Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:16, 13 December 2005

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 ( July 12, 2005 to 21 November 2005 ):
• Archive 2 (next to start)

Selbschutz?

Hello Molobo, on your front page you announce the creation of something you call Selbschutz. No such word exists in German. Visit Glossary of WWII German military terms for better inspiration. Keep up the good work! :^) A friend.

Yes sorry for the wrong spelling.I am interested in the formation since it made some atrocities during September Campaign. --Molobo 21:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Moje RfA

FYI Alx-pl D 12:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

History of Belarus

Molobo, I see you are trolling again. Don't say that you haven't been warned. --Ghirlandajo 12:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC) Please explain in what way am I trolling ? I simply tonned down your edits from more neutral ones instead of presenting the Great Russian point of view-for example that partitons of Poland were "reunification" with Russia for the population. --Molobo 12:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I re-read the current version of the article, added the dispute tag and listed all problems I noticed at the talk page. Thanks for not getting carried away over this, perhaps Ghirlandajo et.al. would be equally willing to prepare a balanced article at the talk page through discussion and not revert wars. Feel free to add your 2 cents there. Halibutt 20:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice work, Halibutt. Revert warring together with Molobo is much more fun. --Ghirlandajo 16:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you please provide links? Halibutt 15:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Still can't see it. Could you please provide exact diff? That would really help. Halibutt 15:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm currently revising the Belarussian history's history for other signs of disputed behaviour so diffs are appreciated (especially from other articles I might be unaware of). Halibutt 16:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed that you recently reverted the article, together with some of my edits which I believe were quite good. At the same time the edit in question was a clarification on (legitimate, BTW) request by Ghirlandajo and I believe such clarification was needed.

Anyway, please, don't start the revert war once again. If Ghirlandajo wants to force his POV there - fine, add the dispute tag and try the talk page. If he will not use it it would be his problem, not yours. And if he indeed will use it and cooperate on creating a better article - all would win. Does it seem fair? Halibutt 20:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

GooglePrint

You can include links to book pages viewed with Google Print just like you would with any other webpage. Quite simply, when you are looking directly at the relevant page, take the url (http://... etc), copy it, and paste it into the Misplaced Pages edit window. It will be very long, but it will work. Here is an example of how I do it (link) Balcer 16:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:Categories

Yes, see Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion. Anything that has been created can be deleted.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Georg Forster: edit summary

When you do an edit like this, please try to give it an edit summary like "reverted some sections to my last version" instead of "restructered information so that it isn't repeated" (your edit in fact repeated some info), and please don't mark edits like this as minor. I have reverted your edits because I believe Bismarck and Hitler have no place in an article about Georg Forster. I would not mind seeing a detailed discussion of Forster's terminology on anti-Polonic propaganda of the 19th and 20th centuries, but just stating that Forster, Bismarck, and Hitler all used animal slurs and stereotyping against Poles doesn't work (and that discussion should probably be at History of Anti-Polonism, not here). Happy editing, Kusma (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The information about "comparing nations to animals" is stated in detail below, in the section that has all the references. Actually I'm wondering whether that "Forster and nations" section shouldn't be cut entirely anyway, and replaced by the sentence from the Polish wikipedia that Alx-pl translated for me (on my talkpage). I was actually more annoyed by your edit summary than by your edit in itself. I hope you didn't see my edit summary as a personal attack. Kusma (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we should discuss the Hitler-Bismarck issue on the Talk:Georg Forster page, where other editors will be able to benefit from our discussions. I will copy your last remark on my talk page to there and answer on the article talk page. Kusma (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and it wasn't me (at least I don't remember it) who added the information about East Germany's propagandistic use of Forster to the article. Anyhow, it is quite interesting how different people used his memory (very selectively) for the gain of their own cause. Kusma (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Belarus symbols

My friend, I know all about this better than you. I myself added the section about old symbolics, because there was no better place. Now they are discussed everywhere where they are relevant. In this article they simply stick out of all logic of presentation in many respects. mikka (t) 16:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Puerility

Molobo, if you continue to shit in the articles on most innocent Russian personalities, I will take the article on Mickiewicz and write "he hated all the Russians and called them names" in the lead. Or about Kosciuscko: "he loved to insult Russians and wanted to kill or rape all of them". This is the only language and level of expertise you seem to understand. Please grow up and then return to editing. --Ghirlandajo 18:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, please conduct the article related discussions at the article's rather than the editor's talk pages. It would help to make the arguments more visible and show the future editors how the article reached the present stage. --Irpen 02:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Napewno nie!

Ale poczekam aż się zmęczy.--SylwiaS 20:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Właściwie, to chyba się przerzucił na komentowanie tego artykułu od Ciebie. Pewnie siedzi teraz gdzieś w Stanach i klnie pod nosem, że Polacy sprzedali duszę diabłu, kiedy oni tam na obczyźnie... itp.--SylwiaS 22:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Babel

Could you consider adding this template to your userpage? It is very helpful in case translators are needed and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Use of Polish on EN.Misplaced Pages

Hi. Could you please reconsider your frequent usage of Polish texts on talk pages other than user pages? It only serves to provide ammunition to some of the more frequent Misplaced Pages crusaders that believe that all Polish editors somehow push a nationalist agenda. Chelman 13:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Datner..?

Have you read the book? Any chance for a scan, perhaps? Or some more info on the topic? Halibutt 23:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Polonism

Hi, thank you for your message. I've been on vacation for a couple of weeks, so I have not been able to contact you before. Regarding the contents of Anti-Polonism, I believe that the solution you propose are difficult for some reasons. I am intimately familiar with the subject as I have researched it for University, and right now there is majoritary consensus that no such thing as Anti-Polonism in the sense given by the article exist outside the ideology of nationalist and/or right wing Polish parties. In its current form, the article would be approved by Adam Gmurczyk. I am also curious to know why you have reverted facts that I have properly sourced with embeded links and explained at the Talk Page. Several undisputed facts like the term is not included at Słownik Języka Polskiego PWN have been removed by you with no explanation. As I had put it, the first part of the article focused on Modern Anti-Polonism, which is an ideological fabrication entirely, while the second one did on Historical Anti-Polonism, which was also a reality but no longer exists. I'll wait for your explanation before re adding the information that you questionably removed. Alexbulg 13:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

So basically you're telling me I'm right :-) Also, two sources of arguable reliability doesn't create a solid ground for the position of the article. This gets the more evident when we speak fo two Polish sources; not that Polish sources are not reliable, don't think I believe so, but that it is harder for Poles outside of intellectual circles (ie. journalism) to be objective on this matter. You have not explained the removal of many other points I had added and yet you have not sourced many other claims, like "During World War II when almost all of Polish society was the object of German genocidal policies, mass campaign of extermination was an integral part of the anti-Polonist agenda", and you're not talking about Nazi agenda, but a global Anti Polonist agenda, in accordance to the ideas of right wingers. No source to "It has, however, been studied in scholarly works by Polish, German, Russian and English researchers" which researchers? books? papers? politic sciences magazines? This looks like a void claim as long as no references are given. Why removing the mentions I made to the term being used as rebuttal of valid historical criticism of Polish antisemitism like the massacre in Jedwabne? Why did you remove the links to many scholar sources to studies on right wing Polish parties and and of the nationalistic defense made by said groups on assetyions of Ant-Semitism? It looks pretty much like you were trying to white-wash everything that could be perceived as criticism towards Poland. Unfortunatley, the image of yourself you're presenting is that you're a supporter of NOP of other alike party. I hope I'm wrong. Alexbulg 13:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It is you who are wrong. Saying that a source "may" have bias due to its nation is not Anti-Polonism, and it shows your own nationalism, as I was talking in general to any nation. I also specifically said that Polish sources are reliable, but I wouldn't quote non scholar sources liek you do, since scholar sources are the best guarantee of neutrality. You are questioning the hostility of Nazi Germany towards Poles ? I am sorry but this is absurd. No, I clarly said that "not about Nazi agenda bu a global Ant-Polonist agenda", as you support. I understand that, as a militant of NOP, you may think that such thing exists, but despite what they've told you at your party mitins, that is not true. "Even in this vandalised version you will find link to scholary work on polonophobia in Russian Empire." This is absurd. In Russian Empire? Nearly 100 years ago? And Ahat About the German and English scholar works? Since you don't quote them despite having being asked many times, I assume you can't prove it. Your claims however that Poles think differently just because of their ethnic background don't support your neutrality on the issue of antipolonism I have never said such a thing - only that certain Poles like you, as a militant of NOP, don't have a neutral stance, other neutral Poles present at Misplaced Pages are very neutral (like some who have posted at the Talk Page like Alx-pl). And again you fail to explain why you removed many links to scholar works, not only on Polish Anti-Semitism but works which prove how closely related the term is with right wing and how they use it as defense against Anti-Semitism. Alexbulg 14:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)