User talk:Molobo

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Previous discussions:

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

Selbschutz?

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

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

Moje RfA

Thanks. WikiThanks.

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. 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.
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! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

---

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

History of Belarus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GooglePrint

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

Re:Categories

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

Georg Forster: edit summary

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

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

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

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

Belarus symbols

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

Puerility

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

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

Napewno nie!

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

Właściwie, to chyba się przerzucił na komentowanie tego artykułu od Ciebie[1]. Pewnie siedzi teraz gdzieś w Stanach i klnie pod nosem, że Polacy sprzedali duszę diabłu, kiedy oni tam na obczyźnie... itp.--SylwiaS 22:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Babel

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

Use of Polish on EN.Wikipedia

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 Wikipedia crusaders that believe that all Polish editors somehow push a nationalist agenda. Chelman 13:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Datner..?

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

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. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Last comment

I swear over everything I hold sacred that the user Zydokomuna is not related to me. I suggest that both you and I calm down and lay off a bit. My suggestion was not a threat, but rather that you may have meant something different from what you said, although you didn't choose the best approach. If that's the case and you didn't mean to attack the Jewish, then we can hold the matter closed ond move on. Calm down, I'll do the same, and let's leave the matter as it is for a while. OK? Alexbulg 17:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to stop presenting the view that Poles are determined by their nationality to a line of thinking. Then don't present the view that Poles are determined by their nationality to a line of thinking; that's not true, and nobody's stoping you from stop doing it. I believe that Polish scholarship is excellent, and thus it should be quoted instead of simply tossing everything you find through Google, like you currently do. As to the quote-if somebody claims a nation is from birth full of negative threats and must be "cleansed" its a simple racism. I merely said that it was said in circumstances in which he was denouncing Anti-Semitism in Poland. Why delete that, unless you want to hide that fact? Also, why removing a fact sourced and connected to the article? And that information belongs there, because it shows how the term Anti-Polonism is used as defense of acusations of Anti-Semitism, unless you also want to give the impression that there currently is no Anti-Semitism in Poland. Do you? Alexbulg 17:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

So you do not dispute the fact that claiming a person born in specific nation is born with negative traits is simple racism ? --Molobo 17:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

RFC

Here is RFC for you. I hope it will clarify things. Alx-pl D 20:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Waffen SS Talk Page

I've responded to your rebuttal on the talk page of the Waffen SS article. Also, just noticed on your talk page the comments about the Waffen SS article. Bit extreme isn't it? I'd hardly say that the Article gives the impression that they were 'just fighting against communism' and that they weren't inspired by NSDAP ideology. Especially with the lengthy section on warcrimes. Please act like an adult. --ansbachdragoner 01:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit warring on your own RfC page?

Molobo, when you start revert warring on your own RfC page, it's a bad style and the best argument that the accusations against you are well grounded. --Ghirlandajo 09:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Just reinserting discussion that is important.Please stop from editing the RFC comments of others-you are not a neutral poster. --Molobo 09:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert wars concerning Lech Kaczyński, Anti-German sentiment and Warsaw Uprising

Alrighty, I know it may be a bit pointless to try talking to you on your talk page again since you like deleting criticism from it, but let's believe you've changed.

Regarding our Mr Kaczynski, why did you delete the warning concerning his right-wing stance again? I know you found some Polish forum or something allegedly contradicting it that you didn't want to translate for some reason but I really thought we thrashed it out, at any rate I thought you had realised the lacking in relevant content of your last statement of the discussion yourself, that descended to the level of mere accusations against the paper. By the way, do you really think it is just one of those "conspiracy" cases like you "discovered" here? Anyway obviously you don't intend another revert war on it, at least not for now.

By contrast, Anti-German sentiment raises the possibility of another unnecessary revert struggle. In the article, in the disguise of minor editing, you deleted the word racism, which is okay. But of course you continued to try to give your own personal opinion, or at least trying to point an accusing finger. In addition, the last sentence discloses pretty much certain political views: "Calls for justice and those issues to be resolved have been often labeled as anti-German in German media" Ridiculously enough, your *excellent examples of NPOV* claims seem to have their basis in the source on the feeback on the then newly-elected Lech, a source that you added at the end of the text. (Or the source is just meant to mislead readers into thinking the claims were well-founded, I don't know) This said BBC-source makes no such claims, so thank you for your interpretation. Advice: Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Verifiability. And since you stated a source to the finger pointing a 140-page Polish one that looks like to be focused on a WW2 topic, the *verification* of the claims via the BBC source throws the verification of your string of pinning the blame into doubt. Sciurinæ 16:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This said BBC-source makes no such claims, so thank you for your interpretation.

Please read the source before commenting.:

There were some rather unpleasant anti-German, Eurosceptic and illiberal tones" during the election campaign, the paper says

And since you stated a source to the finger pointing a 140-page Polish one that looks like to be focused on a WW2 topic

The page is the source of information that many of war crimes in Poland went unprosecuted which you demanded-obviously it has to deal with WW2.Were you claiming this as disputed or another sentence ?--Molobo 16:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

See? I knew you were writing your own personal essay on it. "Calls for justice and those issues to be resolved have been often labeled as anti-German in German media" is a perfect example of misunderstanding that Wikipedia is intended to be a secondary source. The quote "There were some rather unpleasant anti-German, Eurosceptic and illiberal tones" was (mis)interpreted by you as proof that "Calls for justice and those issues to be resolved have been often labeled as anti-German in German media". Sciurinæ 16:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Alrighty, I know it may be a bit pointless to try talking to you on your talk page again since you like deleting criticism from it

Talking about issues is welcomed.However insults and personal remarks, attacks will be deleted.If you avoid such statements no comment will be erased.--Molobo 16:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic.--Molobo 18:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

How do I have to understand this? You're arguing that comments aren't deleted when they're not insulting, drifting off the topic. Then I replied saying that my two latest comments prior to today were also deleted although they were not insulting. And now you've even deleted that very reply of mine claiming that I didn't "stick to the topic". Sciurinæ 18:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue of the article.--Molobo 18:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I see I haven't written on the Warsaw Uprising here yet, where in my opinion you do your best to defame the German press. Let's analyse what you added:

Warsaw President Lech Kaczyński established a historic comission in 2004 to estimate material losses that were inflicted upon the city by German authorities. The comission came to conclusion that the losses reach circa 45 billion dollars in current value. While this initiative and its results were attacked by German media as anti-German[2]

(after two reverts, you finally accepted my correction of the grammar mistakes of the first two sentence but unsurprisingly not the content mistake of the third, so let's focus on the third sentence, namely "While this initiative and its results were attacked by German media as anti-German") Do we have to know Mr German Media in the context of the Warsaw Uprising? And who is he? Obviously he seems to be a hasty generalisation from one single German broadcaster, since you made Deutsche Welle collectively represent the entire german media That single newspaper article, the biased sample of your argumentation, is also intentionally misinterpreted. With "this initiative" you undoubtedly mean the counting of costs, which is an outright lie. No matter if you read only the caption of the article or the entire article: what was meant by "anti-German" was like the caption reads: "Kaczynski's anti-German strategy has been meant to woo older voters", in other words the presentation of that findings in his election campaign, which suggest an election promise contrary to his claims of good relations with Germany. Is it wrong to denounce it as anti-German? You would even do it too if you were German, just as you and Witkacy love to label everything as anti-Polonism.

Incidentally, in the article Warsaw uprising an editor had taken the liberty earlier of being *NPOV* enough to call the fighters in the Warsaw Uprising as "heroes". Yes, it was our friend Witkacy. Nice to see your influences.

To establish a connection to the dispute over Lech Kaczynski, just as you still denounced the Guardian like in our dispute months ago - which User:Gabbe indirectly inflamed by re-adding it, most likely not even knowing of a dispute and thinking it was relevant to add the statement concerning the voting rights just like me - so you've now tried to defame German media in general both in the article Anti-German sentiment, where you still clung to your POV stunt ("Calls for justice and those issues to be resolved have been often labeled as anti-German in German media"), and now in the article about the Warsaw Uprising.

Oh, I forgot something about the Warsaw Uprising dispute. In the heat of it, you also added the sentence:

German press also presented opinions of certain political analyst from Poland-Stanislaw Mocek-who described the investigation of war time losses of Warsaw as an attempt "win over older voters who still vividly remember the war"

What is this? A pretended compromise agreement? While keeping the misconception of the evil German media, you added my interpretation of the source into the wrong context, defamation in itself again. Where did Stanislaw Mocek describe the investigation of war time losses of Warsaw as an attempt to "win over older voters who still vividly remember the war"? The article reads:

It is surely no fluke that he presented this report today. It is clearly a new element of his campaign," said Mocek of the Polish Academy of Sciences.

"Kaczynski is trying to win over older voters who still vividly remember the war. To the young, the past doesn't mean much," he said.

Enough is enough. Assuming intelligence here rules assuming good faith out. The quote is not hard to understand. And since you claim to be a student of journalism: Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Stanislaw Mocek, especially if it involves living persons. Your edits have been reverted. Thank you. Sciurinæ 22:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Koniuchy and Jedwabne

If you want to expand the section on the discourse about Jedwabne in Polish society and the mentioning of the Koniuchy massacre in that context, be my guest. I simply object to adding the link without any explanation, as it may appear to set up a moral equivalence between the two events.

Furthermore, thousands of articles have been written about the Jedwabne massacre, and the massacre must have been mentioned in relation to countless other things. I am still curious why you only want to mention Koniuchy in the external link section, and nothing else. Balcer 21:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)