User talk:Molobo

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German collective guilt

You should be aware of this. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agnieszka Arnold

Can you help some in support of the stub on this Polish person whom I respect? Thanks for your consideration. --Ludvikus 17:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you about the importance of the Hanseatic status of Gdańsk in that article. (or any other article about a Gdańsk person of that period). I'd say it would be akin to ignoring the special status that Hong Kong and Macau currently have in China that differentiate them from cities such as Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Harbin. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples might have validity if not all of Saudi Arabia were part of OPEC or not all of Poland were part of the WTO, or conversely if every Polish city of that time had been a Hanseatic city. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma World City then ? Really, guild arrengments to make cabbage sale cheaper aren't that important.--Molobo 01:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hanseatic League provided diplomatic representation for its members at one time and its colors of red and white (which coincidentally are also the Polish colors) are still found in the coats of arms and flags of its former members. Indeed, the current flag of Gdańsk is the same as it used before it became part of Poland. Hardly something you can say about something as insignificant as Gamma World City which no one has of yet bothered to write a Wiki article about. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are also in need of history lessons. (Indeed who isn't?) The Hanseatic flags (indeed, the whole concept of using flags to identify where ships came from and to identify states instead of individuals) developed during the period when Gdańsk was under the suzerainty of the Teutonic Knights and the use of red and white as the Hanseatic colors applied to all Hanseatic cities regardless of where they were located. Also the earlier pre-Teutonic period town is to my mind more properly considered Pomeranian than Polish. If one goes only by the nationality of the ruler that decided he needed an outpost to establish control over a foreign area, then Dublin would be considered a Norwegian city. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XIX Century as the start of Germany? Setting aside the usage since the XV Century of the full term, Holy Roman Empire of the German People, your argument would have more merit if the short lived German Empire had been called the Prussian Empire instead, thereby emulating what the Duchy of Polans did in the X Century. But the Poles are only the largest segment of the Lechites, and the Piast kingdom splintered before the Pomeranians could be reassimilated back into a single people, and the Pomeranians remained largely outside the Polish orbit unlike the Masovians, Vistulans, Lendians who were largely inside it and assimilated back into a single Polish people, much as the separate tribes of the Heptarchy were merged back into a single English people, but the lowland Scots were not, despite coming from the same ethnic grouping. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish children

My first impression is that there are language errors in first lines of the article. My English is rather poor, so I would prefer to not correct your text.

"larged", "which in reality selection camps were".

Names of places are strange: "Zwierzyńc", "Łosic". Are you sure that the children were transported from Zamość to Chełm? It's a short way. Xx236 08:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Dönitz FAR

Karl Dönitz has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Peter Andersen 22:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

I think there is none, you should start one. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes to myself

[1] [2] [3]

Molobo (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LUCPOL

I noticed your comments at User talk:Space Cadet about threats made by LUCPOL. Threats are absolutely inacceptable; you might consider WP:ANI. Olessi (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish looted art

Do you know if on Polish wiki there is an article that would describe this in more detail, that we could translate? It seems like a fascinating subject that deserves its own article - including stuff like Soviet looting of Poland and later Soviet Union forcing Poland not to demand any returns from Germany (and SU, of course).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote

Would you mind casting your vote again here, with regards to this template, which I created? Much obliged. --Poeticbent talk 06:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bans on languages in Russian Empire after the January Uprising in 1863

Could you comment at Talk:Lithuanian press ban? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian census reliability

Not sure if this is Russian census, but what do you think about this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siemienowicz

You havent understood a word of what i said. 1. He was born Belarusian. The term White Russia (trans: Belarusian) always existed, and the people from the area were refered to as White Russian. 2. Slavs are not the same and when i talked about that and lastnames it was already not about the text but a "by the way" explanation why for the Belorusians it was easier to assimilate with the Poles then with the Lithuenians.

The fact is that he was born Belarusian and i referenced it. The question if he himself considered himself a Belarusian or Ruthenian. Belarusians and Ukrainians are both Ruthenians, simply Ruthenians is a larger roof-term. Russians are Ruthenians to, Ruthenians mean Rus'. Next time, please, if you dont understand changes or something ask before you make the changes. Or maby i have a not 100% understood English since i prefer writing in Hebrew. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got confused why you revert me. Forget all i said, maybe my English was not clear. I explained the history of Belarusians and you got confused. The proces i talked about, the Ruthenians of White Russia becoming White Russians happened centureys before the man himself was born. He was borb to the Belarussian ethnicity, and to that i gave links. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask: "The text is about one man, why the hell are you writing the history of Belarusians that accured centuries before he was born, and by that confuse people?", Because a man theur asked me about if he was Ruthenian or Belarusian. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish War losses

Go to the link I posted to Pitrowski's revised estimate of Polish losses. The important point to remember is that the 1947 estimate of war losses, 6,028,000, included only ethnic Poles and Jews and excluded ethnic Belrussians and and Ukrainians. In 1947 the authorities assumed all Poles had left the USSR. Historians in Poland now now that over 1 million Poles remained in the USSR and losses were 5 million not 6 million. The demographic loss is 3 million Jews, 2 million Poles and 500,000 Other(Ukrainians and Byelorussians) I hope this makes the issue clear.--Woogie10w (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wesołych Świąt

Cześć! Życzę wesołych Świąt Bożego Narodzenia i wszystkiego najlepszego w Nowym Roku. - Darwinek (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holodomor genocide

It was in my eyes, however if you include a subsection about that in the denial article it will become an edit magnet with nasty things happening. I think letting the article grow and establishing itself for a few days or weeks is beneficial first.

Russian reactionaries are at present trying to rewrite their opinions - revisionism saying that the Holodomor affected Russia (Northern Caucases) and Kazakhstan - but if you investigate these areas you will see that these were the areas with the highest concentration of Ukrainian speakers within the Soviet Union outside of Ukraine. In the case of the Kuban in the Northern caucases the Ukrainian ethnic population dropped from 65% (1927) to .9% (Current). A similar trend happened in Kazakhstan and the Volga areas. Unfortunately the smoking gun documents specifically nameing the Ukrainians as a target have not been found. Keep in mind that many documents in Ukraine disappeared in 1934 with the switch of the Government from Kharkiv to Kyiv and the burning of documents before the German invasion and the fact that most documents i Moscow dealing with the Holodomor are in Moscow and despite Yushchenko's attempts to get them open tis has not happened. Wesołych Świąt - Bandurist (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of interest

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Evacuation_of_East_Prussia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Thanks for the notice, he must be kidding or something like that. I can't believe. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

quitting?

Since your message on userpage is rather old, perhaps you could update your userpage to be less misleading? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 1st Class
		I, Tymek (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC), am awarding you this Barnstar in appreciation of your hard, arduous work on everything that is connected with our beloved country[reply]

Stop vandalising, thanks

All your edits consist of pushing Polish nationalism in a very POV-way. While that may not necessarily be offensive, it crosses the line to vandalism once you start reverting agreed-upon solutions. JdeJ (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search for

"Schrecklichkeit" policy in WW1. --Molobo (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic Peoples

Trying to assume good faith, I will assume that you're not trolling the article on Slavic peoples and that you really believe that your edit is correct. It's not. And, if I may say so respectfully, a very general knowledge of European history is enough to see the flaws in it. You're claiming that East, West and South Slavs aren't just a linguistics grouping but also a religious and cultural grouping. I'm reverting this, as it is obviously false and consist of original research. I know that you have provided a source, but the problem is that the source doesn't support your claim. To take Slovenes, Czechs and Slovaks as examples: Czechs and Slovenes are both Catholic (religious), belonged for a long time to the Austrian Empire and was influenced by it (Culture and History). Bulgarians, in contrast, are Orthodox and were influenced by the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires. Before inserting your claim again, please answer the following questions

Which religion is common for the South Slavs (they are Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims)?
Which religion separates South Slavs (as a group) from West Slavs or East Slavs?
Which common cultures are shared by the South Slavs, but not by the West Slavs or East Slavs?

JdeJ (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"as it is obviously false and consist of original research." Your claim that EB is false and OR is interesting but is there any evidence ? Furthremore EB per definition can't be OR. Third the quote mentions clear religious division between West and East Slavs as one of the divisions, that is all.South Slavs fall into political history divisions as they became part of Ottoman Empire.--Molobo (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... No, I claim that you're interpreting EB in your own way. When using a source, make sure you use it correctly. I've explained this on the talk page already, I'm not repeating it here. As for the Ottoman Empire, the Slovenes and Croats weren't part of it. I note, in passing, that you weren't able/willing to answer any of the three questions I posed above. That's not surprising as they cannot be answered, thereby proving that Slavs cannot be divided into three convenient groups based on culture or religion. JdeJ (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting theory, but do you have any sources ? EB mentions clear cultural divisions. The religious divide between East and West Slavs and Orthodoxy and Catholicism is clear division as well. --Molobo (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources for what? That Slovenes and Croats were part of the Austrian Empire? Well, open any book on European history, read their articles on Wikipedia, check it in EB. I know that EB mentions cultural divisions, but it does not say that these divisions are the same as the linguistic. Nor does it say so for religion, it mentions the divide between East and West Slavs, but there are quite a lot of South Slavs people as well and they don't conform to this divide. JdeJ (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but there are clear religious divisions as there is East-West division and even in South Slavs Croat-Serb Catholic-Orthodox division. The religious division between East and West is enough to note that divisions exists on religious level as those two groups are numbering over a hundred million people with clearly defined religious differences that have been remarked by Encylopedia Brittanica as sign of divisions in Slavic groups. I assure you that more then EB notes this and besides EB more sources can be added about those divisions--

Precisely. To quote yourself, even in South Slavs. South Slavs aren't defined by religion nor by culture nor by history. What is more, I'm tired of explaining the basics of European history and geography on three pages, please reply on the talk page for Slavic peoples JdeJ (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry sources clearly state that East-West religious division is present also in South Slavs.--Molobo (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, then please tell me which religion that defines being South Slav and present a source for it. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't say so, as you can see if you check the entry on South Slavs. JdeJ (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the South Slavs Croats and Serbs are clearly divided by religion. Of course it pales in numbers to the enourmous East Slav-West Slavs religious division that needs to be noted.--Molobo (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my question as you obviously did not understand it. You claim that South Slavs are defined by religion. Which one religion is South Slavs, as a group, defined by? Orthodox, Catholic or Muslim? If none of them defines them, then religion is not defining the South Slav groups. JdeJ (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I claimed that West and East Slavs were clearly noted by scholars as being divided by religion, similar division exists between Croats and Serbs in South Slavic group.--Molobo (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, that is correct. In other words, religion does not separate South Slavs from West Slavs and it does not separate South Slavs from East Slavs. The division of Slavs into East Slavs, South Slavs and West Slavs is not based on religion but on language. JdeJ (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if in your view is no clear division between South Slavs and West Slavs and South Slavs and East Slavs it doesn't change the fact that there is clear division between West and East Slavs.--Molobo (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote

Hello. I haven't read that book but watched the film, which is great. Unfortunately I don't recall that quote you have mentioned. As for the inserted quote, to be honest with you, I expected some nationalist or extensive pro-German quote but that one seems quite neutral. - Darwinek (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dresden

I would prefer hard data about non-German victims - numbers, mistreatments (not allowed into shelters). There is also the October bombing.Xx236 (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truman

For the record when I removed Truman from the Paderewski article, it was because I thought it to be irrelevant trivia. Paderewski was a great man who met tens of thousands of people. The fact that as a twenty-something farmhand, Truman went backstage for an autograph, and shook Paderewski's hand is not notable or important. If you read Paderewski's own autobiography and the various other biographies about him, you must know that we could pepper the article with I.P. meeting this Emperor and Empress, this King and this Queen, this Prime Minister and that Business magnate and his wife. Hope you'll agree that it's really unencyclopedic useless information, and you didn't revert it because you saw my involvement there. At least if you think it should stay, I think the emphasis should be that Truman met Paderewski, rather than the other way around. But I really think it's simply trivia. I suspect that if the information was added to the Truman article it would be removed as irrelevant on the larger scale of things. The information about Truman and the piano (have heard him play, and his daughter sing), also seems out of whack in this article about a great virtuoso and patriot. Btw, can you help me with the earlier request to find a way to look up former members of the PZPR? Dr. Dan (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies

I'm starting to discover I've misjudged you. When we first met each other over Slavic peoples, I've got a picture of you that was too harsh and I apologise for having come across too strongly. I still don't agree with all your edits, far from it, but you've shown yourself to be well acquainted with many relevant sources and to be willing to discuss changes, and I appreciate that. Regarding Slavic peoples, I think a compromise is possible. You want it stated in the introduction that there are other divisions between Slavs than just language and I want to keep the sentence regarding the linguistic division of East Slavs, West Slavs and South Slavs. The compromise I would suggest is to leave that sentence intact, but to add another sentence about the cultural and religious division directly after the sentence on linguistics. The only thing is that it should not use the same distinction since, as I've written, the large cultural differences between religious and cultural groups within the South Slavs isn't as neat as between West Slavs and East Slavs. Perhaps we could divide it into two groups: Catholic Slavs who were culturally influence by the Holy Roman Empire (Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes and Croatians) and Orthodox Slavs (with a Muslim minority) who were largely influenced by Byzantium and the Ottoman Empire (Russians, Belarussians, Ukrainians, Serbs, Bosniaks, Montenegrins, Macedonians and Bulgarians). Do you think that would be a satisfactory solution? JdeJ (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting historic WW1 poster

Historic US poster [4] --Molobo (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

League of East European States

I would prefer to have this conversation at Talk:League of East European States. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

Hi, I've never heard about that. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 19:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on Poles in Germany increase-devasted cars, attacks on Polish children in schools

[5] --Molobo (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the article proves, vandalism and hooliganism, do not only exist on WP. Two weeks ago my on automobile was likewise vandalized by punks with an ethnic agenda (I live in a changing neighborhood). It's sad. On the other hand I'm happy that you and Space Cadet are pleased with the poster you uncovered. War propaganda posters are always a hoot. So are the movies. BTW, the star you gave him, the one that made him cry, made me a little verklempt too. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I actually want

My guiding principles on the Silesian matter are these.

The article should be named Duchy of Pless. This is what I knew it as before Wikipedia existed, and the evidence strongly suggests that almost all English-speakers who have heard of the now extinct title know it under that name.
The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article.
Efforts to evade #2 by periphrasis should not mislead the reader, much less introduce palpable error.

I would oppose moving Pszczyna, and, as WP:NCGN also says, this is a separate question. Use of Constantinople does not imply moving Istanbul; use of Leningrad Symphony does not imply moving Saint Petersburg.

There are those who disagree with my principles, and would indeed like to wipe Poland out of Wikipedia. You should consider whether your tactics are in fact strengthening them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good; we agree on #1 above. That's progress. Now let's discuss #2, that we should therefore use Duchy (or for the nineteenth century, Principality) of Pless when discussing it, for the same reasons of comprehensibility we use it in the title; and #3: above all, we should not be erroneous or vague in avoiding the natural usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no problem, then we can amend the article in compliance with the sentence quoted above from WP:NCGN, and fix the errors listed here; two already have been. Good. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If...

Powiedz to też jemu ;p. Mogę liczyć u ciebie na sprawiedliwość ;) Hę? LUCPOL (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiedziałem. Dzięki że nie napisałeś dokładnie tego samego również Space Kadetowi :) O to mi chodziło. A co do języka polskiego to można się posługiwać dowolnym językiem poza główną przestrzenią nazw (w tym np. w dyskusji). Ja często w dyskusji artykułu pisze w obu językach: angielskim i polskim, angielskim bo to en.wiki a polskim aby userzy umiejący jezyk polski mogli zrozumieć o co mi chodziło jeśli w języku angielskim tekst wyszedł "jak wyszedł" ;p LUCPOL (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Star

Thank You from all my heart, I don't know what to say, I'm crying here. Space Cadet (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful poster, I'm speechless again. Dobrze, że schowałeś przed Niemcami. Space Cadet (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I award you with this star for your continuous effort in reverting articles to NPOV and for your work. Keep working! ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 16:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust in Lithuania

Seems Wikipedia lacks the article. Interesting make notes. [6] "According to estimates, about 7�8,000 Lithuanian Jews of those who were evacuated from the Baltic States on the eve of the German retreat survived in Germany. About 1,700 Jews survived in Lithuania, among them about 900 as partisans in the forests and the rest in hiding or with the help of Aryan documents. Some of them were aided by local people, those "Righteous Among the Nations." Out of the 203-207,000 Jews who had remained in Lithuania under German occupation, less than 5 percent survived; among them, less than 1 percent within Lithuania and in the forests of west Belorussia. This number (or percentage) of surviving Jews was one of the lowest in comparision to other countries in Europe under German occupation. The explanation lies in the widescale collaboration with the Germans on the part of the local people and the large numbers among them who enlisted voluntarily into the police units that carried out most of the murder actions against the Lithuanian Jews and participated in the killings of Jews in Belorussla, the Ukraine, and the Generalgouvernement of Poland."--Molobo (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polen-Erlasse

Found this on de wiki (de:Polen-Erlasse) but since I don't know German I cannot even stub it... seems relevant, though.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_Digwuren

Arbcom are voting on applying discretionary sanctions across EE articles. Martintg (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'German Empire' article

Dear Molobo - your English isn't very good, but you thwart my efforts to make your edits comprehensible by just reverting me. You see, this passage:

However, Poles founded a similar organization to compete with the German settlement commission.

means THE SAME THING as your version:

Poles tried to defend themselfs [sic] by creating an organization that would oppose the German settlement commission.

In no way does what I'm proposing obscure the notion that this Polish organisation was working for the rights of the Polish population of imperial Germany. Colonel Mustard (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'similar' was carried over from a previous user's edit. I didn't even think about it. As you say, it's an unsourced statement so I removed it. The thing is, you have no sources to back up the following claims:

1. Poles tried to defend themselves by creating an organization...

2. Efforts of Polish associations to fight for their rights were without success...

3. the small number of Polish deputies in Reichstag was overwhelmed in votings by German deputies.

I'm not saying that any of this is untrue but you should have secondary sources, otherwise that's well, OR. Colonel Mustard (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chillax, bro. I removed that source because two items in a row were sourced by the same citation. For example, this is unnecessary:

Until the late 1960s, anti-German sentiment formed a major part of government ideology in Poland and the Czech Republic.[7] Walter Ulbricht and Władysław Gomulka had a poor personal relationship.[8]

and can be streamlined to this:

Until the late 1960s, anti-German sentiment formed a major part of government ideology in Poland and the Czech Republic. Walter Ulbricht and Władysław Gomulka had a poor personal relationship.[9]

Colonel Mustard (talk) 05:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Molobo, I have re-expressed your material in German Empire without changing ANY of the content, although I have no idea as to the precise accuracy of some of the statements. Please accept my new wording so we can move on to less trivial matters, like finding citations. Colonel Mustard (talk) 05:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Junkerland

[10] --Molobo (talk) 04:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[11] --Molobo (talk) 17:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note

Just FYI, you've been mentioned on the admin noticeboard at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#How can I complain against an admins actions?. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repressions against Catholics in SU

[12] [13] M. Iwanow, Polacy w Związku Radzieckim 1917-1990, [w:] Polacy w Kościele katolickim w ZSRR, pod red. J. Lewandowskiego, Lublin 1991, Polacy w Związku Radzieckim 1921 - 1939, W-wa - Wrocław 1995 --Molobo (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits in the Russian election page

Hello, I've noticed a number of your edits on the page in question are uninformed and incorrect. Regarding this edit [14], you said "the only organisation is CIS, all others are individuals not official representatives of organisations whose members they are."

This is false. The head of PACE, the only western monitor, was also quoted, and he mentioned nothing of mass fraud. Further, none of the monitors reported "mass fraud" by and large, a fact that supports the sentence you removed. I'm asking you to please return the article to its former state, and please be aware of the three revert rule.Sbw01f (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it allegations of "mass fraud". Their position was clearly stated. Sbw01f (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand how media works. If there was mass fraud, it would be reported, no ifs ands or buts. They don't report on things that didn't happen, that were largely seen as western propaganda in the first place. The fact that they didn't report mass fraud is confirmation that no mass fraud took place.Sbw01f (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for "denial" to report something of this nature. Was there "denial" that there was no fraud in the last Australian elections? No, but we still report that there was no fraud. The fact that no one reported mass fraud at the elections is confirmation that there was no mass fraud. This is indisputable, now stop arguing and trying to push your POV views.Sbw01f (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An often overlooked fact

Good job, Molobo. Space Cadet (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ustka, Polish Corridor

I´ve got a problem (as you might have expected) concerning your adds to Ustka, East Prussia and the Polish corridor using the term it “returned to its former status as an exclave...”

talking about Ustka it´s absolutely irrelevant
would you call it neutral to add something like that : “In 1939 Gniezno returned to its former status as a town in Germany as it enjoyed (!) in 1772 – 1918 as part of Brandenburg-Prussia.”

Off course that´s not neutral - it would be unbelievable, but that´s what you are trying to imply concerning the Corridor and East Prussia. We should try to find a really NEUTRAL POV. The neutral facts are

• the corridor was built in 1919/20 after Versailles

• East Prussia became an exclave

Btw: was East Prussia an exclave of Brandenburg until 1772 or was Brandenburg an exclave of Prussia? Interesting question(HerkusMonte (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I see nothing POV in here. The original state of East Prussia is notable. We should not treat it as something extraordinary.--Molobo (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in 1939 Poland returned to its former status of being divided between Russia and Germany - NO POV??? The point is, what´s your definition of the original (normal) situation.

I can´t see any relevance of the East Prussian "return" to 1772 situation and the history of Ustka, maybe you could explain. (HerkusMonte (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Why it is notable that certain historic situation has repeated itself. Furthermore, it is somewhat POV to portay an return to original state of things as something new.--Molobo (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which state of things is the ORIGINAL ? 1937, 1914, 1772 ? That´s POV, that´s all. And returning to the original situation depends on your very own definition. You should really STOP vandalizing all the Prussia / East Prussia articles!! (HerkusMonte (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Why I am only correcting about how Versailles "isolated" East Prussia. For most of the time, East Prussia was an exclave, it was return to original state. As to your claim that 1772 isn't original state of things before 1918 and this is POV, well I am really not able to guess how that is POV. --Molobo (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ziemia michałowska

Witaj. Czy mógłbyś zmienić Michelauer Land na Michałowo Land ? Sam nie bardzo wiem jak się do tego zabrać. Trochę już poprawiłem treść po tym niemieckim wywrotowcu, ale o zmianach tytułów nie mam zielonego pojęcia. Dzięki z góry. pozdr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.191.34 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust in Lithuania

Molobo, you should know by now that you can't move text by cut-and-paste like that. If the problem is the redirect, you can request a speedy deletion G6. If you want, I can delete it for you. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it for you. I do not support the move back so I'm not moving it for you (which you can do yourself). Always remember you can request speedy deletion of an edited redirect, esp. if it prevents you restoring an old name. This will save you cutting and pasting and perhaps getting blocked as a result. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo, your source is a blog. Have you actually read what is written in this book, as opposed to what is claimed in the blog? Paul B (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll correct that. Frankly, I think this book is in error, if it is being accurately quoted since no other source that I know of make any comparable assertion. Its references to statistics are also very odd. 37% believed in the "Extermination" of Jews and Poles and exactly the same figure believed that Jews and Poles should not be on German territory. The latter statistic makes sense, and I suspect that one survey is being mistakely split into two quite separate assertions. The term "extermination" may be either a mistranslation or misrepresentation of the concept of exclusion from citizenship and expulsion from German territory. One would have to know the actual wording of the question. Of course that's an obnoxious view in itself, but it's hardly too surprising given 10 years of Nazi propaganda, and its a long way from endorsing mass murder. Paul B (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extermination is an English word. Germans are not surveyed in English. There are questions of translation and interpretation. There is no OR rule about comments on talk pages, but if you are going to quote policy you should also be aware of the concept of 'undue weight' given to minority opinions and the concept of consensus of scholarly opinion on a subject. Paul B (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you haven't read the book or checked its sources (neither have I), so frankly this is all moot. And the fact remains that the book itself is not even a specialist text on Nazism, but a general survey of the whole of post-war Europe. Detailed confirmation is required for such implausible assertions to be presented as though they are undisputed facts. Paul B (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? "The second work" is what exactly? And you can repeat the same statements as much as you like, the fact remains that you don't really know what was said in the actual survey. Paul B (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have not answered my question about your "three sources", (though they all seem to be the same person). You mysteriously claim to have one beside you, but provide no information about it that's not copied from webpages. This is getting to be rather silly. Statements should be made based on scholarly consensus, with emphasis on specialists, as I have said. I see no point in repeating the same statements over and over. Paul B (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read it, but it is so vague that it is meaningless (an unidenitfied "scholarly bulletin" you have seen). This conversation is becoming silly. I see no point in continuing it. Paul B (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are now playing childish games. Either you refer to sources or not. You don't say you have them and then get all coy about it. I will not respond to you any longer. Paul B (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rocznik Polsko-Niemiecki Tom I "Polska a Niemcy; ludność, odbudowa, przemiany polityczne w pierwszych latach powojennych" Edmund Dmitrów Warszawa 1992--Molobo (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

slavic countries

Have a look at what category this article was in. Ostap 04:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polacy

Niestety nigdy o czymś takim nie słyszałem. Sytuacja w Kongresówce przedstawiała się tak źle, że nawet cywilni mieszkańcy miast czuli się raczej polskimi Rosjanami i prawie nikt z nich nie zasilał Legionów (dlatego Piłsudski podjął próbę samobójczą w Jędrzejowie w 1914). Z resztą legioniści Piłsudskiego często wspominali, że w wielu bitwach walczyli z Polakami z wojsk rosyjskich. Być może chodziło o zbratanie Polaków walczących po obu stronach po zawarciu pokoju brzeskiego w 1918. Mathiasrex (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chodzi Ci zapewne o Kaniów. ([15]). //Halibu tt 14:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If

You'd have been studying humanitarian scientific discipline called history you would have known that "Three lists have been preserved by Lietuvos TSR Centrinis Valstybnis Archyvas which the names ranks names family status and addresses of sixty nine Sonderkommando members who lived in their own homes in Wilno" is rather equal to the story of weapons o mass destrucion in Iraq. Main problem is, that if someone trying to be historian points to the archive that a.) has long ago changed his name, b.) has a clear structure, funds (even printed books with references with funds names and numbers) but does not have a clue where to the right document is stored, it just means one thing: he did ot read the source. And the citation of such source, as one of the professors I had pleasure to be though by called such references naked, stating that it is about time to stop such pornography and stop discrediting the scientific discipline called history Please, take your time reading WP:V.--Lokyz (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Question

Just read proper article and its talk. M.K. (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For myself-Ukrainian nationalism source

Baluk Walenty, Koncepcje polityki narodowościowej Ukrainy. Tradycje i współczesność, Wrocław 2002, ss. 270.--Molobo (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet repressions against Polish minority 1920-1939

[16] --Molobo (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud

[17] --Molobo (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet diplomacy

[18] --Molobo (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC) [19] [20] --Molobo (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC) [21] --Molobo (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet demand to Britain in 1939 that Finland and Baltic States would be awarded to Soviet Union

[22] --Molobo (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin wanted Britain and France to agree to occupation of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania in 1939 talks about alliance

[23]--Molobo (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good article

Key points: [24] Churchill, Roosvelt an Stalin agreed that removal of Germans from non-German countries will end agression. Nazi Germany used German minority to establish domination over other nations and countries. They were benefits to ethnic seperation which are overlooked in scholarship.--Molobo (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Material gains a reason for support of Nazi genocide among German society during WW2

[25] --Molobo (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming debate at Sněžka-Śnieżka

As a participant in the last, unsuccessful bid to change the name of this article, you should be advised of a new debate to move the article about Sněžka-Śnieżka. Your views on the current proposal would be especially welcome. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 05:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Question

Aye. Surprised you didn't know this, but yeah name was changed a wee while ago. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German railways refuse to allow ceremony to honour memory of victims of German state's genocide

[26] --Molobo (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tibet

It's a propaganda war, and the Chinese are losing because of many factors, some of which of their own causing - e.g. the lack of press freedom in China, making Chinese reports less credible. There is also political advantage to be gained by appearing to be tough on China -- and not just from the pro-Tibetan activists, also trade protectionists and suchlike. Oh well. Hopefully common sense and level-headedness will prevail after this all dies down. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember

[27] --Molobo (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet/Nazi victory

Many thanks! According to the Soviets/now Russians, Hitler started the war by invading Poland unilaterally (no mention of Soviet radio transmissions aiding the attacking Luftwaffe). Stalin crossed the Polish border to protect minorities, establish order in the wake of the collapse of the government (no mention of the premature telegram from Moscow to Berlin with congratulations on the fall of Warsaw). So, Hitler the evil fascist wound up with 49% of Poland's territory while Stalin the benevolent and heroic wound up with 51% of Polish territory. Hitler and Stalin, two sides of the same coin, empirically demonstrated to be within a couple of percent where their respect for Polish territory is concerned, the slight edge in disrespect going to Stalin. —PētersV (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AK

Hej czy nie uważasz że możnaby zabezpieczyć art. "Armia Krajowa"? Alden or talk with Alden 05:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KGB

Congrats, my дабл оу севен. :D //Halibu tt 11:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sysop

Would you like be a sysop on EN-Wiki? --Alden or talk with Alden 15:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

Hello, we are revoting to propose a new name for the People's Liberation Army invasion of Tibet (1950–1951) article. Many people would like to move it to "PLA occupation of Tibet". If you have any last minute opinions, please join us here. Thanks. Benjwong (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention

There´s no "shared history" within all these "Krolewiec" additions either. So stop vandalizing these articels(62.180.160.59 (talk))

Expulsion of Poles from Lithuania

[28] --Molobo (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question for you? :)

See here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Map

Very useful. Do you know what is the html page for it, or the source? I wonder if it is PD and can be uploaded to Commons.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map

I'm on it, my brother. Space Cadet (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nazi Germany 1933.PNG

Space Cadet (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Arcana 1 (79) 2008 Bogdan Musiał „Niechaj Niemcy się przesuną”.Stalin, Niemcy i przesunięciem granic" --Molobo (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rzeczpopspolita, Plus Minus - Musiał's article 10 days ago and angry comments last weekend.Xx236 (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Okupacja w imię sojuszu. Armia Radziecka w Polsce 1944-1956 - Krogulski ML --Molobo (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to move article Karkonosze incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Karkonosze to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nazis

The map needs a comment - Free City wasn't a part Germany.Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

East Prussian Plebiscite / Map

Molobo, may I kindly invite you to join the discussion on the East Prussian Plebiscite talk page, so as to clarify some of the questions raised. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threats

Hi! I need to complain about the threats and inexplicable arch-hostile behaviour of user LUCPOL towards me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:81.106.128.119

He wrote it in Polish, but I do not know why I should be bullied without any reason here... How can I officially reprot this??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.128.119 (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:supposedly incivil

I've replied on my talk page, I prefer to keep discussions centralized. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete reliably sourced information

As you did here. It is especially problematic when you claim a "consensus" for your deletion in the edit summary, without even the courtesy of discussion on the talk page. Please don't do that again; feel free to make any proposals on the article talk page. Thanks. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poles in Latin America

[29] --Molobo (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting book

[30] --Molobo (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving things

Yes, sorry about that; you must have looked at the page in-between my moving it. Sorry for any confusion — your request should have been at the top. At the bottom it's probably not going to get any attention since requests at the bottom are labeled "resolved". --Haemo (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chelmno

Why did you revert? Judge (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: ah, so it's wrong info, but it appears to be real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidearm (talk • contribs) 19:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule on Battle of Grunwald. I count four ([31], [32], [33], [34]) separate edits in which you removed the same info - all within a 90 minute time span. Your first removal at 23:53, 6 June 2008 was apparently a revert of this earlier edit as opposed to an initial edit. Due to your previous, long history of blocks, the duration will be three days. Please seriously reconsider the way you deal with edit conflicts. Revert warring is not the solution. Khoikhoi 02:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent research how Germany since 1918 tried to destroy Poland by various means and weakened its condition leading to 1939 fall and world war .

Poland, the United States, and the Stabilization of Europe Neal Pease 1986 Oxford University Press "In the eyes of the world, no European country appeared more vulnerable to its enemies or less likely to establish peace with them than inter-war Poland. This is the first full-length study of relations between Poland and the U.S. following World War I, as Poland turned to America to buttress its precarious position. Pease lucidly examines how Polish leaders of the 1920s, discerning America's essential aim of fostering stability in Europe, sought to enlist U.S. political and financial support on behalf of their beleaguered state. Drawing on exhaustive archival research, Pease unravels the fascinating ties between these unlikely diplomatic partners. He reveals how Poland not only had to fight an uphill battle against inter-war America's isolationism, but also had to counter America's reluctance to underwrite a nation surrounded by two strong and hostile neighbors, Germany and the Soviet Union. Poland's plea for political and financial backing was ultimately denied by both the White House and Wall Street with dire consequences for Poland's future and Europe's fragile peace. Authoritative and original, this book is valuable contribution to our understanding of America and Europe during the interwar years."

--Molobo (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German mass murder in Distomo 1944-Germany refuses to compansate victims.

Citizens of Distomo will press for compensation for beheadings, ripping open pregnant women's bellies to murder their children made by German forces in 1944 in the town. Germany refuses to compensate victims of German state[35] --Molobo (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Anon harassment

Very true. Have you read this? Interesting.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Hohnewald

is fictional character, Wolfgang Schreyer´s "Augen am Himmel" can be bought here on page 6, as "Belletristik"(=fiction). Why not quote Donald Duck next time? --134.93.60.170 (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

I have blocked you for one week. The last time, I said, "Please seriously reconsider the way you deal with edit conflicts. Revert warring is not the solution." Not only did you completely ignore my request by mass-reverting across multiple articles ([36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]), but you also violated 3RR at Strategic bombing during World War II. I'm giving you a week-long break to give you the time to review how you can constructively contribute to this encyclopedia as opposed to edit warring. Discussing possibly controversial changes is in fact the best method of resolving edit conflicts, and while you're blocked, you even might consider reading WP:1RR. I believe that it is an essay that everyone should read. Molobo: if you would just bring up your concerns about other people's edits on the talk page first, conflicts like this wouldn't have to occur. When you return from your block, please keep this in mind. Thank you. Khoikhoi 04:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extended indef by Moreschi, and endorsed at WP:ANI#Molobo. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Upon conditions, as we agreed. These are

That you stick to a limit of one revert per page per week, and that you discuss all reverts you do make on the relevant talk page. If you violate this limit, you may be blocked by any administrator for any time limit up to a week.
That you stick to the Digwuren restriction: if you make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, you may be blocked for any time limit up to a week.

After four upheld blocks due to violation of this restriction or other issues, the indefinite block I originally placed will be reapplied. Agreed? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Moreschi. --Molobo (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poland in plans of German resistance

Notes to myself

[44]

[45] [46] [47] --Molobo (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goerdeler

Dear Molobo In response to your request, I probably shouldn't put that edit through I as working from memory, and I didn't have a written source hardly to reference. My source was the 1969 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannia entry on Goerdeler, which mentions that Goerdeler wrote a article in a German newspaper in 1919 in which he gave full vent to his anti-Polish bigotry by writing that Poland was an abomination that ought to be wiped off the map. I will gather my trusty old edition of Encyclopedia Britannia, and put in a proper reference for that statement. I think it is fair to say that Goerdeler's views and the Nazi views about Poland was both the same, namely they felt that Poland should not exist. Goerdeler who sometimes developed rather strange notions (his idea about having a radio debate with Hitler in 1944, and if won the debate, Hitler would resign ranks as a classic) is felt that somehow he could persuade the Poles to accept the idea that the Germans were the Herrnvolk (master race) who had the right to lord over the "nation of cockroaches" to use Goerdeler's term for Poles. No defence of German brutality in Poland is intended here, but at very least, the Nazis with their ruthlessness were more realistic in about how German rule would have maintained in Poland then Goerdeler. Again, no defence of Goerdeler's anti-Polish views are meant here, but I think it fair to say that through Goerdeler disliked Poles, he did not intend to carry out the same sort of ruthless policies the Nazis did. But then, had Goerdeler ever came to power, I think he would discovered in a very short order that the Polish people would never accept German rule, so perhaps he would end up behaving the same way the Nazis after all. These sort of counter-factual questions are very hard to answer.

Anyhow, at present the Goerdeler article is somewhat unsatisfactory as it makes no mention that in the "compromise" peace that Goerdeler intended to negotiate after the overthrow of Hitler, everything east of Germany up the River Bug was intended to stay German, which is why people who claim that if only the July 20th putsch attempt of 1944 succeeded, then World War II in Europe would have ended in 1944 are seriously deluded because there is no way that any of the Allies would have ever agreed to such a peace in 1944, and Goerdeler was a fool for thinking otherwise. In the fall of 1941, the Soviets did attempt to negotiate peace with the Germans and were willing to cede most of the western half of the pre-1939 Soviet Union, plus all of the areas Stalin had taken under the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, but that was during to a period of Soviet weakness with the Germans advancing on Moscow. For the same reason, the Germans turned down Stalin's 1941 peace offer. But back to the main point, Goerdeler did feel very strongly that the Germans had both the right and duty to dominate their neighbors to the east. Again, I am working from memory, but the second volume of Gerhard Weinberg's massive study of pre-1939 Nazi foreign policy also takes in Goerdeler's secret talks with the British in 1938-39, and mentions that Goerdeler simply did not understand that self-determination applied also to Czech and Poles, not just Germans. Please accept my apologies for any inaccuracies caused by faults in my memory. I hope I have answered your questions to the best of my humble abilities about for more information about this somewhat neglected subject. Please have a nice day. --A.S. Brown (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind words. --A.S. Brown (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luftwaffe page

Here it is:

I thought you would miss the point, and you have.
Move it to an appropriate article, and read my posts properly. I accepted that the Luftwaffe was involved, from the photographs, not the text. A book source should be provided on this subject. This is beside the point anyway, for the reasons I have already outlined above.
I completly disagree on removing any "needless" (IT IS NOT NEEDLESS) information on the military history, the is a COMBAT history of the Air Force. It should have its own article, which then should be listed in "Realted articles section", this is pretty straight forward. I don't understand what you don't understand about that. Dapi89 (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The accepted rule is not to believe anything you hear until you have a published academic work to hand to cite from. But this is "academic", to use that saying, it does not belong in the article. Hence my reply to you. You can see I accepted that fact straight away but still want a published source to be used, not a website. But I still believe as others do (check the archives), that this should be in an article on its own, or put into other war crimes articles while adding links to the Luftwaffe article. The people can see for themselves about that aspect of the Luftwaffe's History. Why do you think that, for example the Eastern Front section is split, and put into separate articles according to campaigns and battles? Because it just can't all be lumped together. Do you see what I mean? Dapi89 (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Then when you create that article you can use that book as a source, not a website claiming to use that source. But this is still academic. It should have its own article, and I will do my best to help you on that if you like, after doing some research myself. I have had to delete some of your inputs to the Stalingrad article. You put on another editors page I had not mentioned the 40,000 killed at Stalingrad. Firstly I did put this on the BoS article. I sourced it as well. You have duplicated it and qutoed "40,000" killed. This is false. Christer Bergstrom uses Soviet records, this indicates 955 killed and 1,181 wounded. It is on note #25. Dapi89 (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

See here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luftwaffe medical experiments on living prisoners

[48] --Molobo (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German historiography

"a conspicuous theme in German political history has been a focus on Germany's struggle for survival against the tyranny of Rome and the Asiatic threat of Slavic barbarism" [49] --Molobo (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Low-skilled German workers entering black labour market in Poland in search of Polish employers

Interesting development in EU labour market [50]

--Molobo (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German Jews on Polish territory after 1945

Thanks for trying to answer my question. Actually, I wanted to learn something more fundamental. You have hinted me on an article about the destiny of the Jews in Breslau. The article states what has happened to about 8000 people. The article does not say what happened to the surviving Jews. My interest is also not confined to this one city. Rather I am interested in what the general policy of the now governing Polish authorities was with respect to the surviving German Jews.

Your comment on my talk page appears as if you were trying to say, there was no exemption of German Jews from those territories, because these people did not exist anymore. That, however, is not true, even though the death toll was abhorrently high. Tomeasy_{T C} 15:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you really have a document that deals this specific question, I am more than eager to know what the ruling was. If possible keep it brief. Thanks in advance. Tomeasy_{T C} 22:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German profesor Hermann Voß

[51]

A most interesting figure. Hoped that whole Polish nation can be burned to death, worked till 60s in German education system.

--Molobo (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know...

What was the death ratio of Polish POW in German hands? Seems relevant to Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Comparative_deaths_rates_of_POWs. Another useful number - needed at Talk:Invasion_of_Poland_(1939)#Civlian_losses - how many Polish civilians died in September '39? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Gordon

Sorry for slow reply, but have been away from my books. I corrected the interpretation given that "the Germans were not in a mood to give the "liberators" the answers they wanted?" by quoting from Sara Gordon's contrary speculation (see [52]). Her book is almost entirely about German anti-semeticsm during WWII. She concludes "From the sources cited it would appear that a majority of Germans supported elimination of Jews from the civil service; quotas on Jews in professions, academic institutions and commercial fields; restriction on intermarriage; and voluntary emigration of Jews. However, the rabid anti-Semites' demand for violent boycotts, illegal expropriation, destuction of Jewish property, pogroms, deportation and extermination were probably rejected by a majority of Germans. They apparently wanted to restrict Jewish rights substantially, but not to annihilate Jews" pp. 207-208. Gordon has a brief section about postwar attitudes as expressed in the OMGUS surveys where she points out that some of the questions, particularly the one which has been given as evidence that 37% of Germans were in favor the extermination of foreign Jews. At the same time indicating that the responses "may have contained deliberate lies". (pp. 197-206) She concludes that OMGUS "regarding German attitudes toward Jews is of limited utility".(p. 197) Tony Judt (who unfortunately eschewed footnotes in his highly praised book) most certainly used OMGUS data, but not only, as there are three examples post 1948 the end year of OMGUS. He probably got them from the book, "Stern, Frank, The whitewashing of the yellow badge. Antisemitism and philosemitism in postwar Germany," which is in his biblio of the chapter where the stats appear. I haven't had a chance to check that yet. In any case, an inordinate amount of space has been taken up referring to her discussion of the OMGUS surveys on both the Denazificationand Responsibility for the Holocaust pages, (but of course there is no mention of her more substantive conclusions) Both those pages appear messy and have a rather unprofessional look, but I will leave that problem to others. I have enough on my plate.--Joel Mc (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting

[53] --Molobo (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

15th August 1943 Polish raid against Germanisation of Pisza

[54] --Molobo (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is very interesting, are you going to write an article on it? I think an article would be interesting, look here [55]. I might write it, if you do not plan to do so. Tymek (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page for the 2008 South Ossetia war article

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as talk:2008 South Ossetia war are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. You've started a number of different new sections in the discussion page for this article, including:

Video of Russian soldiers attempting to shoot journalists
some soldiers robbing Gori-video from security cameras
BBC journalists look explode and some plane
Aftermath-ABM shield placed in Poland-invasion of Georgia influenced Polish decision to agree
Georgian reporter shot by snipers in Russian controlled Gori vide

Most of these new sections consist of nothing but the link and your signature, with no constructive comments about how (or if) you think the link should be incorporated as a source into the article. This gives the appearance that the links are being provided merely to spark comment and, indeed, argument. Wikipedia is not a forum, and discussions on the talk pages for articles should be limited to the content of the article itself -- not the subject of the article and our opinions of it. Please see WP:Forum for more details. Please keep this in mind for the future, and thank you for you many positive contributions. croll (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response on my talk page. I replied to you there, as I will to any future responses you make there, just so we can keep it in one location. Peace. croll (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be violation of Geneva Convention

Well not the Geneva Conventions (Well perhaps those as well). This is not an area I have looked into and a quick Google throws up at least two other treaties that affect the first one:

So whether the Russians were even bound by the treaties would depend on whether they (or the Soviet Union) have ratified them, and further a quick and simple reading of: Convention concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour (ILO No. 29) suggests that the answer is not a simple yes or no--for example Art. 2.d for starters, but there are others as well because as this AFAICT this is really a charter about slavery not for the temporary military situation in you highlighted in Georgia. It would need a competent legal source to answer your question (sorry). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movie about mass murder of Polish and Jewish citizens of Kalisz in 1914 by Germans and burning down the city

[56] --Molobo (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures showing destroyed city of Kalisz in 1914 after German massacre of Poles and Jews

[57] --Molobo (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useful book as soure and reference:German Atrocities 1914- A history of denial.

German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial Author: John N. Horne, Alan Kramer Yale University Press, 2001 ISBN 0300107919, 9780300107913 608 pages --Molobo (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting newspaper from WW1

[58] --Molobo (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of Poland in 1914-1918 by three occupying powers

[59] --Molobo (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“Poland’s Louvain: Documents on the Destruction of Kalisz, August 1914"

L.J. Flockerzie: Poland's Louvain. Documents on the Destruction of Kalisz, August 1914. The Polish Review Nr 4/1983

--Molobo (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note...

... your adds of Wehrmacht warcrimes are being discussed here [60] Skäpperöd (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo and Koretek

You should know about this. Sciurinæ (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useful tool

Check User:Silsor/Neo-nazi watchlist.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of Kalisz

I am trying to locate the time of destruction of the Russian church in Kalisz - it was built (completed) in 1877 on the main square, right across Sanktuarium św. Józefa. So far there's an unreferenced line in Neo-Byzantine architecture in the Russian Empire#Destruction. Was it 1914 or later? Regards, NVO (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksander Wolszczan and Służba Bezpieczeństwa

What you called a "common practice" is not sourced in the referenced article. As a matter of fact - the "common practice" was Wolszczan's excuse for what he's done. However, there were other scientists who didn't work undercover and didn't accept any remuneration for information provided to the secret police. As an example consider Leszek Balcerowicz, who "received his MBA from St. John's University New York, in 1974" or Radek Sikorski who graduated from Pembroke College, Oxford in the '80s. Thus, I believe that your edit forces a non-neutral point of view in this case.

I regret that my previous, short version describing this case was reverted (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aleksander_Wolszczan&oldid=239337159). Sliwers (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lot's of people were members of PZPR. The difference between being a member of the communist party and working undercover for secret police is huge. Many other notable people were members of the party (see Jacek Kuroń or Bronisław Geremek). But they (unlike Wolszczan) didn't get any profit from their activities. Geremek is btw another example of a scientist who didn't cooperate with SB despite going abroad for studies. Sliwers (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK: September 21, 2008

On 21 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Destruction of Kalisz, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Maxim_(talk) 01:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent German Claims Against Poland

[61] --Molobo (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/12-04-45.htm "Danzig is not the subject of the dispute at all. It is a question of expanding our living space in the East. There is, therefore, no question of sparing Poland, and we are left with the decision to attack Poland at the earliest opportunity. We cannot expect a repetition of the Czech affair. There will be fighting. Our task is to isolate Poland. The success of this isolation will be decisive. The isolation of Poland is a matter of skillful politics."

--Molobo (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fed up

I am pretty much fed up with your ongoing allegations I would misquote sources and do OR. I asked Moreschi for his opinion on that. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your smear attack

It is deeply distressing to see you engage in character assassination yet again despite the fact that only three days ago I told you that no personal attacks logically goes for arbitration pages too, that you were even on a civility parole that includes personal attacks and that character assassination to discredit persons is much more urgent than normal personal attacks. Your insinuations to the effect of smear while pretending to just a lack of "neutrality" while in reality trying to stick a proverbial knife gently into another user's body is not new to me: [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]. Although I told you the other day, you still made this smear attack. Simply dismissing a smear attack as a smear attack will not remove the stench, commenting will make it an even better red herring, so I will still comment, but here on your talk page, even though all your diffs (except one) are from 2005/2006.

Response to the 2008 diff:

"When I spotted some Nazi propaganda books used as sources on Wikipedia regarding history of Poland, and notified this to Reliable Source noticeboard[68] as well as to Moreschi for guidance, Scinurae suddenly appeared and tried to divert the discussion from the subject, by claiming I was attacking the editor who brought this publications.[69]"

You spotted no "Nazi propaganda books" and "publications". You spotted one single foul publication unmarked by date and trumpeted the revelation, as I described: [70]. The fact that you're adding two clever and false plural -s again, although I had set you straight on this ([71]), is all the more alarming (same tactic as Piotrus, who claimed he received "dick"-emails,[72] [73] but after the plurality was disputed,[74] did not change the claim, admitted or at least commented).

Instead of simply questioning the source at the article talk page, you tried to use the golden opportunity of subtle character assassination, posted a thread at the RS notice board, the Poland-related noticeboard, the user's talk page, the talk page of your blocking admin and another user. Your comments were also glaringly obvious: [75] [76] [77].

You later teased Skäpperöd again as if he was in urgent danger of ever picking a wrong source again completely without a reason: [78].

Why did a throw-away account called TheNoiseBringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) try to attack Skäpperöd on no basis as having Nazi sympathies? Why did the account have the same agenda of victim blaming: [79] as compared to [80] [81]? Why did it have a similar format [82] as compared to [83] [84]? I can provide even more evidence. First, however, why don't you just confirm or deny it? And while you're at it, please also say whether you were Koretek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the throw-away account to smear Deacon (I can provide even more evidence for that as well).

Why did the exchange at User_talk:Karasek#Hey.2C happen? As if your German from school suddenly wasn't enough anymore and as if you couldn't add "die ganze Bande" in Google or Google images to see its real use? "Bande" derives from French, by the way.

Response to the 2005/2006 links presented

"Removal of information about persecution of Poles in Prussia [85]"

I didn't remove any information in that 2005 revert of your version. I didn't find your portrayal of the situation of the Poles in the German Empire ([86]) proper. A similar RfC around that time elsewhere had a similar result: [87]. Your desire to jump at anyone's throat who has a different opinion about Poles in Prussia, up to the point of trying to attack the most reputable historian ([88]) is incredible.

"Removal of information and links to Herero Genocide made by Germany in article calling it irrelevant to history[89]".

What I actually said in this 2005 revert was: "irrelevant to the history" (meaning the section) - I did not say "irrelevant to history" (in general). (The article got featured without a mention of it by the way.) Like your above adding the plural "s", this time you removed the qualifier "the". In the same way, Koretek also removed the qualifier when he said "Urging others to oppose Polish users" instead of "Urging a user to oppose the Polish users". Nice plural trick.

"Deletion of information on atrocities committed by German soldiers in Poland [90]"

On the contrary, the available information about the war crime stayed, but in this 2006 revert I removed your restoration of an extra page-filling and self-translated quote of a testimony.

"Trying to erase information about Nazi atrocities and defending German forces image during WW2[91]"

No, I didn't erase any information but there I found that your presentation had been clearly overwhelming the article of a whole division of thousands of people and wanted a more reasonable proportion which would not have needed any removal of universally accepted information but a summary. Wehrmacht soldiers did horrible things but not all of them.

"Claiming that the Polish name Poznań is a point of view of modern time, discrimination of Poles was to achieve “national unity”, removal of information that the territories were taken from Poland by Germany[92]"

I never said anything about the Polish name of Poznań being a point of view of modern time in this 2006 revert of your version. You had shirked away from the subject Talk:Anti-Polish_sentiment#Regarding_revisionism and I do not at all approve of the fact they really discriminated Poles but their purpose, though misguided, was not simply hate as far as I could make out and your presentations of all Germans only hating Poles. Your problem with the name Posen is duly noted: [93].

"Claims that expulsion of Poles from Germany was actually done to Polish “settlers”[94]"

"Zwischen 1885 und 1887 wurden etwa 26 000 Polen ausgewiesen, die in den Jahrzehnten zuvor aus Russisch-Polen gekommen waren, aber noch keine deutsche Staatsbürgerschaft besaßen" ("Between 1885 and 1887, 26 000 Poles were expelled who previously came from Russian-Poland but had no German citizenship yet.") was what my history school book said (pp 195-196, ISBN 3464642038) and yes, I rather subscribed in this 2006 edit of your version to what the authors of said book had written, the authors being a History docent at the University of Oldenburg with the academic title of Prof. Dr. ([95]) and the other none the less of a historian.

"Removal of information regarding discrimination of minorities in German Empire, by changing it to “alienation” [96]"

My conclusion was that the policy had to do with a misguided way to achieve national identity that resulted in alienation rather than success: [97]. Why mention again exactly the same 2005 situation as above in your first link?

"Removal of information of massacre by Teutonic Knights( a symbol in German nationalism), and adding instead that “the city flourished”[98]"

In this 2006 revert of your version you had removed "the city flourished" without a reason and I don't even think you can establish that: the city under the Teutonic Knights. But I'm not interest in or like them and it's incredibly that you pretend that I added something that in reality you removed. The rest of your edit was also bothersome and, yes, despite Kohl's initial reluctance to flatter a conservative base [99] German-Polish reconciliation existed.

"Tag teaming"

I am not in a tag team and I never was. Since I have the PWNB board on my watchlist, I got to know about your activity, Portal_talk:Poland/Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board/Archive_10#POV_pushing, and looking at your contributions then, of course I saw your then most recent one,[100], yet another Piotrus-led war. Stop generalising from yourself making it look like two sides were engaged in tag teaming while knowing full well that only accusations of a tag team under Piotrus are frequent and substantial.

Concerning the picture, yes, the arrival of the Soviets was a significant event, ending a key epoch and beginning another. The initial joy for sure did not reflect general feelings about the new power, another power that also meant much terror and suffering, but this does not change the fact that the picture signifies a key point of change. You could have contrasted it with a picture of suffering, which would have had the message that the Soviet regime brought terror despite a warm welcome. Well, your choice to remove it fearing that it could not give a complete picture of the Soviets and arguing that Poland under Communism was comparable to an extermination camp. I found it disturbing to see you and User:Space Cadet joining together again to help Piotrus' discussion, where you supported Piotrus with this unexplained and most bizarre comparison ("it does not serve as good illustration just as a smiling Jewish inmate of Auschwitz wouldn't be good ilustration for Holocaust article", a comparison that you made nine times). Don't worry about my single revert - luckily you and Space Cadet rubber-stamped so that Piotrus had now "consensus" and could speak for "I (and other editors)" in the discussion.

"Incivility"

Your said four diffs: the first one was from February 2006, the second one from May 2008, the third one back from 2006 and the fourth is the duplication of the one from May 2008 again. I've wasted enough time describing your diffs in your smear 2005/2006 collection, so this time I'll only focus on the link that was more recent than those from over 28 months ago:

"you clearly represent Polish nationalist interests to which you habitually count picking on Germany and Germans all throughout history until today."

Well, all your contributions have the same slant, always (WP:SOAP). At Szklarska Poręba, you're trying to remove the mention that the village was once part of Germany from the lead, watering down the mention that the village was founded by the Order but just bought and with exploitative motives, simply anything that paints Germans in a bad light or advances Polish nationalism. Right now the Weimar Republic is going to get the pounding and, sure enough, German historiography (the whole WW1 article is from you and unrelated to Poland), local Germans, elsewhere the same, another dumping of a Nazi-German atrocity into the category "German-Polish relations" (part of your mass dumping of German wrongdoings into this category).

Critics of your conduct who represent a danger to your agenda are to be character-assassinated as anti-Polish or harbouring Nazi sympathies (which you usually only try to insinuate, managing to evade consequences), also to suggest incorrectly there was any possible justification for your soap-campaign. Piotrus and companions supported you like no other user (resurrecting you again [101]) which is disturbing, chronic, tiresome and telling. Sciurinæ (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look

One guy 71.137.197.97, propably some German nationalist, is permanently vandalising the article Piast dynasty. Could you have an eye on it I dont have the nerve for that guy. Cheers 77.253.64.5 (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wiould appereciate it

Thanks, any help would be great. My English is unfortunately better in speach than in writting so I make many spelling errors. I try to keep balance in my edits in order not to wage wars with serious editors (those can be actually convinced most of the time). But I try to protect sourced data about Polish history which is often vandalized by some (usually the same everywhere) editors, what is sad, mainly from Germany. They actually still like to refer to some prewar German historical "research" which is often even less objective than our sources from 1945-1989.

Right now I would need some sources for the range of Polish language in Lower Silesia in the late XVIII and early XIX century. I remember that I read in "History of Silesia" (written by Wrocławs' professors) that Polish was in that time still a mayor language north of Odra. It was then reduced to the nearby of Syców, Milicz and Namysłów in the early XX century. Unfortunately it was not my book an I don't have it anymore (I don't remember the numbers of the pages) so I can't put that in the text. Best wishes Opole.pl (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Interesting

Yes. Thanks for the link, I will use it in my essays. See also this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antypolish POV on Episcopal Duchy of Warmia

Hi, some user continiuosly vandalises the article about Episcopal Duchy of Warmia by errasing data about its Polish history from 1466 to 1772. This guy is 71.137.197.97. Check his other edits as well they most antypolish POV.Best wishes 77.253.68.65 (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Ken

Feel free to expand. Colchicum (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be a target

of your campaign. Your conduct is being discussed [[102]], I hope you will finally change it for the future. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks fot your help but I'm not certain if it is egzactly the same thing I had in mind. I was thinking about this : Historia Śląska The next tmie I'm in Wrocław I'll go to the Uniwersity Library and check it. I dont want to be accused of providing unsourced data. I wont to correct some POVish, antyPolish edits but in a scientific way. Cheers and thanks again Opole.pl (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC) By the way could you take a look on this and correct my spelling and grammar errors (unfortunately there propably are some). Z góry dziękuję i pozdrawiam.[reply]

Fringe

There is a definition at WP:FRINGE.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude to the Final Solution: The Nazi Program for Deporting Ethnic Poles, 1939-1941

The fate of Polish Jews under the German occupation has been well documented, but not as much is known about the wartime ordeal of non-Jewish Poles. Phillip Rutherford investigates Nazi policies of "ethnic cleansing" to reveal the striking anti-Polish nature of the crusade to Germanize newly occupied territory and to show that these actions were a dress rehearsal for the Holocaust. Rutherford explores the origin and implementation of Nazi resettlement schemes in occupied western Poland, where Germany sought to reclaim territory for its expanding population by booting out the "ethnically inferior" Poles who had lived there for generations. Focusing on the Wartheland region, he examines four major deportation operations carried out between December 1939 and March 1941, including the day-to-day logistics and actions over-seen by the powerful German Central Emigration Office. Drawing on both German archival and Polish-language sources, Rutherford considers a subject often marginalized by historians, but one that underscores the crucial relationship between the Nazis' early anti-Polish actions and their later annihilation of the Jews. He shows in detail when, where, and how the Nazis' operations evolved into a highly efficient "science" of human roundups, expropriated property, and human cargo shipments en masse. Ultimately, the need for forced labor drove the Nazis to deport fewer Poles than they had planned. In light of the unresolved tensions between racial ideology and economic necessity, Rutherford makes a convincing argument that Nazi deportation policy vis-a-vis the Poles underwent a steady deradicalization. He concludes that, while the concept of cumulative radicalization seems tolead inevitably to the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question," it falls short of explaining all Nazi racial policies. Nevertheless, what the Nazis learned about the logistics of deportation at the expense of the non-Jewish population of western Poland was eventually put to horrific use in the mass murder of European Jewry. Without it, it's unlikely that the Holocaust would have proceeded as swiftly as it did. From that perspective, Prelude to the Final Solution provides a chilling portrait of the Nazis' training for genocide.

Germany's Informal Empire in East-Central Europe: German Economic Policy Toward Yugoslavia and Rumania, 1933-1939

Hitler's views on eastward expansion were hardly unique, but the distillation and synthesis of at least 30years of Pan-German propaganda. Both Ludendorff and Seeckt expressed similar views during World War I.

Page 236.

Odilo Globocnik, Hitler's Man in the East: Hitler's man in the East

In many ways, muc h of this SS and civil government work was a continuation-even if far less humanely implemented-of the tradition that Erich von Ludendorff, Hitler's one time friend had begun in Ober Ost Land during 1915-1918

Page 207.

Ideology and International Relations in the Modern World

When Prussia moved to crush a Polish uprising in its province of Posen it won endorsement in Frankfurt by a vote of 342 to 31. In same vein many deputies expressed satisfaction when Austrian forces subdued the rebelious Slavs in Prague

Page 62 and further-describes the everpresent nationalism in German politics regardless of political affiliation and Drang Nach Osten tendencies even among liberal thinkers in Germany.

The Politics of Citizenship in Germany: Ethnicity, Utility and Nationalism

Contains great deal of information regarding racism in Prussia.--Molobo (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination of Jews in Prussia

[103] Unconverted Jews couldn't serve as military officers, schoolteachers,bureaucrats.--Molobo (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To read

Der"volksdeutsche Selbstschutz" in Polen 1939/40 Christian Jansen, Arno Weckbecker Oldenbourg, 1992

Entscheidungen zum"transfer" der Deutschen aus der Tschechoslowakei und aus Polen Detlef Brandes Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, 2005

--Molobo (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted RSed information...

...here. Do not do this, you are not new and should know how to apply WP:NPOV and other policies properly. I responded on [article's talk page]. I again ask you to finally stop altering and deleting sourced information. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I again asked user:Moreschi for his thoughts on his talk. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi is currently unavailable, so I posted my concerns about you here. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Richard Blanke

"A Lesson Forgotten: Minority Protection Under the League of Nations: The Case of the German Minority in Poland, 1920-1934 (Hardcover)" His publications are described as having anti-Polish bias. Author notes that Blanke unwillingly admits that that policies of Polish government were in fact aimed at reversing Germanisation performed by Germany and Prussia.--Molobo (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish civilian losses in '39

We are still missing refs in Polish_September_Campaign#Civilian_losses. Perhaps you could help? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WQA notice

Since you are not willing to withdraw your insults of revisionism/fring/or directed at me [here, I asked for intervention at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Molobo. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish victims of Nazi German repressions

Please help populate this new category. There is also an older Category:Polish victims of Soviet repressions and Category:Victims of Communist repressions in Poland 1939-1989.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick III, German Emperor FAC

Hey, thanks for commenting in the FAC to Frederick III, German Emperor. I've gone over your concerns, and attempted to add a bit more about politics into the article, however if you read it again I'd think you see that most of it is already about his politics. I have searched hard and could not find anything stating his plans towards Poles in Prussia, and since effectively had no reign, he never had any sort of actions towards that effect as well. Perhaps your concerns would be better with his father or Bismarck's article, but nothing happened during Frederick's reign. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a second look at your oppose based on this information, which I think shows it is not exactly grounded in truth with regards to Frederick's article. If you have any questions, please ask. --Banime (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To read

Zimmermann, Kazimierz: Fryderyk Wielki i jego kolonizacya rolna na ziemiach polskich --Molobo (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent book

"Armies of Occupation" Roy Arnold Prete Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press, 1984 Contains information on continuity of German War Aims in First World War to Second World War and discusses the policies of Prussia in that regard to Poles. Also has info on Geiss works.--Molobo (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Page 117 contains info about planned ethnic cleansing of Poles and Jews by German Empire.--Molobo (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Germany criticised by United Nations, call to review its institution by Human Rights comissioner

[104] --Molobo (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To read

Propaganda zagraniczna Niemiec weimarskich wobec Polski Janusz Sobczak --Molobo (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Molobo,

Something you should know about.[[105]] Cheers--Jacurek (talk) 08:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volksdeutsche greeting invading German soldiers in Poland

Bundesarchiv [106] --Molobo (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To read "Transfer of the German population from Poland: legend and reality"

Transfer of the German population from Poland: legend and reality Zachodnia Agencja Prasowa, Zachodnia Agencja Prasowa 1966 --Molobo (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weimar Republic spent between 18 to 26 million marks per annum in 1926-1929 on propaganda actions.

"A lesson forgotten..." Page 25. --Molobo (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poles in Germany 1919-1939.

The Poles in Germany, 1919-1939. Edward D. Wynot Jr. --Molobo (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting gallery

Check out [107].--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pomerania AK archive regarding German genocide and germanization

[108][109] Contact. --Molobo (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How German university students helped their professors and Nazi regime in Generalplan Ost

Lessons and Legacies IV: Reflections on Religion, Justice, Sexuality, and Genocide Peter Hayes, Larry V. Thompson Northwestern University Press, 2003.

Includes quite interesting description of university trips to Ghetto's for German students and their attitude to Jews and Poles.--Molobo (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies that have been adopted are as follows;

Should Alden Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) resume editing Wikipedia, he shall be assigned a volunteer mentor, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.
Alden Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
Boodlesthecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
Greg park avenue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) under any circumstances, except for any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution.
Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
Lokyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
Should Lokyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) under any circumstances, except for any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution.
Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to avoid using his administrator powers or status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent.
Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.
Relata_refero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world disputes, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary. Wikipedia cannot solve any of the national, ethnic, historical, or cultural disputes that exists among the nations and peoples of Eastern Europe or any other real-world conflict. What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated.
Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may best devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious. For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Group X and who finds himself or herself caught up in edit-warring on an article about a recent war between Group X and Group Y, may wish to disengage from that article for a time and instead focus on a different aspect of the history, civilization, and cultural heritage of Group X.
Administrators who utilize the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel (or other IRC channels in which Wikipedia-related matters are discussed) are reminded that while the #admins channel has legitimate purposes, they should bear in mind whenever using it:

(A) That discussing an issue on IRC necessarily excludes those editors who do not use IRC from the discussion (and excludes almost all non-administrators from the discussion if it takes place in #wikipedia-en-admins), and therefore, such IRC discussion is never the equivalent of on-wiki discussion or dispute resolution;

(B) That the practice of off-wiki "block-shopping" is strongly deprecated, and that except where there is an urgent situation and no reasonable administrator could disagree with an immediate block (e.g., ongoing blatant or pagemove vandalism or ongoing serious BLP violations), the appropriate response for an administrator asked on IRC to block an editor is to refer the requester to the appropriate on-wiki noticeboard; and

(C) That even though the relationship between the "wikipedia" IRC channels and Wikipedia remains ambiguous, any incidents of personal attacks or crass behavior in #wikipedia-en-admins are unwelcome and reflect adversely on all users of the channel.

Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will open a general request for comments regarding the arbitration enforcement process, particularly where general sanctions are concerned. Having received such comments, the Committee will consider instituting suitable reforms to the enforcement process.
Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will convene a community discussion for the purpose of developing proposed reforms to the content dispute resolution process.
Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will publish guides to presenting evidence and using the workshop page.

Please see the above link to read the full case.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New AE thread

FYI, I have started a new thread at WP:AE#Molobo concerning your recent comment on my talkpage. --El on ka 19:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours for that. Assuming unnecessary bad faith is not on. Moreschi (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why stating that one doesn't believe an another editor is not neutral should be considered offensive or incivil. Is criticism not allowed per above case and if so in which way.

--Molobo (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry XMAS

"Regarding Bundesarchive captions"

Thanks for the info and Merry Christmas.--Jacurek (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another useful resource

German Scholars and Ethnic Cleansing, 1919-1945: 1919 - 1945 Ingo Haar, Michael Fahlbusch, Georg G. Iggers Berghahn Books, 2005 --Molobo (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Study

The Ideological Origins of Nazi Imperialism‎

Woodruff D. Smith 1986

--Molobo (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War Land on the Eastern Front

Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius presents a study of a hidden legacy of World War I: the experience of German soldiers on the Eastern front and the long-term effects of this encounter. Using hitherto neglected sources from both occupiers and occupied, official documents, propaganda, memoirs, and novels, he reveals how German views of the East changed during total war, and how these views affected the return of German armies under the Nazis. This persuasive and compelling study fills a yawning gap in the literature of the Great War.

Interesting book on neglected in the West topics. --Molobo (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Witness statement of Anders regarding bombing of Polish children by Luftwaffe in 1939

"Widzę, jak lotnik niemiecki kołuje nad gromadą około setki małych dzieci, wyprowadzonych przez nauczycielkę z miasteczka do pobliskiego lasu. Zniża się na 50m, zrzuca bomby, i strzela z karabinu maszynowego. Dzieci rozpryskują sie jak wróble, ale kilkanaście barwnych plam pozostaje na polu. Mam przedsmak tego, jak będzie wojna."*

"Bez ostatniego rozdziału Wspomnienia z lat 1939 - 1946" Władysław Anders, Bellona 2007, str. 26

Rough translation: "I see how German pilot cruises over a group of around hundred little children, led by female teacher to nearby forest. He goes down to around 50 meters, drops the bombs and opens machine gun fire. The children spread like sparrows, but a dozen or so colorfull spots are left on the field. I have a taste of what this war will be."

Valuable quote to add in German atrocities during invasion of Poland-a future article.--Molobo (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet concentration camp

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Polish culture during World War II I was asked, with regards to a source and item you should be more familiar with, whether there were Soviet concentration camps different from gulags. I'd appreciate your input. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:HerkusMonte

You may be interested in [[110]]. Feketekave (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't here from yesterday

[111] Map from interwar Poland showing farthest extent of Polish border in the past.--Molobo (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think and consider

[112] A map from 1948 urging unity against Germany which recently engaged in genocide against Slavs and Jews.--Molobo (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1000 anniversary of Gdańsk existance in 1997

[113] --Molobo (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion required

Your expertise required (Poles in Waffen SS) Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the answer you left on my talk page.--Jacurek (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Purple Star
		I, Piotrus, award you this Purple Star, for having weathered years of criticism and gaining a bogeyman reputation, when in fact you steadily contribute quality content to our articles and don't engage in disruptive actions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus\| talk} 20:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You were mentioned and thanked by Greg in his final remark (I just found about it today by accident). Read his post here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ślężanie

Anon's (mostly) edit war, and I have not a clue who is right.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

14th SS

Hi Molobo, I have another question regarding Poles in the German Army during WW2 here[[114]]. When you get a chance (no rush) can you help answering it on my talk page ? Thanks a lot.--Jacurek (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of interest

Image:Bundesarchiv R 49 Bild-0025, Ausstellung "Planung und Aufbau im Osten", Schautafel.jpg. Can you translate? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsions work

Great, thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German scholars and ethnic cleansing 1919-1945

GERMAN SCHOLARS AND ETHNIC CLEANSING, 1919–1945

Recently, there has been a major shift in the focus of historical research on World War II towards the study of the involvements of scholars and academic institutions in the crimes of the Third Reich. The roots of this involvement go back to the 1920s. At that time right-wing scholars participated in the movement to revise the Versailles Treaty and to create a new German national identity. The contribution of geopolitics to this development is notorious. But there were also the disciplines of history, geography, ethnography, art history, archeology, sociology, and demography that devised a new nationalist ideology and propaganda. Its scholars established an extensive network of personal and institutional contacts. This volume deals with these scholars and their agendas. They provided the Nazi regime with ideas of territorial expansion, colonial exploitation and racist exclusion culminating in the Holocaust. Apart from developing ideas and concepts, scholars also actively worked in the SS and Wehrmacht when Hitler began to implement its criminal policies in World War II.

[115]

Accusations.

You may not care about it but I think you should know about these bold comments and accusations regarding you. [[116]]--Jacurek (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland

Congratulations. Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland has reviewed your contributions and decided you are an active member. Thank you for your encyclopedic contributions! But creating content by yourself is only part of the collaborative Wikipedia user experience, there is an active community of editors discussing how to better improve the Poland-related content; please consider joining our discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland. There are many editors who would like to work more closely with you, benefit from your insight, and help you with their experience! PS. Please also consider editing your entry in our participants list to state your areas of expertise/interest. I have defined your interests there based on our past interactions as the area of "WWII crimes in Poland", feel free to correct it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Thank you.--Molobo (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

During the A-class review of my article, a reasonable request was put: can you provide page numbers for Trela-Mazur (1997) reference that is used there (and in some other articles), and that you added some time ago? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also - mozesz podac pelne dane bibliograficzne do Historia Encyklopedia Szkolna Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne Warszawa 1993 ? bo to jest bardzo nieczytelne i zle wyglada w tekscie. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check this, could use translation.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion

Hello, looking at a previous deletion nomination of File:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG I saw you voted for deletion. I renominated that image; it would be of great help if you'd again list your opposition to it. Thank you.HP1740-B (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust

Thanks so much for taking the time to make that post today--Woogie10w (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC) czesc, I am a bit frustrated here on Wikipedia. Case in point, a user from Germany deleted sourced material on the Nazi Kidnapping of Polish children and people on Wikipedia feel neutral. Why waste my time on Wikipedia, if don't get support from the Polish community?--Woogie10w (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep an eye on the Holocaust article, that German may try to trivialize Nazi crimes in Poland during WW2. He needs to be stopped when he trys a POV push, I believe we must stand up and fight that bully with reliable sources.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My father was with the US forces in the Falaise pocket battle. He said he saw Americans who had been captured by the Germans, their hands bound with wire and executed by a shot in the face, the Germans could not take them in the retreat. He also mentioned that the Germans would hack off the fingers of dead Americans to take the rings from their fingers, he saw one dead German with a cord full of rings on his belt and a freeking (Fk-ing as dad said)hatchet. When the Germans retreated they made sure all the French prostitutes were infected with VD. The Germans left booby traps in the houses in the areas they evacuated. War with the Germans was not nice, but we won.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help!! Please back me up--Woogie10w (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion appreciated

[[117]] [[118]]

AN/I thread

I opened a discussion concerning your behaviour at AN/I: [119]. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

e mail

i just enabled the feature to allow email from others--Woogie10w (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To read

Stanisław Żerko Stosunki polsko-niemieckie 1938-1939 ISBN 83-85003-95-9;ss. 499 --Molobo (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German colonial empire

The German colonial empire article is very biased and POV. It includes nothing almost on the atrocities, brutal exploitation and colonial policies that later were transfered to Europe during WW1 and WW2--Molobo (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as I said on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, this is a topic about which I know little (although I know biased tone when I see it). If you know anything about it, and you can expand on the negative aspects of the GCE, you'll have my full support. BillMasen (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. Feketekave (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Avi (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Czesław Madajczyk

On June 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Czesław Madajczyk, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move of World War II evacuation and expulsion articles

I recently began a centralized discussion for the renaming of population transfer or forced migrations relating to WWII. You have shown interest in the topic in the past so I wanted to bring the discussion at Talk:World_War_II_evacuation_and_expulsion#Requested_move to your attention. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You have been named as one of the parties to this case. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment here

User:Piotrus/ArbCom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Ok. I have not distributed the mailing list or its contents to anybody. I also agree to Durova's check for possible forgery. --Molobo (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]