| Revision as of 17:08, 13 December 2005 view sourceMolobo (talk | contribs)13,968 edits Removed personal attacks← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:57, 15 September 2021 view source MalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)Tag: AWB | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ---- | |||
| Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. | |||
| '''BLOCKED''' - this account has been blocked indefinitely for on account of it possibly being compromised. The account will remain blocked until the matter has been resolved. This block is administrative and is not related to any user conduct issue. ] (]) 02:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| If further archiving is needed, see ]. | |||
| <small> When removing this block notice, please also restore of the user talk page. ] (]) 02:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| '''Previous discussions:''' | |||
| *]: | |||
| *] | |||
| == ]? == | |||
| Hello Molobo, on your front page you announce the creation of something you call ]. No such word exists in German. Visit ] 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. | |||
| --] 21:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Moje RfA == | |||
| <div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: solid 1px #9966CC; background-color: AliceBlue;"> | |||
| ] | |||
| I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) ]. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works. <br>As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! ]] 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)</div> | |||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| ] ] 12:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Molobo, I see you are trolling again. Don't say that you haven't been warned. --] 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. | |||
| --] 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. ]] 20:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Nice work, Halibutt. Revert warring together with Molobo is much more fun. --] 16:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Could you please provide links? ]] 15:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Still can't see it. Could you please provide exact diff? That would really help. ]] 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). ]] 16:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I don't know if you noticed that you recently 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? ]] 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 () ] 16:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Re:Categories== | |||
| Yes, see ]. Anything that has been created can be deleted.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 23:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Georg Forster: edit summary == | |||
| When you do an edit like , 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 ], not here). Happy editing, ] ] 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. ] ] 00:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think we should discuss the Hitler-Bismarck issue on the ] 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. ] ] 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. ] ] 00:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Belarus symbols == | |||
| My friend, I know all about this better than you. I myself added the section , 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. ] ] 16:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Puerility== | |||
| == Re : ] == | |||
| 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. --] 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. --] 02:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above. | |||
| == Napewno nie! == | |||
| *''']''' resigned the administrator tools during the case proceedings and may only seek to regain adminship by a new request for adminship or by request to the Arbitration Committee. | |||
| Ale poczekam aż się zmęczy.--] 20:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *''']''' is banned for '''three months'''. At the conclusion of his ban, a '''one year''' topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed, shall take effect. | |||
| *''']''' is banned for '''one year'''. He is directed to edit Misplaced Pages from only a single user account, and advise the Arbitration Committee of the name of the account that he will use. Should he not advise the committee by the end of the one year ban, he will remain indefinitely banned until a single account is chosen. | |||
| *''']''' is placed on a '''one year''' topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed. This shall take effect following the expiration of both above mentioned bans. | |||
| *The following users are topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for '''one year''': | |||
| :*''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ''']''' | |||
| *''']''' is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for '''six months'''. | |||
| *''']''' is strongly admonished for having shared his account password. He is directed to keep his account for his own exclusive use, and not to allow any other person to use it under any circumstance. | |||
| *The editors sanctioned above (], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]) are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with ] on any page of Misplaced Pages, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution. | |||
| *All the participants to the mailing list are strongly admonished against coordinating on-wiki behavior off-wiki and directed to keep discussion of editing and dispute resolution strictly on wiki and in public. All editors are reminded that the editorial process and dispute resolution must take place on Misplaced Pages itself, using the article talk pages and project space for this purpose. No discussion held off-wiki can lead to a valid consensus, the basis of our editorial process. Off-wiki coordination is likely to lead to echo chambers where there is a false appearance of neutrality and consensus. | |||
| ''For the Arbitration Committee'', | |||
| :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.--] 22:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ] 17:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC) - | |||
| ] | |||
| ==Jan Dzierzon== | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Could you consider adding this template to your userpage? It is very helpful in case translators are needed and such.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 15:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Imie i nazwisko Dzierzona zostalo zmieniona na Johann Dzierzon, to jest pisownia niemiecka. Britanica podaje Jan Dzierżoń (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/175400/Jan-Dzierzon) i tak powinno byc. Rowniez tu (http://bees.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=bees;idno=5017629) angielskie tlumaczenie pracy Dzierzona podaje Dzierżon, Jan. Czy skontaktowales sie z museum w Kluczborku, albo przeczytales dowody i fotokopie w podanych pracach Brozka, Gladysza i ks. Mazaka? Pomijanie zrodel polskich jest niedopuszczalne. Ci ktorzy chca zmieniac artykul powinni uznac wage zrodel polskich wage a nie lawirowac na drugorzednych przekladach i niepelnych zrodlach. Podane tez sa wspolczesne artykuly w prasie polskiej i napisane przez Polakow. Trzeba je wniesc do tekstu. Niech chociaz bedzie widoczne ze spoleczenstwo polskie ma silne zdanie na ten temat. Podaje Ci e-mail jezeli chcesz powaznie pracowac bez udzialu szpiegow: erudra@hotmail.com. --Soujdspo (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2010 (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. ] 13:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| == Datner..? == | |||
| Bierz zawsze pod uwage ze: 1) w okresie Bismarck'a zniemczano imiona celowo 2) Poszukiwania liczbowe zapisu imion na internecie sa falszywka - autorzy wtedy i dzisiaj powtarzaja to co zostalo zniemczone i wprowadzone w pismie, clowo, przez nieuwage lub niewiedze. Jedyna droga czy jego imie powinno byc pisane Jahann czy Jan jest stwierdzenie ze Dzierzon uwazal sie za Polaka i kultywowal polskos, i tak jest zgodnie z dokumentami opisanymi w pracach Brozka, Gladysza i ks. Mazaka etc. --Soujdspo (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Have you read the book? Any chance for a scan, perhaps? Or some more info on the topic? ]] 23:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| --] (]) 02:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration motion regarding ] == | |||
| == Anti-Polonism == | |||
| Following a <span class="plainlinks"></span> at ]: | |||
| 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 ], 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. ] 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 ]? 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. ] 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 like 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 clearly said that "not about Nazi agenda but a global Anti-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 what 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. ] 14:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Remedy 20 of ] ("Miacek topic banned") is lifted. | |||
| '' | |||
| Sying that a source "may" have bias due to its nation is not Anti-Polonism'' | |||
| Its anti-polonism with racist ideology. No nation has thinking arranged by its genes. | |||
| ''Nazi agenda but a global Anti-Polonist agenda", as you support. '' | |||
| What kind of agenda I support ? | |||
| '''The ] conspiracy theory. You have mentioned it as the group often considered responsible for Anti-Polonism, with remarkable Anti-Semitism on your part.''' | |||
| ''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, '' | |||
| Oh I see, you seem to have some paranoia theories about me.Sorry but for your information I belong to no party at all, and voted for Civic Platform.But I see that you came already with heavy bias and som e strange opinions. | |||
| '' 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'' | |||
| Well simply because there is a page for Polish Antisemitism on Wiki. | |||
| --] 14:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ''On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,'' ] ''(])'' 00:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :''']''' | |||
| ==Shamir quote== | |||
| Molobo, please look at the edit history before accusing me of anything. The "denouncing anti-Semitism" language was in there before I made any edits. Please be more careful. --] 16:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:57, 15 September 2021
BLOCKED - this account has been blocked indefinitely for on account of it possibly being compromised. The account will remain blocked until the matter has been resolved. This block is administrative and is not related to any user conduct issue. Manning (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
When removing this block notice, please also restore this version of the user talk page. Manning (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Re : Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.
- User:Piotrus resigned the administrator tools during the case proceedings and may only seek to regain adminship by a new request for adminship or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
- User:Piotrus is banned for three months. At the conclusion of his ban, a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed, shall take effect.
- User:Digwuren is banned for one year. He is directed to edit Misplaced Pages from only a single user account, and advise the Arbitration Committee of the name of the account that he will use. Should he not advise the committee by the end of the one year ban, he will remain indefinitely banned until a single account is chosen.
- User:Digwuren is placed on a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed. This shall take effect following the expiration of both above mentioned bans.
- The following users are topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year:
- User:Jacurek is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for six months.
- User:Tymek is strongly admonished for having shared his account password. He is directed to keep his account for his own exclusive use, and not to allow any other person to use it under any circumstance.
- The editors sanctioned above (Piotrus, Digwuren, Martintg, Tymek, Jacurek, Radeksz, Dc76, Vecrumba, Biruitorul, Miacek) are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia on any page of Misplaced Pages, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.
- All the participants to the mailing list are strongly admonished against coordinating on-wiki behavior off-wiki and directed to keep discussion of editing and dispute resolution strictly on wiki and in public. All editors are reminded that the editorial process and dispute resolution must take place on Misplaced Pages itself, using the article talk pages and project space for this purpose. No discussion held off-wiki can lead to a valid consensus, the basis of our editorial process. Off-wiki coordination is likely to lead to echo chambers where there is a false appearance of neutrality and consensus.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC) - Discuss this
Jan Dzierzon
Imie i nazwisko Dzierzona zostalo zmieniona na Johann Dzierzon, to jest pisownia niemiecka. Britanica podaje Jan Dzierżoń (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/175400/Jan-Dzierzon) i tak powinno byc. Rowniez tu (http://bees.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=bees;idno=5017629) angielskie tlumaczenie pracy Dzierzona podaje Dzierżon, Jan. Czy skontaktowales sie z museum w Kluczborku, albo przeczytales dowody i fotokopie w podanych pracach Brozka, Gladysza i ks. Mazaka? Pomijanie zrodel polskich jest niedopuszczalne. Ci ktorzy chca zmieniac artykul powinni uznac wage zrodel polskich wage a nie lawirowac na drugorzednych przekladach i niepelnych zrodlach. Podane tez sa wspolczesne artykuly w prasie polskiej i napisane przez Polakow. Trzeba je wniesc do tekstu. Niech chociaz bedzie widoczne ze spoleczenstwo polskie ma silne zdanie na ten temat. Podaje Ci e-mail jezeli chcesz powaznie pracowac bez udzialu szpiegow: erudra@hotmail.com. --Soujdspo (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Bierz zawsze pod uwage ze: 1) w okresie Bismarck'a zniemczano imiona celowo 2) Poszukiwania liczbowe zapisu imion na internecie sa falszywka - autorzy wtedy i dzisiaj powtarzaja to co zostalo zniemczone i wprowadzone w pismie, clowo, przez nieuwage lub niewiedze. Jedyna droga czy jego imie powinno byc pisane Jahann czy Jan jest stwierdzenie ze Dzierzon uwazal sie za Polaka i kultywowal polskos, i tak jest zgodnie z dokumentami opisanymi w pracach Brozka, Gladysza i ks. Mazaka etc. --Soujdspo (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC) --Soujdspo (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list
Following a motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:
Remedy 20 of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Miacek topic banned") is lifted.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 00:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)