Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:35, 24 June 2006

DUE TO POLONOPHOBIC ATTACKS THAT ARE COMMOON ON ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA, I MOVED TO POLISH WIKI, SADLY ALL INFORMATION ABOUT GERMAN WAR CRIMES OR PERSECUTION OF POLES IN PRUSSIA IS BEING DELETED.

Nice to meet you

Hi. Nice to meet you. Thanks for your message om my talkpage. I consider it as a kind of support. Hope to cooperate with you in future. Drop me a note if you'll need my help.

BTW, are you sure your talkpage is OK? I'm afraid it somehow migrated to the bottom of your userpage :)). Czesc,AlexPU 10:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Soviet partisans

Hi. I'm engaging in the editing of that article, seeing an intense revert war here. To make my participation in it :((( easier (as well as yours), we should make an agreement on the versions of UA- and PL- related parts of the article that satisfy our vision of neutrality. That's why I suggest you to either copy-paste text from one of the last-week versions to some talkpage and specify the respective date and time of article version. I'll do just the same, so we can discuss to what version we roll-back the RU POV-pushing. Of course I neither promise to follow your version automatically nor demanding the same from you and your friends: we'll discuss. Ukrained 05:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

To Ukrained: Good idea, Bohdane!

To Molobo: Thanks for being there, although you have your own reasons to seek neutrality on that page. And please react on Bohdan idea ASAP: we need to know what to do with Polish sections.AlexPU 19:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Kopernik

--Molobo 00:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Brest Litovsk

--Molobo 11:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

German ideology of Ethnic Cleansing 1920-1945

--Molobo 11:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ludendorff, Wilhelm, plans of ethnic cleansing and annexations towards Poland in WWI

--Molobo 15:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please insert correct images. You are confusing Soviet Union with Russia, the two are different entites. I advise you to be more carefull in creating maps and you will avoid such mistakes. While it is possible that somebody refered to it as Russia, you should not spread this incorrect view by creating incorrect maps. --Molobo 20:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Lublin to become German

--Molobo 00:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Attempts to create the myth of "Good German"

--Molobo 00:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Subhuman Poles

--Molobo 00:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Polish Jews, not Poles. I do hope that was not an intentional misquoting attempting to show the German attitude towards Poles in the worst way possible, but just a misunderstanding. Kusma (討論) 02:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Warning that German towns could become death traps for foreign tourists in "Brown East" of Germany

Uwe-Karsten Heye warns Africans that they could lost their lives if they visit certain places in Germany. --Molobo 12:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"There are small and mid-sized towns in Brandenburg and elsewhere where I would advise anyone with a different skin colour not to go," said Heye, who now runs an anti-racist action group called Gesicht zeigen (Show Your Face). --Molobo 12:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Es gibt kleine und mittlere Städte in Brandenburg und anderswo, wo ich keinem, der eine andere Hautfarbe hat, raten würde hinzugehen. Er würde sie möglicherweise lebend nicht mehr verlassen." Später relativierte Heye seine Äußerungen. DW --Molobo 12:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I did just what you asked for and restored the original

The thing about "Silesia" was my edit summary, not what I wrote into the article. What I did was just what you asked me to do: quote more accurately. The website linked says "according to some authorities his father was a Germanized Slav". I just removed the misquote that made that "Polish". By the way "Slav" is used as ethnicity here, not as nationality. Kusma (討論) 16:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Which group of Slavs was he ? Perhaps we should go even further and change it to Indo-European. This latest attempt to avoid mentioning that Kopernik was a Pole is simply absurd. --Molobo 16:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Neonazism in Germany on the rise

--Molobo 10:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Discrimination of Poles in Prussia

--Molobo 18:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Only 29 %

Russians agree with the current borders of Russia --Molobo 00:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to your userpage.

Just letting you know that your userpage was vandalized earlier by 205.188.116.202 and reverted to your previous version (revision 54427420). Thank you. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Youre on the black list

Ghirla, Irpen, you, Deng.. these slavs/slavophiles are ruining Misplaced Pages, just like they ruin their own countries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.5.218.99 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Molobo hardly shares the views and goals of Irpen, Ghirla &Co. You're unjust about that. Then, ethnic profiling is what also ruins the Misplaced Pages and undiscriminately insults editors. There are some reasonable editors even among Russians. I'm afraid it's more complicated than you think.

Talking of blacklists... Molobo, if this editors starts bothering you (or, what is important, articles) enough, file an RfC, Vandalism in progress etc., and you can count on my participation there. Slavic, Ukrained 08:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing is bad for Misplaced Pages. This has nothing to do with Slavs etc. Kusma (討論) 15:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your question on my talk page

This is a little bit like the pot calling the kettle black, especially the thing about the edit summaries. You have accused Scinurae of nationalism in edit summaries and accused others of POV pushing many times before. I can also understand if people don't take the time to talk to you anymore since, talking to you and discussing a point with you is rather stressful and tiring. You should perhaps try to suggest compromises instead of simply demanding that certain information is included in cases where the relevance of that information is not clear. Kusma (討論) 15:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your apparent inability to compromise and your assumption of nationalism on the side of editors who disagree with you are stressful. The way you always try to make discussions go offtopic is also exteremely aggravating (on my talk page, you started talking about Prussia). Please also learn how to indent properly. Kusma (討論) 15:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

About indenting: See indentation for what "indent" means. On Misplaced Pages, it is done with the colon (:) sign.

About your accusations claiming I am not interested in neutrality: I think persecution of other nationalities is an important topic, but like every other topic, it does not have to be repeated in detail in every article that it is somewhat relevant to. That is what we have wikilinks for, and See Also sections, and categories etc. In the interest of neutrality, it is often better to move details to other subarticles. Kusma (討論) 16:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Putin returns to traditions of Imperial Russia

--Molobo 11:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ekhem

How can a photo be incredible? If you suggest that it's a forgery (that it is in fact a painting or someone's photoshop work), then please be so kind as to provide some rationale other than one of the guys to use it in his book has written an article for some non-notable monthly. //Halibutt 16:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, but these were not the sources of the picture. The primary source of the picture is an unknown foto amateur who made it some time in late 1943 and then passed it on to his successors, who then made some copies and made them available. The picture is used by some books. Some of them are completely idiotic, some of them are not. The fact is that even Misplaced Pages is using it, and the picture does not influence the credibility of[REDACTED] or the other way around. If a picture of a Palace of Culture and Science appeared in a monthly published by some I was taken by the UFO crazies would it mean that the Palace of Culture and Science is not there? At the moment I have no time to check it, but I believe the pic is also in the book by Siemaszko's, who are among the most credible specialists (even though often also blamed for some statements) in the matter. If so, does it change a thing about this pic? Not really. //Halibutt 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The primary source of the picture is an unknown foto amateur who made it some time in late 1943 and then passed it on to his successors, who then made some copies and made them available

The problem is that this is according to two very biased authors. I would like some more neutral authors. --Molobo 19:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Poznan

--Molobo 00:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC) --Molobo 00:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

--Molobo 00:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting WW1

--Molobo 00:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Germand demanded border

--Molobo 01:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

HKT

Thanks for the links, though if you cared to take a look at User talk:Halibutt/HKT, you'd probably notice that I already have a list of most of them. However, some were indeed a novelty. Thanks again.//Halibutt 11:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Attacks on foreigners intesify in Germany

--Molobo 13:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Russian nationalism

--Molobo 15:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

My talk page

Molobo, don't get me wrong, but you don't have to copy your warnings from the PWNB to my talk page, I read them at the notice board and there's really no need to clog my talk page with them as well. And of course I do react to some of them, but... //Halibutt 11:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Dzięki. //Halibutt 14:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Same here. As for incivility, I am looking into that matter and will let you know shortly what can be done here. Links of interest: WP:CCD, WP:CN and of course WP:CIV.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

National Russian identity

--Molobo 19:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-German Attitude

Is there any reason why the vast majority of your edits seem to portray the Polish as this godly people who have never done a single wrong or bad thing in their entire history, while the Germans are portrayed as this satanist people who are the embodiment of evil, and are the cause of all of the world's troubles? Ameise -- chat 08:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Voltair's animosity towards Poland and Catholicism

Interesting

--Molobo 17:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Participants in World War II

No, I don't think so. Almost every sentence there needs citations because they are all interpretations and POV's. It needs a complete re-write. And that's not only about recent changes. Renata 04:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry. If you want revenge, you can call me something ;) But the point was not Lithuanian :) Renata 12:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Polish workers discriminated in Germany by German workers

Polish worker was insulted and discriminated in Germany. German co-workers have engaged in insults like "Under Hitler you wouldn't be allowed to work here", "you aren't a nation, you are to be expelled or ruled over" etc. --Molobo 13:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Selbstschutz in Romania

The Escalation of German-Rumanian Anti-Jewish Policy after the Attack on the Soviet Union, June 22, 1941 --Molobo 16:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Links

--Molobo 00:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC) --Molobo 00:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

--Molobo 00:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC) --Molobo 00:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

POV warring, trolling

Molobo, such bad-faith edits may get you blocked. Please keep your militant Russophobia at bay. Cheers, Ghirla 13:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please stop using deceptive edit summaries such as or , or you will be blocked from editing. Kusma (討論) 13:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing deceptive about them ? What are you talking about ? --Molobo 13:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

D you think that deleting two sourced paragraphs and adding one sentence is described well by the edit summary "added more on info on Polish jokes and their role in German society" or "restored sourced information"? Kusma (討論) 13:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Should persons that "suffer" from this kind of "blindness" be allowed to continue changing the content of Misplaced Pages at will? A lot of time and effort would be saved it the source of such trouble would be sealed. Molobo made also some interesting contrubutions to the article on the artist Andreas Schlüter, which had been a site for edit warring for years before the vote on Danzig/Gdansk should have settled most issues.--Matthead 00:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean like those changes which you haven't consulted with anyone  ? --Molobo 00:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Heda

Postaram się, ale nie wiem kiedy znajdę czas. I na pewno nie będę pisał tak bezkrytycznie jak na polskiej wiki, gdzie jakoś nikt się nie przejął specjalnie drugą, ciemniejszą stroną jego biografii... //Halibutt 23:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wgrasz zdjęcie? :) //Halibutt 11:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Independence

--Molobo 01:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Polsko-Bolszewicka wojna

Jasne, dodawaj.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC about Irpen's conduct

Hi! We filled a request for comment concerning the conduct of User:Irpen. Your comment is kindly invited.--AndriyK 16:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Polish POV"

Thanks, I tried to justify my changes to him; let's see how he replies. Biruitorul 17:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry

I have a thick skin, but I expected an interesting sourced debate and not a constant wave of insults. This guy is no serbian patriot he is a simple jerk. Mieciu K 19:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• And now for some news, I made some edits to the Leni Riefenstahl article changes using the Info I found via the internet but after reading this article I came to the conclusion that much is still to be done. Maybe you could take a look? Mieciu K 20:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Molobo, thanks for your kind words. By the way, sorry about not being able to respond to your previous requests. I wouldn't have been able to contribute meaningfully to the discussion, so I simply stayed out. Appleseed (Talk) 20:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Bismarck

Hi,

Sadly, you have inserted incorrect information about Bismarck. I am now in the process of updating the entire article so it can win featured article status, although I in the process of improving another article in need of change, I would appreciate your help in those parts that deal with Polish-German relations during the Bismarck era. Before that, I would to correct you on certain things. Bismarck did not want an ethnic German state, in fact he abhorred nationalism up until the Franco-Prussian War as a tool of liberal suberversion. Secondly, he did attempt to Prussify different ethnic minorities, such as Polish Prussia and those in El Saise and Lorraine, but he held no specific emnity toward any ethnicity and was mostly worried about the integrity of Prussia and the possibility of a Polish insurrection, however unlikely, on Prussian soil. Anyways, I hope that we can cooperate on a subsection of this topic.

Guy Montag 21:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Bismarck also said that Catholics were 'staatsfiends i.e. enemies of the state, and that Ludwig Windthorst a contemptible Gaulph who would sell out Germany to the Pope during the Kulturkampf, and then promptly allied with them years later when times suited him. Bismarck was a wholly pragmatic man who would defame his most loyal political allies if he believed them to be dangerous to the state, and just as easily ally with them when the times suited it. Time usually dulls the context of words and we come to take them literally, but really he only cared about what was good for Prussia and the German Empire, and anyone that he even believed got in the way of his authority or challenged the legitimacy of the monarchy would earn his emnity. Eric Eyck, a historian and author of "Bismarck and the German Empire" not very kind to Bismarck and his policies stated that "Bismarck viewed the Polish question exclusively from the point of view of the power of the Prussian state."

So Bismarck wrote to his sister from St. Petersburg in 1861 in regards to Polish insurrection, "Strike the Poles in such a way that they will despair of their lives; I have every sympathy for their situation, but if we want to exist we can't do anything else other than exterminate them (ie suppress utterly). The wolf, too, is not responsible being for what God has made it, nevertheless we kill it if we can. Context is very important.

In the same year, he criticised the Prussian consul in Warsaw who had made of the brutality of the ( as I see it, despicable bastards) Cossacks against the Poles. " Brutality and despotism is here equivelent ot severity. As things stand in Warsaw, every blow which fails to come home is a pity, every success of the Polish national movement is a failure for Prussia."

My sympathies to your historical interest, but lets do our best to improve the article instead of pushing narrow points of view.

Sincerely,

Guy Montag 22:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The policies of Bismarck definetelly weren't friendly, but he had no special emnity towards them than any other perceived enemy of Prussia. Once again, he saw everything in the context of how it affected Prussia and the Monarchy. I have every sympathy for Polish national aspirations and the brutal way that it was dismembered, but I don't believe that he Bismarck was the "Devourer of the Poles" anymore than he was an enemy of Catholic, Socialist, Liberal influence. He had no permanent allies or permanent enemies (Other than Queen Augusta), and I doubt, as do many historians, that he cared about anything other than the position of Prussia and how these groups, whether ethnic or political affected that position.

Guy Montag 22:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you are taking a quote that relates to the Polish Insurrection of 1863 literally and without its context. I have the same quotes as you do, except they are in the proper historical spirit. In fact, I gave you the entire quote and you still insist on holding to a fallacious pov. Guy Montag 22:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Do you have the entire quote in German? 2. There was no literal meaning the phrase, it was simple bombast. as he was prone to use to deliver a point that the Polish insurrection was to be crushed. That is why I gave you the second quote. Without context nothing we say or do makes any sense and can and often is misunderstood. Guy Montag 22:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the quote again, he never said the Poles are animals, he was alluding to their state as similiar to the state of the wolf, that while it was not their fault that they wanted freedom, much it is not the fault of wolves to want to eat sheep, we (meaning Prussians) should suppress their uprising to protect Prussia, just as we shoot wolves to protect our livestock. Thats the allagorical meaning of the quote.

As for sources about his bombast, I have plenty. Throughout his political career he would use incredibly explicit words against his enemies (for example enemies of the state, Reichsfiend) and various other powerful language he used against socialists and liberals that can be found in his letters and political speeches. Finally, of course its hostile, although as he stated that he had sympathy for the Poles, the fact that they would weaken Prussia makes them enemies of Prussia and of Bismarck, but as with his allies, if they somehow in their eyes changed to be beneficial, his hostility would have immediately changed. This behavior can be seen in numerous political maneuvers of Bismarck throughout his reign. Remember, he had no permanent allies or pernament enemies. Guy Montag 23:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, you might have found a historian even more hostile to Bismarck then Eyck. Anyways, read the chapter about the Polish insurrection. What was the reason for his expression of hostility? Even Hajo Holborn has stated that it was because he feared losing Danzig and Western Prussia. Once, again his hostile outburst was because of his goal in maintaining Prussian and German supremacy something a free Poland in his belief would weaken, not because he didn't like Poles because they were Polish.Instead of seizing on one quote and constructing an eleborate tale, I suggest reading everything about Bismarck, you will see the pattern I have been mentioning throughout our conversation.

Bismarck's personal sympathies or friendships rarely interfered with politics. He hated someone because they stood for something he was against, or threatened Prussia, and he cooperated with those he detested better than his friends.

 Guy Montag 23:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, your scholarly sources contradict your point of view. Look I understand that I am not going to dispel the idea of Bismarck being Poland's national boogeyman by one conversation, but once again, Bismarck's political philosophy was the incarnation of realpolitik. Nothing was personal, it was just business. That is the view of all historians, even the one you have cited. I think it is time to end this conversation, but I hope you take up my offer of reading a biography of Bismarck by any detached historian before making incorrect assertions about his non existant hatred for Poles. Please don't take offense, but I was merely stating the viewpoint of historians, as I have no personal attachment to this subject one way or the other, but I had to interject because your assertions simply jump to conclusions.

Finally, there are no sources to contradict the letter because Bismarck wrote such a letter, it is your interpertation, which you base on nothing more than that letter which is fallacious. I am not arguing that he never said it, but that you simply don't understand what he said because you don't know the historical context.

Regards,

Guy Montag 23:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your interpertation and I respectfully disagree, but there is no reason that both viewpoints shouldn't be featured in the page. I will gladly help out to make sure that your viewpoint is also included.

Guy Montag 00:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for yet more disruptive edit warring and incivility

Molobo, you were blocked for a month from editing for that highly disruptive revert rampage that very nearly got you blocked indefinitely for one of the lengthiest histories of edit warring of anyone around. You know the deal: the only reason you aren't blocked indefinitely already is because at the request of Piotrus, Chris 73, and others, we all agreed to this: "I'll put it back at a month with the stipulation that at the first whiff of a return to edit warring he will be reblocked." Recently you've engaged in extensive edit warring on many distinct articles, including, but definitely not limited to, Soviet partisans in Poland, History of Poland, Historical Eastern Germany, Otto von Bismarck, Teutonic Knights, German Empire, and those are just the ones I found in the last few days before I tired of looking at your contributions. I am disheartened to see you continuing this behavior, rather than using proper, constructive, dispute resolution processes. For continuing this disruptive behavior, I have blocked you for a year, as promised. You are a career edit warrior, and uncivil to boot , and you've worn out your welcome here and used up all your second chances for a long time to come. Dmcdevit·t 05:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't uncivil in any way, Scinurea main activity on Wiki is solely directed against my edits.Oh well, I shall continue my good work on Polish related issues on Polish wiki in the meantime. Anyway recent events have shown clearly how Polish editors are treated anyway, not only me. --Molobo 19:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)