polską, to Polakiem jest ktoś, kto mówi w domu po polsku, natomiast jeśli ktoś w domu po polsku nie mówi, to Polakiem nie jest. Tak jest przynajmniej w ogromnej większości wypadków, choć w sporadycznych wypadkach bywa inaczej: obecnie gdzieniegdzie w Rosji trafiają się ludzie, którzy poczuwają się jeszcze do polskości, choć po polsku już mówić nie umieją. Natomiast zupełnie inaczej ma się rzecz we Francji. W kraju tym od czasów rewolucji obowiązuje zasada, że wszystkie posady państwowe są obsadzane w drodze konkursów. Widziałem raz we Francji ogłoszenie o konkursie na listonosza, w którym to ogłoszeniu wyszczególnione były warunki, jakie musiał spełniać kandydat na to stanowisko. Jeden z warunków brzmiał: être Français, tzn. dosłownie ‘być Francuzem’. Oczywiście, jeśli ktoś w domu mówił po prowansalsku, bretońsku czy baskijsku, to to nie znaczyło, że nie mógł się ubiegać o ową posadę listonosza. Wymieniony w ogłoszeniu warunek être Français oznaczał tylko, że kandydat musiał mieć obywatelstwo francuskie. Różnica między Polską a Francją polega na tym, że u nas w różnych kwestionariuszach nieraz są pytania zarówno o obywatelstwo, jak i o narodowość, natomiast władze francuskie pytają jedynie o nationalité, czyli o to, co my nazywamy obywatelstwem.Jeśli ktoś mówi w domu po polsku, to wiadomo, że jest Polakiem. Jeśli jednak ktoś w domu mówi po niemiecku, to równie dobrze może być Niemcem, Austriakiem, Szwajcarem jak Luksemburczykiem. Jeśli ktoś mówi w domu po francusku, to rów-nie dobrze może być Francuzem jak Szwajcarem czy Belgiem. Jeśli ktoś w domu mówi po angielsku, to możliwości jest jeszcze więcej, a wręcz rekordowa liczba możliwości zachodzi w wypadku, gdy ktoś w domu mówi po hiszpańsku. Wiadomo, ile jest państw w Ameryce Łacińskiej.Tak więc na pojęcie narodowości polskiej, węgierskiej czy rumuńskiej składa się wyłącznie język, natomiast w wielu innych wypadkach wchodzi w grę nie tylko język, ale i przynależność państwowa, a niekiedy, jak np. we Francji, tylko obywa-telstwo.Niekiedy wyznacznikiem narodowości jest religia. Wszyscy mieszkańcy Północnej Irlandii mówią po angielsku, ale o tym, że jedni są Irlandczykami, a inni Anglikami, decyduje wyznanie, które jest bądź katolickie, bądź protestanckie. Podobnie się ma rzecz z mieszkańcami Bośni, z których jedni są chrześcijanami, a inni muzułmanami. Jak powiada Pomian (1992: 174), „w zasadzie Serbowie i Chorwaci różnią się niemal tylko tym, że pierwsi wyznają prawosławie, a drudzy są katolikami”. Szczególny wy-

Page 3 32WITOLD MAŃCZAKNARÓD A JĘZYK, PAŃSTWO I RELIGIA33padek stanowią Żydzi, którzy, rozproszeni po całej kuli ziemskiej, mówią najrozma-itszymi językami, a jedyną rzeczą, która ich łączy, jest ich religia. Za naszych czasów, gdy i wśród Żydów nie brak ludzi religijnie obojętnych, Żydów można zdefiniować jako ludzi, którzy są lub których przodkowie byli wyznania mojżeszowego z tym za-strzeżeniem, że niektórzy wyznawcy judaizmu, a mianowicie Karaimi, Żydami nie są.Ze względu na to, że pojęcie narodowości w różnych krajach i różnych epokach różny ma sens, warto zwrócić uwagę na to, że niejedno obce wyrażenie zostało nie-adekwatnie przetłumaczone na polski. I tak istnieje angielskie wyrażenie the United Nations, które jest tłumaczone na polski jako Organizacja Narodów Zjednoczonych, ale to tłumaczenie jest błędne. Istnieje naród palestyński, istnieje także naród kurdyj-ski, który liczy ponad 20 milionów ludzi, ale ani naród palestyński, ani naród kurdyj-ski nie należy do Organizacji Narodów Zjednoczonych. Dlaczego? Otóż dlatego,- że narody te nie mają własnego państwa, a tylko państwa mogą należeć do ONZ. Tak więc adekwatny przekład ang. the United Nations powinien brzmieć Organizacja Państw Zjednoczonych. Mutatis mutandis to samo dotyczy organizacji, która była po-przedniczką Organizacji Narodów Zjednoczonych, a mianowicie przedwojennej Ligi Narodów. W angielskim jest także wyrażenie national park, które jest tłumaczone na polski jako park narodowy, ale znowu to tłumaczenie nie jest adekwatne. Co jest przeciwieństwem ang. national park? Otóż przeciwieństwem national park jest park miejski albo park prywatny. Zatem national park to park, który nie jest własnością ani miasta, ani osoby prywatnej, natomiast jest własnością państwa. W polszczyźnie ist-nieje zapożyczenie nacjonalizacja, zamiast którego nieraz używamy słowa rodzime-go upaństwowienie, a nie *unarodowienie. I słusznie, gdyż nacjonalizacja jakiegoś przedsiębiorstwa oznacza, że dana firma staje się własnością nie narodu, ale państwa. W Paryżu jest biblioteka, która się zowie Bibliothèque nationale, a która po polsku bywa nazywana Biblioteką Narodową. Poza tym na wzór paryskiej Bibliothèque nationale w Warszawie stworzono Bibliotekę Narodową, ale nazwa ta jest myląca. W rzeczywistości Biblioteka Narodowa w Warszawie jest własnością nie narodu polskiego, ale państwa polskiego. Trafniej byłoby ją nazywać biblioteką państwową czy krajową. Podobnie się ma rzecz z nazwami i innych instytucji państwowych, np. Narodowego Banku Polskiego. Fr. international tłumaczone jest na polski jako ‘mię-dzynarodowy’, ale jeśli nie we wszystkich, to przynajmniej w ogromnej większości wypadków wyraz ten znaczy ‘międzypaństwowy’. Natomiast fr. route nationalesłusznie się na polski przekłada jako droga krajowa.Na zakończenie chciałbym parę słów poświęcić narodowości Kopernika. Z dzisiejszego punktu widzenia Polakiem jest ktoś, kto w domu mówi po polsku, na-tomiast jeśli ktoś w domu po polsku nie mówi, to Polakiem nie jest. W ogóle to, jakim się mówi językiem, od czasów romantyzmu, tzn. w XIX i XX w., odgrywało wielką rolę, ale przed XIX w. było zupełnie inaczej. Jak powiedział znany lingwista francuski Dauzat, niegdyś ludzie walczyli o religie, później zaczęli walczyć o języki. I istotnie kwestie językowe wycisnęły piętno na historii Europy w XIX i XX w. Właśnie to, że języki zaczęły odgrywać rolę, jakiej nigdy przedtem nie miały, zadecydowało o zjednoczeniu Włoch i Niemiec, o rozpadzie najpierw imperium otomańskiego, a po I wojnie światowej o rozpadzie imperium habsburskiego oraz o utracie przez Rosję

Page 4 34WITOLD MAŃCZAKNARÓD A JĘZYK, PAŃSTWO I RELIGIA35niektórych jej prowincji zachodnich, a w najnowszych czasach o rozpadzie imperium sowieckiego oraz o rozpadzie Jugosławii i Czechosłowacji.Ale nie można zapominać o tym, że kwestie językowe wyglądały zupełnie ina-czej przed XIX w. Zrobię dygresję, ale zaraz potem wrócę do głównego wątku mego rozumowania. Jak wiadomo, w Stanach Zjednoczonych jest wielu imigrantów, a imi-granci ci po uzyskaniu obywatelstwa amerykańskiego niekiedy dochodzą do sprawo-wania nawet najwyższych funkcji państwowych w USA. Jest jednak pewien wyjątek, a mianowicie w konstytucji amerykańskiej jest zastrzeżone, że prezydentem Stanów Zjednoczonych może zostać tylko człowiek urodzony w USA, tzn. ktoś, kto obywa-telstwo amerykańskie miał od samego początku. Otóż pod tym względem szlachta polska była bez porównania liberalniejsza: w Polsce królem mógł być wybrany tak-że cudzoziemiec. Ba, w czasie elekcji cudzoziemcy mieli nawet większe szanse od Polaków. A czyż król, który sam mówił kiepsko po polsku albo w ogóle polskiego nie znał, mógł się interesować, jakim językiem mówił taki czy inny jego poddany? Oczywiście nie.Można to sformułować jeszcze inaczej: stosunek do języka był przed XIX w. w Europie, w tym także w Polsce przedrozbiorowej, taki, jaki do dziś jeszcze jest we Francji. Państwo francuskie nie interesuje się tym, jakimi językami mówią w domu mieszkańcy Francji, we francuskich kwestionariuszach spisu ludności nie ma rozróż-nienia, jakie jest w polskich kwestionariuszach, w których się rozróżnia obywatel-stwo i narodowość. Sytuacja panująca w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej może być także przyrównywana do sytuacji, jaka jest dzisiaj w Szwajcarii. Większość Szwajcarów mówi po niemiecku, ale ktoś, kto w domu mówi po francusku, włosku czy retoromań-sku, jest równie dobrym Szwajcarem, jak ten, co mówi po niemiecku.W tym stanie rzeczy jest zrozumiałe, że do końca XVIII w. nie miano wątpliwości co do narodowości Kopernika. Kopernik urodził się, przeżył całe życie i zmarł w Pol-sce, zatem był Polakiem. Nawet król pruski Fryderyk II, który uczestniczył w pierw-szym rozbiorze Polski, wkrótce potem napisał w liście do Woltera, że jest rzeczą słuszną, żeby kraj, który wydał Kopernika, nie grzązł już dłużej w barbarzyństwie (Œuvres posthumes 1788, list z 11.12.1773 r.). Natomiast w XIX wieku Niemcy za-częli twierdzić, że Kopernik był Niemcem, i trwało to do roku 1945. Ale po II wojnie światowej zaszła pewna zmiana. W lectorium głównym Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej przejrzałem wszystkie encyklopedie i okazało się, że w niemal wszystkich encyklo-pediach, od Encyclopedia Americana i Encyclopaedia Britannica poczynając, a na encyklopediach włoskich skończywszy, jest napisane, że Kopernik był Polakiem. Pod tym względem wyjątek stanowią jedynie encyklopedie niemieckie (Der große Herderz r. 1954, Meyers enzyklopädisches Lexikon z r. 1975 oraz Brockhaus Enzyklopädiez r. 1990), a mianowicie w nich narodowość Kopernika została przemilczana. Tak więc po II wojnie światowej Niemcy nie twierdzą już, że Kopernik był Niemcem, ale albo jego narodowość przemilczają, albo powiadają, że był Europejczykiem.P.S. W rozmowie po wygłoszeniu referatu na zjeździe PTJ prof. Oleg Leszczak ze Świętokrzyskiej Akademii Pedagogicznej poinformował mię o książce pewnego ukraińskiego historyka, który przedstawił argumenty przemawiające za tym, że – wbrew temu, co się na ogół sądzi – wojna z Kozakami w XVII w. była wojną na tle

Page 5 34WITOLD MAŃCZAKNARÓD A JĘZYK, PAŃSTWO I RELIGIA35nie etnicznym, ale religijnym. Innymi słowy, walczyli w niej nie przodkowie tych, co siebie dzisiaj nazywają Ukraińcami, z Polakami, ale prawosławni mieszkańcy tej czę-ści Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, która w r. 1569 w wyniku unii lubelskiej została włączona do Korony, z katolikami. Jest to jeden przykład więcej na to, że przed XIX w. języki odgrywały bez porównania mniejszą rolę niż za naszych czasów.SummaryAccording to the author, the concept of nationality in different countries and peri-ods has been understood in different ways, and language, state or religion are determi-nants of nation. The author also discusses the problem of incorrect Polish translations of English and French expressions with the words nation or national. The final part of the article is devoted to the issue of the nationality of Copernicus.Publikacje cytowaneŒuvres posthumes de Frédéric roi de Prusse. 1788. Berlin.Pomian, K. 1992. Europa i jej narody, Warszawa: PIW.

You might want to verify that you reverted to the correct version today, unless of course you totally changed your views on the issue. Balcer 17:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

copernicus

Please write a bit less ambiguous comments. When seeing your "I dont think so" I thought that you reverted my edit. mikka (t) 18:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop using insulting langauge to me

"Showcase, you use "yo' mama" comments like some stupid hood and you're surprised when people get insulted. Grow up and try to be more like Joe." ] And stop undoing my edits without any reason.] --Showcase 22:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was you who used insulting comments like: "yo' mama". Space Cadet 23:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

3rr on Treaty of Welawa

Blocked again (sigh). And consider yourself lucky not to get longer for edit comments like and William M. Connolley 23:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC).

Helga

Mozliwe, ale niekoniecznie. Sporo jest Niemcow o bardzo podobnych pogladach. Nie ma to zreszta duzego znaczenia, nieprawdaz, czy to Helga czy tez inny user o podobnym nastawieniu :)) Szopen 15:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppeteer suspect

You might want to look at Tirid Tirid once again ... and especially on this Request for CheckUser. --Matthead 19:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hej

Jeden z niemieckich użytkowników próbuje doprowadzić do zablokowania mnie na dłuższy czas. Gdyby to mu się udało miałbym prośbę byś zerknął na gdzie co chwile informacja o tym jak Polskie dzieci biczowano i katowano tak że obdarto je ze skóry jest kasowana przez tego niemieckiego użytkownika. --Molobo 13:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Chauvinistic vowels?

I'm really intimidated by your edit, summarized as "As part of Poland - rm nonsensical chauvinistic claims". Are too many vowels now considered Anti-Polish POV? --Matthead 18:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Już patrzę

Widzę że ten sam problem co zawsze. Podwójne nazewnictwo jak widać służy tylko do nadawania zniemczonych wersji nazw miejscowości w krajach podbitych w przeszłości. --Molobo 12:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Jak zwykle

Próba kasacji informacji o zbrodniach Niemców podczas II Wojny Światowej: Jeśli możesz to zerknij od czasu do czasu. --Molobo 18:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Warsaw1945.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Warsaw1945.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

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

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wiewiórka

Znów próbuje usuwać informacje o zbrodniach niemieckich w artykule o Steinbach, oczywiście "krzywda" wypędzonych pozostaje. Zresztą sam zobacz. Pozdrawiam. --Molobo 18:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Btw: Now only to replace the nuts with image of Nazi atrocities to be deleted :D --Molobo 18:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

=Stworzyłem

Artykuł o Niemieckim obozie koncentracyjnym dla Polskich dzieciPotulice concentration camp. Oczywiście nie minęło wiele czasu a już się zaczęło wymazywanie informacji. Jak możesz czasem przyuważyć będę wdzięczny. --Molobo 02:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Double naming

Space Cadet, you know very well that a large majority of users voted for double naming, please do not remove double naming from articles . Details at Talk:Gdansk/Vote, just in case your memory is failing. You can also read the numerous warnings on the talk page here, if you prefer. -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, please avoid misleading edit summaries . -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

As usuall

As usuall Dwaj użytkownicy usilnie próbują pro-sowiecką wersję wprowadzić. Jeśli mógłbyś mieć na to oko (nie chce złamać 3RR) byłbym wdzięczny. --Molobo 20:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

The discussion as I red it was that he was from prussia, but when the area was polish kingdom than why the discussion?

I dont like the discussion about: this was mine and not yours Should be done by three years in the sandbox but not like here.

But to start really nice stuff here it would be good to edit some articles from irisch people born during the time it was offically part of the UK and say they where not irisch but UK citicens. Or all people born 1938-1945 in austria ar germans. Or chinese born during japanese occupation. I think you would get respose like never bevore and everything would be vandalized in seconds. Wars start easy but are hard to stop.--Stone 12:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Krra.JPG

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

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

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 14:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wiewiórka znów bez orzeszków

--Molobo 02:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see this

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russsian_claims_about_Warsaw_Uprising_1794 The author tries to put information from non-objective source as objective article. The source is from Imperial Russia regarding Polish uprising against its occupation. Imperial Russia was known for fabricating and being source of many antipolish fabrications. Because I didn't want to delete this(no blanking) I moved it to a proper article that would deal with claim. --Molobo 03:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeśli możesz przywrócić info o zbrodniach sowieckich: --Molobo 11:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Your recent discussions

I noticed your recent discussion with an anon user regarding issue of Polish and German relations, whom you suspect of being the the infamouse Helga user IIRC. The anon stated one source of his views on one talk page, you might be interested:

The source is from

I recommend you look at the site and what ideology it represents. --Molobo 18:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Przy okazji wiewiórka jak zwykle bez orzeszków: --Molobo 21:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiewióra się ostatnio dobrała do artykułu o mordach na Polakach dokonywanych przez mniejszość niemiecką w 1939. Ponieważ przez weekend nie będę miał sieci jakbyś mógł wiewiórki zapędy zerknąć od czasu do czasu będę wdzięczny. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Selbstschutz&action=history --Molobo 16:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Znów

Próba germanizacji: --Molobo 11:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Jak zwykle

Próba wymazania zbrodni niemieckich --Molobo 14:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Space Cadet,

thank you for leaving a message on my talk page and the question about the leader (I added military/leader, because he was both.)

Are you and Molobo two different people, or are you one and the same? You two act so very much alike, that it is really hard to tell. You are now both # 1 at Misplaced Pages.

Here is an article you might want to read and ponder: http://wiez.free.ngo.pl/jedwabne/article/35.html . I have some hope that it might do some good in your demeanor from now on. Molobo should read this also, and so should a number of others, but I am afraid that Molobo is beyond repair. I think he might not even actually live in Poland, if he does, he should have gotten some of what the article is talking about.

Have a good day. MG 4/7/2006

Kusma's RfA

"No Prussia No Problem"

Someone messed up your picture. I've been trying to fix it. But I've been having trouble reverting back to your version. You might want to take a look at Image:Prussia Graffiti.JPG. 172 | Talk 09:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Prezent

Wiewiór

Jak zwykle: --Molobo 16:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

3rr

Hi, you have broken the three revert rule on Soviet partisan. Please don't do this again or you will be blocked according to policy. --He:ah? 00:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverts...

Hello... your recent contributions have been almost nothing except reverts of other editors on many, many articles, numerous times the same editors... Please, this is not the way to resolve disputes. If you don't start discussing on talk pages and stop constantly reverting, you will be blocked from editing. Thank you. In the interest of complete closure, I have also left this message for Sciurinæ (talk · contribs).--Sean Black 00:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You returned to make 3 further reverts after this warning. Let me reiterate Sean's words: you must not continue to edit war as you have been doing. If you find yourself in a conflict, discuss, and seek mediation or other dispute resolution. Edit warring is never okay. Dmcdevit·t 23:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You should also note that you can be blocked for a multitude of edit-warring related activities, not just for four reverts in 24 hours. 3 rv's can get you blocked, as can "disruption" and "exhuasting the community's patience". Your lack of almost ANY edits other than reverts is QUITE troubling, and i think our patience is waning. --He:ah? 00:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Incivility

I've blocked you briefly for incivility, e.g. William M. Connolley 14:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Copernikus damaged by Matthead again

Czesc Space Cadet,

Matthead wymazuje z artykulu wszystkie polskie litery i polskie nazwy. Moze pomozesz? Ja juz nie moge rewertowac.

Matcreg 13:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:German American.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:German American.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 82.83.65.227 10:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A gift

To long departed friend: --Molobo 00:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive

I suggest that you should archive your talk page, as its getting very long--☆TBC☆ 02:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Your Arguments

You often state that Pomerania should be Polish because it has Polish ancestry, and the 'Poles were there first'. Besides the obvious "We were there first, so it's ours" fallacy, you are forgetting several things...

Based on that logic, the region, going back a bit further, should be in Germany, as it was occupied by the Goths (a Germanic tribe), as the West Slavs (not necessarily Polish, but Lechetic at least) did not invade until later.

Or, going back even further, we should give it to the Irish, as Celtic tribes occupied the area before Slavs or Germans.

Or, even further, we should give it to the Basques, as their ancestors and their relatives used to own all of Europe prior to the Indo-European invasion.

So, are you saying that all of Europe should revert to Basque control? Before you continue your 'It was ours first' rant, you should consider the facts that the Poles weren't the first, nor the Germans, nor the Celts, and probably not even the Basques. Ameise -- chat 08:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

(ammendum) By that same logic, of course, even going back a little bit, Danzig west to Stettin (I cannot spell nor pronounce the Polish forms, the German forms come more natural to a Chicagoan speaker such as myself) should be given to a newly created Kashubian nation, west of that (including, I suppose, Russian Kaliningrad) should be given to Latvia, as the Prussians were a Baltic group. Ameise -- chat 08:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The Comenius POV edits by User:71.137.207.147

Thank you for taking interest. Could you keep an eye on he article? I do not want to be the only one who revets him there. It starts to look as a personal vendetta while in fact it's a hopeless case of trying to teach history to a user who is clerly uneducable. My editor interests lie mostly in science. Also a little in history of the countries around Baltic - hence my knowledge of the history of Pomerania and Prussia. However, I would not like this to distract me too much. Thanks again for help. Friendly Neighbour 19:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"rm nonsensical chauvinistic claims"

You better had stayed were you have been, and spared Misplaced Pages from bombastic edit comments like in and . -- Matthead      O       14:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Jpg

Hi, I noticed you frequently contribute images to the Misplaced Pages, which is great, but I would like you to reconsider your choice of format, you see JPEG is most frequently used for images, and as such has a very lossfull codex, and many compression aftifacts visible. PNG is ideal for diagrams and illustrations and doesn't suffer from any compression artifacts. Have a look at this image for a good comparison between the formats.

PS: Your no-moose image is a bit incorect, because the horn is not crossed, it would usually be taken to mean that moose horns are prescribed, that is - that they are compulsory. :)

+Hexagon1 09:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Great about the formats, but I still think not-crossed signs prescribe, not restrict, after all speed-signs are sometimes in a red circle, and that doesn't mean that that speed is forbidden. But I might be wrong, or maybe it's a regional-thing. +Hexagon1 11:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Podolski/Klose

Hi Space Cadet! I see you hold an interest in Polish-German relations. Could you add Lukasz and Miroslaw to your watchlist? There is a (sockpuppet?) watchdog tending to the articles who constantly tries to dispprove their Polish roots. Pozdrowienia! Pawel z Niepolomic 16:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Dear Space, we've never really talked one on one. So what is your rationale for adding the Polish name of Biržai to English WP? Maybe you have a reason, so I ask you sincerely and without an ulterior motive. No animosity or accusations intended. What say you, Space Cadet? Dr. Dan 02:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please use non-confusing edit summaries

Re: . Thanks, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It's for your own good, Ceasar :) I don't mind when it is applied to rv of vandalism or anon's pov pushing, but it is confusing if used for stuff like spelling correction. And keep in mind that if used against a regged user, this can be seen as a personal attack, and WP:PAIN has been increasingly active lately.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Tak ucieszne jak to bylo, jesli ktos to pokaze na PAINie to dostaniesz blocka :( Ja rozumiem ze niekiedy z ogniem trzeba ogniem, ale nie tutaj: zamiast tego sugeruje bys ty go i innych takich raportowal na PAINie, a neutralni admini ich zablokuja. Co ty na to?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ja, jestem za! Dr. Dan 02:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

recovered territory

you said: Again, he had a power of a king, he ruled over the country and the dukes.) Just because he was not recognized by the Pope as a king, does not mean he wasn't one. He had all the power of a king and he ruled over dukes. I'll give you the Slavs before Tacitus, though

well, the pope hasn't recognized me as the King of Canada, but I am, so from now on you should call me "your excellency", after all, I have the power of an emperor, I rule over my own land, and have loyal subjects (the four-legged kind) who are Dukes, not joking, my dog's name is Duke, so surely I must be a king also, as I fit your requirements for one.

--Jadger 00:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Adam Keller's Response re Polish Corridor

I have responded to your message on my page re the Polish Corridor, hope to hear from you.Adam keller 12:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Warsaw

Hello. While I'm on your side in the Trakai discussion, I can not admit that your recent comments about Warsaw were helpful there (personally, sometimes I find it better not to respond when not necessary). Even if I may guess what was your possible intention behind, the most probable result is the increase of antagonistic attitudes due to specyfic language issues. This is something I'd like to avoid. Nothing personal, though. Best regards, --Beaumont (@) 19:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Re

Hello. The sentence of governor of Prussia was added not by annon, which you changed later. So this situation definitely should be properly discussed with sources presented if needed on talk, to avoid further rv. M.K. 20:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits was good by annon too. BTW, why you need LT, not enough your own homies? M.K. 20:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

====Regarding reversions made on {{subst:currentmonth}} {{subst:currentday}} {{subst:currentyear}} (UTC) to Andreas Gryphius==== Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning, but aviod making any reverts within 24 hours of this warning in order to avoid any confusion. ST47Talk 19:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wesołych Boże Narodzenie

Wesołych Boże Narodzenie

--Jadger 20:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Order of Dobrzyń/Dobrin

The article is currently at Order of Dobrzyń, but the history is at Order of Dobrin. If you hold on, I'll merge the histories into Order of Dobrzyń and fix the discrepancy. Olessi 20:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nomina odiosa, editio misteriosa

Nope, no problems at all, I'm cool and smiling :) Glad to see you back, BTW. //Halibutt 09:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

FPS player, are we? :) //Halibutt 09:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

FPS = First-person shooter. //Halibutt 11:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

survey =

thanks! (I'll sign) absent minded--Beaumont (@) 13:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Attempting to add a userbox to someone else's userpage after they have specifically asked you quite nicely to stop falls pretty easily within the realm of a Personal attack. Consider this your warning against doing this again.--Isotope23 16:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, OK it was just a misunderstanding, my intentions were good.Space Cadet 22:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the comment you left on my talk page... Sorry, but I have not the foggiest notion what you are talking about...--Isotope23 00:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Responded on my talkpage.--Isotope23 14:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The comment you left on User talk:Isotope23 looks a lot like a threat to me. If that was a misunderstanding, please be a lot more careful in the future. It's at least edging into what would be blockable. Georgewilliamherbert 01:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, when Xx starts referring to me as a "Prussian Canadian" and I take offence to it, it doesn't mean I really like the term and secretly want it plastered on my userpage. you also stated: you decided it was an excuse to take aggressive steps towards me (snitching and crying to the admins). Fine! Another reason you should consider yourself Prussian. If I was Prussian, I simply would have walked all over you, the Prussians didn't "snitch" or "rat" or "cry". And why would I plot to have steps taken against you? I had not edited the same article with you for a long time before this week. I don't hold grudges like you might.

--Jadger 16:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Space Cadet: Actually, Isotope23 did take it as a threat, as he posted to WP:ANI last night. That's why I got involved.

Please be more careful in how you phrase things. Georgewilliamherbert 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your AIV report

Thank you for making a report in respect of R9tgokunks (talk · contribs · block log) on Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Removing and reporting vandalism is vital to the functioning of Misplaced Pages and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them again to the AIV noticeboard. Thanks. (Note: This appears to be about content disputes rather than about issues of vandalism; consider using dispute resolution). Sandstein 22:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Cooperation

I know that we have had our disagreements in the past, particularly because of our very different viewpoints as to many things which tend to cause conflict, however, I hope that in the future and from hence forth, we can work together to improve Misplaced Pages, and create reasonable compromises on the various articles that tend to be creating conflict between the different groups present on Misplaced Pages... it is becoming very tiring for quite a few of the articles to be in a state of endless edit-war, when in the end I don't really believe that either side is right. Antman -- chat 20:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure :/ Does it mean 'Ant'? My most recent Polish-English dictionary was last printed during the first half of the 20th century :/ Antman -- chat 21:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

re:jadger

yes, when you say "rv" (Revert Vandalism) in an edit summary, when a edit is not vandalism, that is a personal attack

--Jadger 01:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't get so defensive, I was just pointing out how you need to be clear, and also how you should stop editwarring. revert is one word, you never see it spelled ReVert, not everyone holds to the same l33t speak as you do. and you can see how easily things can be misinterpreted on wikipedia, you need to be more clear. and I am not here to discuss Hrodberaht's actions, sure he may be a little offensive by instead of saying "removed POV" says "removed fascist propoganda" but I seem to recall you have done that an aweful lot as well.

--Jadger 16:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

regarding your current dispute on Danzig/Gdansk ] with Herr R9, I think you are correct, and if I catch his revert before you, I will remove it, so that you don't get caught in a 3RR.

However, I do not think your reversions on Arthur Schopenhauer are correct, if you read the Stutthof article, it was annexed before 1788 (when he was born) so it was not actually in Poland, but in Prussia at the time.

--Jadger 07:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

on the Schopenhauer article it gets pretty befuddling, I added a few words in order to try and clear it up. Do we know exactly where the border was at this time? because I know Hitler was born in a border town (not to equate schopenhauer with hitler) but we could put something like "born in Stutthof, a Prussian border town near Danzig/Gdansk in Poland."

--Jadger 07:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

thank you, it has been great working with you rather than editwarring with you. we should do this mor often :) oh ya, and you can post that Canadian Palitanate thing on my talk page, and I will decide wether or not I will add it to my userpage, danke schöne

--Jadger 18:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S could that map that you found the old border on be added to the Sztutowo article? as it currently is lacking a map.

--Jadger 18:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk

Hi, I think you would be interested in this . ≈Tulkolahten≈ 16:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Copernicus

Sources are on our side, Copernicus was Polish, there is no doubt . If necessary we should start consensus dispution. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 00:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Troubles

Much more troubles with that man ≈Tulkolahten≈ 21:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Silesia

Cześć. Chciałem poinformować, że jakiś czas temu został uruchomiony Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Silesia. Serdecznie zapraszam. LUCPOL 14:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

RE:what do you mean no it isnt

What I meant is the half of Frankfurt an der Oder now in Poland was not polish in the 17th century, the Holy Roman Empire borders where farther east for a long time, see ]

--Jadger 23:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the current version that Richard created. it does not mention time as we can certainly both agree they all didnt come under Polish or German influences at the same time.

And just in case you see recovered territory on the AfD pages, don't worry. I just noticed it was a random stub generated by someone in June of last year, so don't think I'm trying to have this recovered territories article deleted.

--Jadger 16:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The wiki way

Can you please explain why you think it's perfectly ok for you to revert with an edit summary of "you wish"? Please see Jagiellon dynasty and Casimir IV who relate to the area of land that is now called Poland at the time of Copernicus' birth. "Poland" is a gross oversimplification of the Kingdom of Poland of the Jagiellons. Next you'll be telling me Alexander the Great is a Greek. A better (referenced) phrase would be:

Gingerich, Owen (14). John L. Heilbron (ed.). "Copernicus, Nicholas", The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science. USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195112296. Copernicus was born 19 February 1473 in Torun, a Hanseatic town that had shortly before transferred its allegiance to the Polish monarchy. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |origmonth=, |accessmonth=, |chapterurl=, |origdate=, and |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

As long as you refrain from putting in your edits crap like "Poland did not exist at that time", I don't care. Space Cadet 15:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You manage to misquote me - the edit summary was "...Poland did not exist at this point in time". That aside, it is obvious you make no difference between the periods of it being a State, a Kingdom, and a Republic, amongst other less easily titled things. I however do not accept coffeebook-history which ignores things like Leonardo being a Tuscan but effectively a Florentine - God help us, here he's an Italian, I'm not wasting anymore time pushing elephants uphill, though I still feel the same should apply to the article in question. I don't care two hoots if it's a difficult and complex relationship that needs to be shown, this thing is not paper, there is plenty of room. Thank you for your time in reading this rant - rant out.

Anyway Poland DID exist (in whatever form - Kingdom, Commonwealth, People's Republic, Drakes' Republic etc.) at that point in time, so there! All this Leonardo crap is just blowing smoke! What is he called in Britannica, for God's sake? Space Cadet 18:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Why cite Britannica at me, I said I don't appreciate coffee-book history. If they wish to perpetuate gross oversimplifications fine, that's their loss. Here, if the bloody revert warriors give you a chance, justice can be done. My example of Leonardo is totally aposite - search the page for "tusc" - the only mention of him being a Tuscan is in a category - that's worse than cofeee-book - it's pathetic. It could be so much better. So could the article you're working on.

I rest my case. Space Cadet 12:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Gdansk was a completely Polish City?

That you call me knucklehead on the page for my discussion does not change the history. I would be a knucklehead to trust you without looking at sources, however. I have done that now. The people of Gdansk revolted against the choice of the king, you told me. Didn't they like the moustach of the King Bathory? You better not say just why they revolted. They wanted to keep autonomy and refused to pay homage to the new Polish king until their autonomy was guarranteed. You littered texts with nationalistic simplifications. Gdansk is a Polish city. It was not wholly in the past.--Toolsbadly 10:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I take back the knuckle head and I apologize. But the new king did not yet issue any decrees limiting the "autonomy" as you call it, nor did he show any signs of intending to do so. Gdańsk citizens revolted only because they liked Habsburg's moustache better. And they wanted him to be not the king of Gdańsk, but the whole Poland of which they still wanted to be a part of. Gets? Space Cadet 15:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You are off the mark! Fast lesson: http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/eceurope/danzig15571660.html --Toolsbadly 17:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I know this site! It's so biased, it's hard to believe! Try harder, OK? Space Cadet 19:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know the site. Since Misplaced Pages is not Avis, why should Toolsbadly, "Try Harder". After I read the article, I'm curious (as I'm sure others might be), what part of that specific article is false, let alone biased? Dr. Dan 19:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, try this: http://www.poland.gov.pl/Stefan,Batory,(1533,%E2%80%93,1586),1959.html and compare. Space Cadet 00:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

After trying your poland.gov.pl page, I still can't understand what makes it biased. 1) From where do you know the zum.de site? 2) What makes it biased? 3) What makes your poland.gov.pl site better?--Toolsbadly 09:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I know it from surfing and it's ironically on my favorites list. It uses German names for most Polish cities and other geographical features even during periods of time when the territorry in question belonged to Poland. It pushes the XIX century Prussian historiography POV. The Polish site captures both sides of the argument and it does not try to hide or misinterpret historical facts. It's so objective that even I find some shocking at first information in it. Space Cadet 11:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The site uses Gdansk until 1309, it uses Danzig from 1309 to 1946, it uses Gdansk since 1946. Misplaced Pages uses Gdańsk until 1307, it uses Danzig from 1308 to 1945, it uses Gdańsk after 1945. So: The site is just fine! It doesnt push XIX century Prussian historiography POV, okay? The Polish site captures no sides of the argument, has as subject not Gdansig, just the king, and is objective or is not. You were careless with your accusation of nationalism.--Toolsbadly 12:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, both sites are wrong and inconsistent. From 1466 (1454) to 1793 Gdańsk was Polish, "okay"?. You mean to tell me you did not read any other article on the site? How superficial! No, I was not careless but you! Space Cadet 15:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? No one said it wasn't Polish, and no one said it was. You argue German name for a city => city was German => city was then in Germany; use of German name for city not in Germany => revisionism & nationalistic & biased & inconsistent & wrong, etc., and zum.de makes this => zum.de is all of this before => zum.de and all their info shall not be used => zum.de is wrong => Gdansig was not autonomous. Both site are wrong and inconsistent? You meant zum.de and wikipedia.org, didnt you? Misplaced Pages held its own decision making conference and vote for the nameing of Gdansig, coming to the conclusion both sites now use, described above:http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gdansk/Vote --Toolsbadly 20:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Over the years I read about 100 books about the period, so my knowledge is not based on one or two sites and your little cause and effect chain maybe applies more to you: Space Cadet is a Polish nationalist ==> etc. I would like to recommend a great book by Karin Friedrich "The Other Prussia - Royal Prussia, Poland and Liberty, 1569 - 1772". Autonomous - yes, but an autonomous part of Poland. Space Cadet 21:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I could teach someone who read a hundred books (or were you using binary numerals??) about the period that the fight of Gdansig against the king was to avoid reduction in autonomy? I feel very honored. Earlier you wrote: it was "against the choice of the new king - their candidate being a Habsburg. Unfortunately they lost surrendered and lost a lot of privileges." "But the new king did not yet issue any decrees limiting the "autonomy" as you call it, nor did he show any signs of intending to do so. Gdańsk citizens revolted only because they liked Habsburg's moustache better." "And you are out of line quoting nationalistic sites." Looking back, don't you feel embarassed? You're now using autonomy without quotes, even. That you call my recording of your past logic my "little cause and effect chain" doesn't make it incorrect.--Toolsbadly 09:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No I don't feel embarassed. It is you who will feel embarassed after you read (from cover to cover) the book I recommended. In the meantime please teach me stuff, but try to use scientific arguments, rather then "funny" binary system one, or "you forgot the quotation marrks". Space Cadet 14:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Chapter: Political identity in the cities of Royal Prussia and the meaning of liberty

Please explain what exactly in the chapter "Political identity in the cities of Royal Prussia and the meaning of liberty" pp 96 - 120 supports your rv?--Toolsbadly 09:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read it? Space Cadet 10:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I already said: I've read the book from cover to cover. What's with the explanation?--Toolsbadly 14:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't get it, try chapter 6 (AGAIN!): "Loyalty in times of war". And not just the introduction, the whole thing! Then let me know what you've learned. Space Cadet 15:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I got the chapter, therefore I want to hear your explaination what it has to do with your rv. You can't go round and revert version of users ordering them to read chapter X of the book of Karin Friedrich and when they read it again and don't find your rv is well grounded in the chapter, you tell them read chapter Y. You can fool me once, but you cannot fool me twice. I don't get it? Then give it to me, explain it to me.--Toolsbadly 15:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get sucked into your little game: I explain and you don't get it, I explain my explanation, you still don't get it and want me to explain ad infinitum. I'm not an English to English traslator. Many provinces or towns in Poland-Lithuania had special privileges differentiating them from the rest. Warsaw had most of them, obviously, as the capital. But look up Zamość, you'll be surprised. My point is: separate privileges don't make a separate country. Space Cadet 19:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It's not "explaination" but "explanation". Ask someone to help you with your English before when you edit Misplaced Pages.

Basedview22

Hi spacecadet, this user continues in the manner of recently blocked another user, if you don't mind please check his edits. I reverted most of his edits but I am afraid of he will came back very soon and will continue with changing for example Charles University to Karlsuniversitat Prag etc. etc. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Johannes Hevelius

Page is now fully protected in the form as you edited it. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 15:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lechu.JPG

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

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

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 09:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are you wanting fight? I see many peoples have picked one bone with the? Please you discuss instead of reverting to your personal versions past neutralness. :) Please? No desire for the continual insualts and unciviliness from the?

I no wanting fight. I wanting neutralness peoples who have picked bone speak English. No insualts meant. Space Cadet 00:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Gdańsk

Hi there; as I see from your userpage that you speak Polish, and as you and user:172.195.112.109, who clearly is Polish, are following each other around all over the encyclopedia reverting each other, may I respectfully suggest that you talk to each other on your or his talk pages, or by e-mail if you wish, and come to some agreement about, for instance, the importance and significance of the name of Gdansk. I can otherwise see the possibility of you both getting WP:3RR blocks, which I really do not want to do.--Anthony.bradbury 22:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

How exactly do you figure he's Polish? Is this supposed to be a joke? Pretty stupid one then. Space Cadet 23:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it was not meant to be a joke, and I had no intention of denigrating either you or him. He appears to edit only Poland related articles, and, given that i know a lot of Poles, his use of the English language indicates an Eastern European origin. I had no intention of taking sides, and sent you both similar 3RR warnings. May I suggest that, as you speak Polish, you address him in that language. If he understands, then you can perhaps come to agreement. If he does not, then let me know, and this will be taken into account in any future blocking request. I'm just trying to preserve the encyclopedia. aren't we all?--Anthony.bradbury 00:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

How does bad English indicate that someone is from Eastern Europe? Are you chauvinistic or retarded? Anyway, he is a German revisionist and I don't understand why you only picked us two out of all the parties involved. Space Cadet 00:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all. let me say that offensive edits do not advance the discussion. I picked the two of you because you are the two who have interacted the most. Poor English does not necessarily imply Polish origin, although his use of English is typical of people from Eastern Europe. And I was suggesting conversation, rather than confrontation. If indeed he is a German revisionist then that is clearly not going to work.--Anthony.bradbury 00:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Second of all you were offensive first! Watch who you're calling "Polish" next time! If Germany is Eastern Europe for you then I guess France is too. Not a lot of geography in medical school, I gather. I am from Central Europe and I must say that your expert professional opinion about "his use of English is typical of people from Eastern Europe" is way off. You associated with some low class Poles and came to some weird conclusions. But guess what: his use of English is typical of people from low class, who are the same all over the world. Happy editing, your friend Space Cadet 00:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I have not said you were Polish; I said that I believed that User:172.195.112.109 was. You say that I am wrong, and that he is German. OK, I have not argued that. And I have not said that Germany is in Eastern Europe, although I did say that Poland was, which most people would agree with. If you feel that Poland is in Central Europe then hey, OK. The argument was really not about that; it was about the name of Danzig/Gdansk. And even there I was trying to mediate, not dogmatise, OK?--Anthony.bradbury 01:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If you really are NOT playing dumb on me now, then let me explain: I got offended by your "matter of fact" assumptions about User:172.195.112.109 and your aristocrat wannabe tone telling me to go and take care of it. Space Cadet 01:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I am Polish-American.

I am really sorry if that is the impression which I created. I knew, of course, that you spoke both English and Polish because your user-page says so. My assumption that User:172.195.112.109 was Polish we have exhaustively examined. Asking you to go and take care of it is not, perhaps, how I intended to come across to you. When we have an edit conflict within wikipedia then we always try, where possible to get the two main protagonists to talk and agree with each other; it does not always work, but is always worth trying. That is what i was doing, and I guess failing in. And now I am going to bed - nothing personal, but it's 2.15 a.m. here.--Anthony.bradbury 01:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop accusing of the lies! information true you know. but secretly yourself revert both Giese pages saying "LIES"? Why you so uncivil and scare people away because not beleiving like you do? Please consider truth. Nothing baddest than corrputnss.

Did you upload Image:Ionicbond.JPG?

Hi. I was trying to figure out who the original uploader of Image:Ionicbond.JPG was. Since you added the image to the Ionic bond article back in 2002, I would guess that you drew and uploaded it too, but I can't say for sure since the upload history for such old images was lost at some point. If you did create it, could you please add a note saying so to the image page and tag it with whatever license tag you'd consider appropriate? As you can see, the image is currently tagged for deletion as lacking a source. Thanks. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"nonsensical chauvinistic claims"

Wow! I understand that you treat polish and german victims of the World War the Second at the same. BTW congratulations of "neutrality" view.

RE

Sorry, I'm new here.

Nicolaus Copernicus

Page is now fully protected to avoid an edit-war. There is a dispution about this article, please add your opinion here consensus dispution. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 15:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie

Hej, dzieki za chrzaszcza, nie mam polskiej klawiatury :-) --Targeman 22:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Derision, to Misplaced Pages. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tiddly Tom 17:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. This is the reason I have nomonated your article for speedy deletion. Thanks for your message. Tiddly Tom 19:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The article has now been deleted by an Administrator, for the reason given above. Please do not re create it, unless you can drastically change the article as not to be dictionary like.

Images listed for deletion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.

• Image:TRAŚh.PNG
• Image:Elbing Westpreussen.PNG
• Image:Keep Hands Off Polish Lands!.PNG
• Image:Prussian Canadian.PNG
• Image:Nohelmets.PNG
• Image:Prussian Crow.JPG
• Image:Nostalgic Prussian.PNG

Thank you. M0RD00R 12:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainians

Ukrainians were deported to SU, or exchanged in 1945. Only a small number remained in Poland and was deported during Wisła operation.Xx236 07:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Five years of disruption

You have been embroiled in a consistently disruptive naming war for five years now with no end in sight. Certainly the naming is just a small part of your reverts, but it can be described well.

The following are just the edits that are directly related to whether it should be Gdansk or Danzig on the article Gdansk, not your similar edits like this. Nor does it include all the naming disruption on similar articles ( etc).

These diffs above don't include the following, either. The Gdansk revert war went on. In fact, it was your ( ) and Emax's revert war against the administrators John Kenney, Chris 73 and Jpgordon that was followed by the creation of the Gdansk vote (mid-February 2005) to finally end this. The vote was also welcomed by a Polish user like I've never seen approval of a vote before.

In this vote, you committed double voting by casting with both Space Cadet and your proven and confessed abusive sockpuppet Tirid Tirid. Tirid Tirid was also used for further revert warring.

Understandably, you did not like the outcome at all, so you continued in contrast to the vote's decision: (limited to just one diff per month)

There's only one month in which you didn't violate the voting. After April 2006, you took a break. You started editing again in late August with ... a Gdansk vote violation. Thus continues your record (limited to just one diff per month):

Yup, there's no month in which you didn't breach the Gdansk vote this time. It's amazing that your conduct has never received the due amount of attention. And the last diff listed is this month, early September 2007. Again, it is noteworthy that the naming is just part of your revert warring. I guess the following war should also be mentioned because it's also directly related to the Gdansk vote ( ).

Now, the following is the total number of your edits and reverts that are not in line with the Gdansk vote in the last two weeks:

It's hard to believe that still, in all those years, no one has taken your editing privilege for good. Sciurinæ 01:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Already five years? Wow! Space Cadet 03:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Copernicus

¿Why does Copernicus was not a Polish and Dürer and Beethoven were Germans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nationalism Patrol (talk • contribs) 13:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)