Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:52, 30 April 2013

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!!!

Hello Kaiser von Europa! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Getting Started Misplaced Pages Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Misplaced Pages Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Misplaced Pages rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Reply to Welcome

Hello, thanks for the kind message. I shall study this in detail in the near future. Regards, - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Explanations to the graphical representation of the Curzon Line

They aren't any "explanations" but mostly OR or POV.Xx236 (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this is by no means POV! I solely commented the meaning of the coloured areas and lines of the graph. Regards,- - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Lviv

Hi

I noticed your edits and wondered if you could answer my questions on the talk page please Talk:Lviv.

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The material which you added, being discussed here, was hidden (and thus challenged) by me until discussions had taken place. Please note this section and indeed the following ones.

The idea is that we gain consensus on the matter before the correct NPOV text was to be included. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I had not seen that the text was hidden on the edit page. I thought it had been wiped out altogether. I have now added all information I found here. - - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Please join discussion here.

]

Bydgoszcz

Hi! Thanks for expanding the article about Bydgoszcz. I have noticed that your information covers only 18 years out of seven centuries of the town's history. Can you please add few more sentences about the city's ethnic diversity in the ages prior to the twentieth century? Thanks in advance Bosyantek (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I will have a look at this in the near future.-- Kaiser von Europa (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

POV phrasing

Ok, putting aside the fact that you're putting in info based on very old and possibly biased 19th century sources into these articles, can you at least avoid using highly POV language in your edits? Specifically, the phrasing "the Polish Corridor was arranged on German territory" is highly POV. Obviously the Polish Corridor was Polish territory. The phrasing "X was placed under the administration of Poland" is also highly POV as it is that ol' German-ultranationalist canard that supposedly the territories Germany lost to Poland after WWII did not legally become part of Poland (they did) but only were "temporarily administered" by Poland. Thanks. Volunteer Marek 17:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This and this you? Volunteer Marek 07:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Concerning your comments, the impression that the first sentence in question could eventually be interpreted as "highly POV", as you put it, can obviously be avoided easily by inserting the word "former" into it. So, why did you not simply do it? As regards your complaint on the phrasing "X was placed under the administration of Poland" (after World War II), which is many times used in articles of this kind and which is historically completely correct, this phrase in my opinion is merely used in order to circumnavigate lengthy and complicated explanations concerning the post-war period in central Europe. Your viewpoint according to which the German territories became "legally ... part of Poland" immediately after the end of WWII is obviously not compatible with the Atlantic Charter, which exlcudes such national or imperialistic territorial claims.

As regards your question of 22 April 2013, I recommend you better resort to Misplaced Pages's history of the articles concerned if you would like to find out who contributed to them. Regards, --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the question. It actually is Misplaced Pages's history of the articles concerned which suggests very strongly that you are the same as the User:Ziegenspeck account (same 18th century source added, same nature of edits) and are associated with the anon IP as well. Which does bring up the question of why you are editing with several accounts simultaneously.

which exlcudes such national or imperialistic territorial claims. - you do realize that the name of your account (this one) is "Kaiser von Europa", right? And that your bringing up of the Atlantic Charter in this context amounts to arguing that these locations somehow aren't legally part of Poland (i.e. you're the one making "imperialistic territorial claims")?.Volunteer Marek 18:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Instead of proceeding with guessing you should perhaps have a look at the two user pages involved, where you can find a clear answer to your first question. I decided to do this because I tend to contribute edits to entirely different fields of work, history and physics.

Referring to your second question, I personally am deeply convinced that applying the principles of the Atlantic Charter would mantain peace in Europe in the future and that anything else in the long run, I fear, will not. --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah ok, I missed that. Are you associated with the other account(s)?

Also, I don't know if you realize but Erich Weise was a Nazi historian and as such cannot be used (not a reliable source). Atlantic Charter and peace among nations and all that. Please stop adding him into Polish articles all over the place and find a reliable/non-Nazi associated source instead.Volunteer Marek 19:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and if you do put in sources by Erich Weise then please put his name in there, rather than strangely omitting it, for some reason, like you did here and many other places. That way it's easier to find, identify and remove as appropriate.Volunteer Marek 19:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I have never omitted the name of Erich Weise from reasons you suggest, and I also cannot see any reason for doing so. The reason why I omitted his name is simply that I was unsure about the level of his contribution, since after all he is only the editor - what you apperently overlooked. The book of 1981 is an unaltered reprint of the first edition of 1966, and I was not sure whether Weise had been the editor already of the first edition. The book the content of which has been compiled by 16 historians is recognized in Germany as scientically correct and reliable. Contrary to your suggestion, the content of the book has absolutely nothing to do with the political past of its editor. --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Request

I have noticed that you use a source by notorious Nazi Erich Weise in a lot of articles. Additionally I noticed you have used a source from 1934 Nazi Germany. Please don't as Nazis are not a reliable source of knowledge and several modern sources confirm his views as outdated and natonalistic. Also you use a lot of very old German sources(XVII and XIX century) to claim German majority, I am sure there are modern reliable sources that can be used instead. The sources used by you are too outdated and likely unreliable and biased. I am fine with modern sources by reliable historians. Please reconsider using Nazi and XIX century sources. Thank you and have a good day. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to the impression you apparently have, I do by no means use "Nazi sources". The book "Ost- und Westpreußen", first published in 1966 as one volume of the scientific book series "Handbuch der historischen Stätten", has been compiled by 16 authors, and Erich Weise has been the editor. The book is recognized by German and international universities as correct and reliable. It would have vanished from book shelfs already a long time ago, if this would be not the case. You can find the book in any greater public library in Germany. You are also wrong with your suggestion, that the volume from 1934 of the encyclopedia "Der Große Brockhaus" is a "Nazi source". The Brockhaus is a very big encyclopedia, and it takes many years to compile the content of one single volume. Apart from this, the Brockhaus is a politically neutral encyclopedia which had nothing to do with the Nazi ideology. So, please do not remove theses sources from articles. Please stop also to remove other sourced information from the articles. A nice day to you too, --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That a book by dedicated Nazi war criminal is in a library is hardly an argument that it is reliable. Many books by Nazis and nationalists can be found in libraries. Also I am sure you can find modern sources without using books published under Nazi Germany which as totalitarian regime bent on exterminating Poles, Jews, Roma dictated every aspect of life to the idea of German supremacy-as such publications from Nazi Germany can't be seen as reliable, especially regarding population statistics. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The book, which was first published in 1966 and which was re-published in unaltered form in 1981, had been compiled by 16 historians, and Weise was only its editor. The book is recognized by German and international universities and other scientific institutions as being very reliable indeed. I also do not "claim German majority", but I rather simply transfer data from reliable sources, no matter who was in possession of the majority. At other occasions I have explicitely stressed that there had existed a Polish majority, when this was the truth. --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heinrich Gottfried Philipp Gengler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)