Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:59, 18 August 2006

Welcome!

Hello Jadger, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  FCYTravis 01:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you the anonymous user to leave comments at my talk page some time ago? I did not ignore your comments, I simply lost my computer for almost two months, and lately I didn't have time to correct the maps. They are on my to-do list, but I don't have the time to do it now. Halibutt 08:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Cite sources

Please cite your sources instead of starting revert wars. A referenced edit is much less likely to be deleted. At the same time, please don't delete sourced information unless you have sources proving they are false.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, before you remove a large chunk of the text, like you did at German 4th Panzer Division recently, be sure to take a look at its talk page. At times it helps to avoid disputes.. Halibutt 23:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to helpfully point out that information on answers.com is simply one of the mirrors, or copies, of Misplaced Pages content. Warsaw Uprising is the original, up to date Misplaced Pages article. Balcer 02:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I am a latecomer to this controversy, so I don't know exactly what you mean by information so different. Still, as Misplaced Pages is created by many individual editors, it is quite often not consistent with itself, and one article may contradict information in another. This is why I have quoted a reputable book written by an eminent historian, to provide a more reliable source. Balcer 03:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I put some effort in typing in the reference, so please do not remove it. Martin Gilbert is a highly respected historian, and I would tend to trust him more than any Misplaced Pages article. Balcer 03:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the worst atrocities were not perpetrated by normal German formations but by "special" units, most importantly the Dirlewanger and Kaminsky brigades. Still, the German commanders knew very well what these brigades were likely to do and still sent them to quell the Uprising, so they share some responsibility.

As for using strong words, some historical events do require strong words. See for example the Oradour-sur-Glane article which describes a similar incident in France. Balcer 03:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the worst atrocities were not perpetrated by normal German formations http://www.warsawuprising.com/doc/atrocities.pdf The crimes committed by the Germans at the time of the Warsaw rising in August and September, 1944, occupy a special place among those committed by the in Poland during the recent war.These crimes, the victims of which' were thousands of unarmed citizens, men, women and children, were committed by army troops in fulfilment of explicit orders given by the highest German army authorities; they were carried out by the germane Army and the German General Staff, institutions independent of the Gestapo. The whole question is not essentially changed by the fact that the majority of these troops consisted of a police brigade in which criminals and Volksdeutsche served and of the Vlassov army composed of Soviet prisoner-of-war (Warsaw population usually called them Ukrainians) for these were parts of the German army, under German Command. They were thrown into action and committed common crimes by order of the German High Command. German soldiers and members of the Vlassov army in German unfirom together committed atrocities on an unarmed civilianh poplation. It is not material that certain of their criminal deeds, such, as the violation of women, were done principally by Vlassov’s men; these facts were known to the German officers who allowed them to happen. Vlassov’s troops were merely carrying out the crimes; they were pawns in a general criminal scheme. Everything that happened in the tragic days of the Warsaw Rising was know to and approved by the German Command.''''

• http://www.warsawuprising.com/witness/atrocities4.htm

I was in the last group of four. I begged the Vlassov's men around me to save me and the children, and they asked if I had anything with which to buy my life. I had a large amount of gold with me and gave it them. They took it all and wanted to lead me away, but the German supervising the execution would not allow them to do so, and when I begged him to let me go he pushed me off, shouting "Quicker!" I fell when he pushed me. He also hit and pushed my elder boy, shouting "hurry up, you Polish bandit". --Molobo 11:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

and so? these lies are supposed to make me feel that you have a right to distort history, because you feel that Poland is the only nation to have ever suffered? you need CREDIBLE sources for anything you put on hereJadger 05:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

What reason do you have to call those sources lies? You should cite your sources in article, not in edit summaries. Answers.com is an outdated mirror of Wiki, and as Balcer pointed out, it is thus much less valuable as a reference then books or non-wiki external links.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Just because something has been published in a book doesn't make it true, or else Mein Kampf would be true, its probably just as true as your sources, that is to say 0% true. If it were an outdated mirror of the wiki then why dont u go there and edit all there topics to skew history in your favour all over the WWWJadger 23:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Block

I've blocked you for 24 hours for violating the Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule on Wola. Please discuss disputed changes rather than engaging in edit wars. — Matt Crypto 13:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"The Vanished Kingdom" reviews

1. "This book should never have been published. One thing we do not need is nostalgia for Prussia - a state that was hated, while it existed, by all its neighbours, that expanded by systematic aggression and banditry, and that became joyfully identified with a doctrine of extreme immoralism in politics and military aggression as the basis of international relations. The author feels the need to slander the Poles in order to make us forget not only what Hitler did, but what Prussia had been doing to them since the First Partition; so he represents them as drunks and congenital Jew-baiters (but Poland had the largest Jewish population in Europe - until Germany decided to do something about it). Other reviewers have said what needed to be said about the rotten double standards, the lousy history and map, the racism, the single-minded intention to rewrite history - but I have one more thing to say: find me another country in European history that ever drew, throughout its history, the hatred and contempt that Prussia drew from the age of Frederick the so-called Great to Hitler. If Prussia was so great, why did it manage the unusual feat of (for instance) making Chesterton and Kipling unanimous in their detestation? Is there another nation that has so managed to unify Europe, uninting it three times over - in the Seven Years' War, and in the two World Wars - in war, and uniting it constantly in dislike? And it is always those who knew Prussia and Prussian Germany best, that hated it the most: unlike France in the age of the Sun King and of Napoleon - where people fought French aggression but imitated French art and administration - and unlike the USA today, nobody ever wanted to imitate Prussia once they had seen what it was like. People like F.D.Roosevelt, who spent one year there as a young man, went back home with a rooted dislike to the whole Prussian/German system that was to have long-lasting results. Believe me, Mr.Roy, the biggest favour anyone ever did to Germany was done in 1945 and included the complete territorial destruction of Prussia. As for the Hindenburg family vaults being used as a garbage dump - well, it hardly counts as a change of use, does it?"
2. "Readers interested in the the former East Prussia should make the effort to read The Vanished Kingdom, as it provides a good description of the German elements of the history of this region. The main disappointment with this book is that the author's views on the superiority of German culture over Polish culture are reflected throughout the book, making it a very one-sided account of history. Sometimes it is difficult to even take the author seriously (for example, he writes at one point that a group of drunk Poles in a bar represented the only friendly Poles he had encountered throughout all of his travels through Poland). Essentially, he equates all things German with progress and culture and all things Polish with backwardness and decay. The book unreasonably dismisses Polish historical claims to the region, and at points appears to attempt to portray the Poles as being the most anti-semitic of all Europeans. Although the book excellently describes the German history of this region, it is not the balanced analysis that I had hoped for."
3. "From start to finish the book is a huge disappointment. For a region like Prussia, that was changing it's borders at least twice in a century the author is providing only one map from 1939, and even that is full of mistakes - rivers that don't exist, Kulm in East Prussia instead of in Poland, major cities misnamed. For the very unique and controversial subject of the prussian history the author chose the long discarded even by German historians, 19th century 'Borussian Myth' - drawing a straight line from the Teutonic Knights' rulership, through the Hohenzollern rule to the unification of Germany. All the elements of Polish history of the land are carefully omitted. Author interviews members of German nobility, aristocracy and German historians. When it comes to the Polish side he talks to car dealers, street drunks and other incompetent sources to show polish ignorance and lack of deep insight. Entire two chapters are devoted to an interview with a Jewish concentration camp survivor and an anti-Polish fanatic. This part is completely irrelevant to the subject of the book (Prussia), it just allows to show Poles in the worst possible light and portray them as primitive, blood thirsty, genetically anti-semitic beasts, responsible for entire Jewish holocaust in WW2. 'Germans were killing Jews only when they were ordered to, but Poles killed Jews whenever they had an opportunity, just for plain joy and pleasure, to satisfy their animal instincts' - that's basically the message contained in the book. There is no mention in the book about the 300 year history of Royal Prussia - a Polish province from 1454. The consistently pro-Polish loyalty of the people inhabiting the Prussian Provinces, even through the difficult war times, never appears in the book. The 15, 16 and 17th century symbol of Prussia - the Prussian Liberty and Privileges, provided by the King of Poland, and brutally liquidated during the Partitions of Poland - all of it was not worth discussion in a book supposedly devoted to 'travels through history of Prussia'. This might be a great book for a nostalgic Germans of East Prussian descent, but never to somebody, who would like to learn something about a twisted, complex and controversial history of Prussia. However, the exceptional writing skills and author's ability to capture reader's emotions will make this book very hard to put down."
4. "This book is quite readable and interesting. So what's wrong with it? The author is terribly insulting towards Poles. They are frequently portrayed as drunks and nasty drunks, and he repeatedly makes the mistake of writing what he assumes they are saying to him, although his knowledge of the Polish language seems to be minimal. James Roy's comment about the Polish Home Army acting horribly towards Polish Jews strikes me as a bit one-sided. Perhaps he could have mentioned prominent Polish Jews such as Jacob Berman and Schlomo Morel(a mass murderer and torturer currently hiding out in Israel as a fugitve from Polish justice)who were instrumental in turning post-war Poland into a massive Stalinist concentration camp for Polish Catholics, all the while murdering/ethnically cleansing the former population of Germans. The strong point of this book is its explanation of Prussian history. If you can put up with the frequent put downs of Poles and the barbs thrown at the Germans/Prussians, then it makes for good reading."
5. "This book is a misguided, ahistorical disaster. "The Vanished Kingdom" is nothing more than a convoluted travel diary with no worthwhile insights. It is bigoted, unintelligent, and overflowing with historical inaccuracies.When describing the Franco-Prussian war, Roy writes: "This conflict resulted in the formal creation of the German empire at Versailles Palace on January 18, 1871, its Hall of Mirrors then full of generals in cuirasses and pointed helmets, their swords drawn and yelling Hunnish war cries to the new Emperor William I." Roy is not describing the event; he is describing the famous painting by Anton von Werner, which was obviously a de facto "enhancement" of the coronation by the great nationalist artist. (In reality, the whole thing was a very muted affair.) Similar sloppiness pervades the rest of the text. On page 104, the Great Elector is called "King of Prussia," when he was actually "King in Prussia" - a very slight, but nevertheless important, distinction. Roy also ridiculously asserts that the Hohenzollerns were xenophobic and determined to keep their nation ethnically Prussian. He doesn't mention the 1685 Edict of Potsdam, which extended an open invitation to French Huguenots (of which 20,000 came) or the similarly enormous influx of Salzburgers into East Prussia. As for Roy's travels and "interviews," the only point that is repeatedly made is that Poles are "mean" and "stupid," and Germans "orderly" and "great." Roy even includes pictures of drunken Russians and Poles in this book. (After all, they are the only ones who consume alcohol, right?) In the meantime, Roy's "German friends" - who are all coincidentally rightist reactionaries and angry Wehrmacht veterans - chat poetically about spilling their blood for sacred Prussian soil. This book is a joke. If you are interested in the history of Brandenburg-Prussia, you will find Alexandra Richie's "Faust's Metropolis: A History of Berlin" to be infinitely more rewarding than this overblown, hackneyed harangue."

Space Cadet 19:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Amazon.com. Of course I read it myself! Review # 3 is mine! You really didn't see the anti-Polish bias? Space Cadet 19:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jadger. I am one of those backward Poles full of nationalist bullshit. Add me to your list. Szopen 09:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Silesian Uprisings

So? France wasnt established following ww2 just because it was a new fourth republic- same with Poland. Ksenon 12:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

no, because there were still lands controlled by it, under the Free French Banner, some of its colonies remained french, and also there was also Vichy France, whereas there was no separate Polish state, Poland was run by the Nazis 100% unlike Vichy FranceJadger 01:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to the Polish government in exile article. But I digress. Common nomenclature, and rightly so, states that Poland regained her independence following WWI. And why do you revert my links to the Weimar Republic? It would give a better and tighter understanding of the era. Ksenon 03:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

i reverted the link because by stating "German gov't" rather then simply "Germany" as u did clarifies what others were editing, that is that the polish people were rebelling against freikorps (if u wanted to keep the link under the name "german gov't that'd be fine with me". the polish gov't was in exile for WWII, but was not set-up in Poland following WWII, the Soviets set-up their own gov't after the war, which became what we now recognize as Poland. this is different tehn the French as they still had land that was recognized as French, not German controlled. and besides we are not talking about Poland following WWII, we are talking following WWI, unless u can prove there was a gov't in exile for over 100 years my opinion stands.Jadger 20:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

User page

Would you consider rewording your user page? You are entitled to make criticisms about (what you see as) Polish nationlist bias on Misplaced Pages. However, what is not acceptable is to post such criticisms in the form of personal attacks: specifically, listing other editors that you "hate", and referring to their "utterly stupid" "childish attacks". Moreover, your comments are very close to being anti-Polish slurs: "These are the type of people that allow the Polish stereotypes to continue, by fitting perfectly the stereotype", and quoting Bismarck, apparently with approval given the context, talking about "the destruction of the Poles". This is unacceptable to the community; see policies Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks and Misplaced Pages:User page. — Matt Crypto 12:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have considered it, and will not change it, as the sentence "I hate people that insist on imposing their views on others, especially using Misplaced Pages which gives a false idea of authority on the subject to unwary readers." is not a personal attack unless someone realizes that is the way they act, and if that is how they act they should not be on wikipedia. So before I change that, u would need to ban Halibutt and the other people who keep labeling me as a "Nazi Apologetic" as they are outrightly hating people that subscribe to a different political ideal, even though I am not a Nazi and do not condone its actions.

As my user page states: "The absurd an childish attacks that these people bring against someone who edits their work is utterly stupid, calling everyone "Nazis" and "anti-polish". These are the type of people that allow the Polish stereotypes to continue, by fitting perfectly the stereotype."

That is more of a fact then most things these other users post. look at a list of Molobo's contributions and see how many times he calls someone a Nazi unjustifiably.

As for anti-Polish slurs? where do u get that from? I was referring to how these users' actions casts a bad light on Polish people as a whole, as they act similar to Polish stereotypes. just like a person fits the stereotype for a redneck if he wears a wife-beater, has a mullet, is missing teeth and talks with a southern drawl, and is racist. It is not a personal attack, I was simply stating a fact.

to reiterate, I will not change it, as it is not a personal attack.Jadger 01:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It is, and I've removed it. Please do not reinstate it. — Matt Crypto 07:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please refrain from attacking other editors on your user page (or in fact anywhere on Misplaced Pages). I strongly urge you to rewrite your user page to remove the attacks upon editors Molobo, Space Cadet, Lysy and Halibutt. If you feel that their editing is detrimental to Misplaced Pages, there are appropriate channels for you to make your feelings known. Badmouthing them on your user page is not one of those channels. Regards, Kelly Martin (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Got it? Space Cadet 22:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Space Cadet, apart from the bossiness of this comment of yours here, what is it that makes you disagree with Jadger's user page but not with User:Witkacy/Black Book, on whose request for deletion you, Lysi(Wojsyl) and Molobo voted 'keep' (Halibutt didn't vote at all but posted a link to the black book on his own user page in approval, and deleted it only later when he was approached about it in his RfA)? Sciurinæ 23:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Nightbeast, the criterion is always the same: THE TRUTH, which of course is unknown, but it should be our goal here to at least pursue it by avoiding lies. Space Cadet 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, your goal... Sciurinæ 23:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, no, it is MHO that it should be a collective goal for all of us here. Space Cadet 23:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Folks, this is about Jadger's user page; if you want to dredge up a discussion about other "black books", please do so elsewhere. (I don't think comments like "got it?" really help the situation, either). — Matt Crypto 23:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I honestly believed it would help though. Space Cadet 23:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You got what Matt Crypto said, Space Cadet? (just so it helps you) Sciurinæ 23:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Your historically first Good One. I admit you literally put me on the floor, like three bottles of wódka. Space Cadet 23:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't and am not in the mood of joking. Rather I'm pretty fed up of what I consider double standards, harassment and teasing, the delaying of the sock check on Molobo in favour of commenting on a second black book and last but not least my lack of time. I can understand that Jadger chose to vent the intense annoyance he must have had about the rudeness he faced not least by you, Space Cadet. Sciurinæ 23:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Your second good one! I'm on the floor again. Space Cadet 00:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)P.S. It's "fed up WITH" not "fed up OF". P.S.2. "In the mood FOR" not "in the mood OF". Are you in the right Misplaced Pages?

I took the only offensive part of my userpage off, if u could even call it that (the bismarck quote). the rest is all true, unless u can prove otherwise I am not taking these facts off my userpage. so unless u can prove that Molobo has never called me a "Nazi" or Space Cadet doesnt call me a "chauvanist" or that they do not keep editing my posts, it stays.Jadger 16:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well said and done.--Matthead 01:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

Trouble? http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:German_Wikipedians%27_notice_board Ksenon 00:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I kindly ask you to remove your personal attacks on me from your user page. WP:NPA is pretty clear and I'd appreciate it if you abide by that rule. Halibutt 12:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

and which personal attack is that? the one were I state u are seemingly intelligent but at the same time hold a fiercely nationalistic perspective? that is not a personal attack, if one calls Hitler an anti-semite, that is a personal attack, and so requires deletion by your criteria, so lets go edit teh Hitler article and remove every occurence of "anti-semite" in that article. --Jadger 17:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

By listing me on your attack page you suggest I insist that every German during WWII committed an atrocity against me, which is a blatant lie

You suggest that I plaster Misplaced Pages with non-sensical (most oftenly Polish) nationalist bullshit, which is also a lie.

You claim that I insist on imposing my views on others, (...) which gives a false impression of authority on the subject to unwary readers, which is also a lie

You state that I believe the myth that Poland has been the victim of history, which is a lie as well

You claim that I consciously try and force this view on others, which is nothing but your sick vision

You also call me stupid, childish and call me some other names I did not deserve.

All in all, I asked you to remove your attack page. You refused. I will ask the admins to either blank your page or resort to some more serious measures since civilised chat does not work with you. Halibutt

Seeing as English is not your first language you obviously do not understand some of the more technical constructs of the language. For instance, a new paragraph denotes a new topic, and I never state your name in the paragraph:

"right now I guess u could say I am in a revert conflict against some Poles who insist that every German during WWII committed an atrocity against them. I am trying to prevent this POV pushing one or two pages at a time."

You yourself have just admitted self-incriminatingly, that you yourself see how people could see you as described in that paragraph. This is inherently a partial admission that you share the detrimental characteristics of this group.

ALSO, read the paragraph again, in it is stated:

"The people I have noticed that most closely fit this description are Molobo, Space Cadet, and Halibutt."

I do not state that you do belong in that group, just that at first glance one could mistake you for a member (if you are not a member of that group). the next sentence in the paragraph you have continued to misunderstand the subject, as the subject is not you, but this supposed group (if indeed it does exist). I will edit taht sentence to make the subject more clear.

As for your not believing the myth that Poland is the victim of history, I never state that you do, not that you can prove to me or anyone else that you do not believe that. The onus is on you to prove that, if you insist on continuing to take my words out of context that is. --Jadger 04:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If one could "mistake" me, then leave it to the person - and do not list me on your user page. Full stop. BTW, apparently native English speakers understood the attack on me on your user page the very same way as I did, so it's not a matter of my English but rather of your behaviour. Halibutt 13:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

CANAPPUS

Hi, how about starting Coalition Against NAtionalistic Pov PUShing one day ? --Lysy 18:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

that'd be a great idea, but I can only see it being protested by Molobo and Halibutt as a front to conspire against them. As well, I can see a problem being in the selection of membership, It could end up like Halibutt's denied RfA maybe. --Jadger 22:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention to reply to your questions as long as you keep your offensive user page. Halibutt

See, you are acting exactly as what you claim you are not. I am willing to put aside our differences in order to further the wiki, you on the other hand are not able to put your personal prejudices off to the side. This is exactly why your RfA was denied. --Jadger 06:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you would be equally willing to cooperate with someone who calls you an idiot, a moron and suggest you're a nationalist, which is a serious offence to me. I seriously doubt it. Also, protesting against childish offensive language and tone has got nothing to do with one's political beliefs. If I were a nationalist I would equally protest against your violation of WP:NPA. Halibutt 13:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please learn to properly edit and put your attacks upon me in the correct category of my talk page. and which native English speakers are these that think my current page revision attacks you? as I have edited it to make all the missed subject sentences easier to read so that you do not mix up my words again.

I would gladly cooperate with someone that calls me an idiot or a moron, because the fact that they need my help shows who the actual idiot/moron is. Why would an intelligent person need the help of an idiot? unless they themselves were unintelligent. As for your not being a nationalist, I dont care if you are not one, but your edits say otherwise, perhaps you should not act like a nationalist if you are not one. --Jadger 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Use {{fact}}

Please use the above tag before removing information. Than, if no refs are provided for several day, you cna remove the info - but give people a chance to provide the refs first.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to POV accusations

None of my article isn't POV, and everything I wrote was written according to wikipedia NPOV policy. I gave you list of literature about Medak Pocket; from Višnja Strešina, Mate Granić, Hrvoje Šarinić, etc... You should read any Croatian book which is talking about Croatian Homeland war, and (as they are qouting government officials, and as there is no new version of actual government, that should be takken as official. Also I noticed that you used pronoun we "as we do not have time here to correct your POV edits here". I did not know that you are a spoksmen of so large group?:) Please try to stick to theme, and not accuse somebody of something when you run out of proofs. --Ceha 18:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

you are correct, none of your article isn't POV, which in case you did not realize it, is a double negative and just another way of saying you are POV pusher.

Again your english is severely lacking, as "we" does not signify a large group, only more then one, which it does as I am not the only one who has tried to stop your POV pushing.

--Jadger 03:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Wow, how clever are you! You speak as king of France, I'm sorry your royal highness, I will call you in majority for now one (this is sarcasam, and proper use of "we" if you did not understand it:). If you have spoken in the name of the grop, then I think it is aproprite that you list those in wich name you have said something. As for POV accusation, you are qouting over and over statments from Canadian soldier (which were accused that they are POV) or sorces that are qouting their statments. Hello? For list of litereture, I gave it few times(not all of it, but parts off), just to qoute myself; "For french peacekeepers I recomend you reading Višnja Starešina books Balkan's Labaratory and Hague's formula. I don't know if you can buy it in Canda" "From Višnja Starešina; Formula Haag, Labaratory Balkan, are the ones I read." see I'm sorry to notice, but now when you've run out of facts you are trying to change the subject. I'm not, nor will ever be spokesment of Croatian goverment, but, unlike you I am in position to read the litterature wich is published in Croatia. Please inform yourself more about Croatian politics and books regarding that subject if you want to start that discoussion. I've given you a lot of literature. Start reading for a change. --Ceha 13:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? I NEVER quoted Canadian soldiers, I quoted the UN article and the DND (department of national defense) page on the PPCLI, never once did I quote a POV person, I have only quoted from knowledgeable and credible groups that are respected the world over.

Now that I have run out of facts? I still have many more left, and atleast I started with facts and concrete proof, you on the other hand have only spouted hateful gibberish the whole time.

and yet again you do not properly cite a "source" so I cannot look it up properly. learn how to cite something instead of just spouting of random words pretending they are titles, or else someone can say that The Grimm fairy tale books contain proof that pigs can fly.

--Jadger 07:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You qouted statmens from sources that are based only on experience of Canadian soldiers (UN report is an exception).

I'd like to hear that facts of yours. I'd also like you to answer to my questions, which were given to you.

As for the sources, I've told you I'm going to look for them up. I have to go to library, and check it out. It would be stupid to give you some frase from my memory... And you asked me to prove that the story on Croatian version is official opinion of Croatian goverment. If you want to se if that story is true or not try reading Međimurec article. I've told you only I'll give you qoutations from goverment officials (or persons which were goverment officials) that that story is true. --Ceha 14:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Jadger, a template on your user page is a "double negative" too: "This pilot doesn't need no stinkin' engine, thank you very much!" Aranherunar 12:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanking on German 17th Infantry Division page

(Blanking warning removed) Antonrojo 03:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I did so, you might want to look at the talk page for once.

--Jadger 18:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Jadger, after looking at it in more detail it does look like this issue would have been better settled by the people who know the issues in detail. The particular reasons I interpreted this as vandalism were: 1) there was an active debate around the issue on the discussion page and at the same time (which on a second reading I recognize is more of a consensus toward removing the quote) 2) the deletion of what seemed to be valid and relevant content still under discussion without a 'see talk' notice in the summary 3) a warning on your talk page for deleting comments from the same page which made it sound like a revert war and 4) I've seen a rash of POV deletions that minimize or ignore killings of ethnic minorities. Antonrojo 03:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Evolution

So you doubt the teory of evolution? Hm, that would explain why you are always stuck in the same place:) WASP creacionist which hates Seinfield? Ceha 03:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC) This was a joke, not an insault. Theory of evolution does not have nothing with religion (or a least it should not have). It is just a well argumented theory of devolopment of life on Earth. It does not speaks about god, creation, etc but it is just trying to explain how many things came to be. You are right that it has some gaps (for example primamry creation of life, early chemical processes which led to it), but as a theory it does not denies existance of God. Why would almity being needed to create a miracle, when it can just pair few mothers and fathers create a mutation which helps that specices to better adapt to its enviroment? Ceha 10:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No revert wars

Please do not change the Expulsion article until someone else joins the discussion. I acknowledge the fact that you are for sure some kind of pro-german or german nationalist, do respect the Misplaced Pages rules anyway. ackoz 22:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Concentration camps

From Concentration camps:Talk

Soviet Camps

why is it that Soviet camps are described in the first line of the article, but nothing else is stated after that? I have been trying to find out information on German WWII POWS and can find absolutely none on wikipedia. I know there is loads of information on the topic out there, but it is nowhere on wikipedia. I give one big WTF to wikipedia, so much for it being a source of knowledge. I dont know how such a huge website with information about everything on non-importance can miss such a huge section.

--Jadger 04:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

At the time you posted your comment, the article had been vandalised and the section on "Russia and the Soviet Union" deleted. It was reinstated shortly afterwards. Pol098 13:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

English knowledge

If I said that I speak at near-native level, that doesn't have to mean that I'm excellent with expressions that belong to certain profession. Neither all native English speakers are excellent with knowledge of these expressions. Kubura 14:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Grammar and spelling? Strange, you're the first person who told me that. Can you tell me which lines brought you to such conclusions?Kubura 21:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

why do you remove pertinent information?

Because It is unrelated to the topic of Germanisation. --Molobo 16:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Teutonic order charge.jpg

Since you like this image, please note it is considered for deletion.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  14:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jogaila

Hi there. Despite a whopping victory for the name Jogaila on the previous vote, the Polish users have got upset and called yet another vote. They want to get it moved back to the old unpopular name Władysław II Jagiełło. If you are interested in stopping this, you'll need to cast your vote again. Sorry for all this tediousness. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Polish war

Hi there. I took the liberty to remove this part of your comment from the list. The discussion section is below, no need to start a discussion in every section. Feel free to revert me, though I believe a better option would be to stick to arguments, not to dispute them everywhere. What do you say? //Halibutt 15:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I already wrote that I prefer the current version to avoid redirects or piping, but I consider this a minor issue and I don't intend to change any names I see in the text either way. It's just as trying to argue that we should eliminate all WWII redirects and replace them with Second World War.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Extermination through labour

I kindly ask you to remove the slanderous remark from Talk:Extermination through labour. It's neither fair nor true, as I'm acting in line with WP:VERIFY. If you think otherwise please provide some diffs pointing to such behaviour you accuse me of, but I believe removal of the said remark would be a much better option. Thanks in advance. //Halibutt 06:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You stated that I have been in the mood lately that he thinks he can state anything he likes and everyone else must provide references to remove it, which is a shameless lie. I never said anything like it nor did I even suggest anything like it. On one occasion I simply pointed to the fact that published sources are more valuable than your own beliefs, but that is a different thing as it's perfectly in line with WP:VERIFY. So, in other words, you accused me of things I neither did nor said, and the only reason for that I could think of is slander. So please be so kind as to reword that statement so that it did not tarnish my good name. Thank you. //Halibutt 12:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You want link? Here you go. There's not even a slightest mention of your fantasies there. However, given your stance so far I will remove the remark myself as per the WP:NPA. //Halibutt 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, call me names... I made no statements similar to the ones you accuse me of anywhere in Misplaced Pages. You must know it yourself since it's you to invent them. However, since you asked me for a link to the place where I did not say the things you accuse me of, then here you go. You want another link? Why not, here it is - I did not said the things you accuse me of here either. Nor here, here and here. Nowhere means in no place in particular.

You claim that I have been in certain mood. It's great you know better how I feel, but I'd appreciate it if you focused on your own problems. //Halibutt 01:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my English is getting worse. What does my problem is your POV pushing mean? Does it mean that you have a problem with statements you invent and then put into my mouth? //Halibutt 06:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps you could tell me why do you believe black people should be exterminated? //Halibutt 12:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The above is a rather childish insult on behalf of Halibutt, not to mention a logical fallacy called "begging the question"

--Jadger 21:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

But that's the very same tactics you use... And it's childish when others use it, but mature when used by Jadger, right? //Halibutt 21:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I did point out your "errors" above and kindly asked you to correct them. I also provided a link, but here you go again. However, you declined and repeatedly insisted on keeping the personal attack visible to others. In that light your remark at my talk page is a tad two-faced, don't you think? Anyway, if it really is a tit-for-tat, then should I consider myself excused if I slander you the way you do? Or perhaps you're the only person in the entire wiki who should be able to do that? //Halibutt 21:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree that it reflects badly upon me when I sink to your level. However, I have to defend my good name, you're apparently trying to slander/libel/whatever. I don't know what is the reason for that, perhaps some personal animosity or anything. I don't know and I don't care. I asked you to stay civil and remove the lies you spread. To no avail.

You pointed to a citation in which I paraphrased the WP:VERIFY. However, you failed to provide citations for your accusation that I've been in the mood (lie), that I think I can state anything I like (lie), that everyone else must provide references to remove it (shameless lie). Nor did you provide any proof that if you don't cite anything that says that it didn't happen, well he reverts you. It's a pack of lies, nothing more. Or perhaps you can find citations for that, just like you're finding a wiki rule prohibiting us from using various named for the same phenomenon?

On a personal note, I wonder whether you've ever written any wikipedia article. From your list of contributions it seems that all you do is either spread German WWII views, nitpick or change single words to a large number of articles. Or perhaps you did under your previous name? Interestingly, your very first edit in wikipedia seems informative as well. //Halibutt 22:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, Jadger. You look strikingly like Frederick the Great! Sca 22:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

NPA

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. Aranherunar 12:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)