User talk:MyMoloboaccount

Hello, MyMoloboaccount. You have new messages at OwenBlacker's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, MyMoloboaccount. You have new messages at Virago250's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome Back

Glad too see that you are back, your contributions are appreciated--Woogie10w (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Weber and racism

I suggest we keep this to Talk:Max Weber, where I suggest you repost your comment from my talk page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for the link! Regarding your remark about the work of Polish historians, I'll would like to bring in some work by Polish historians (which are unfortunately not always available in English as much as one might like), so given my linguistic limitations, if you know of any work that has been translated into English that you can recommend, I'll be very interested. Changing the topic, I'll like to discuss with you in confidence for reasons that I will make clear some concerns on my part about some sinister going-ons around here. I'll e-mail you in the next couple of days, if that is Ok. Thank you again, and please have a wonderful day!--A.S. Brown (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Monitor. WikiProject Poland Newsletter: Issue 1 (April 2011)

WikiProject Poland Newsletter • April 2011 For our freedom and yours Welcome to our first issue of WikiProject Poland newsletter, the Monitor (named after the first Polish newspaper). Our Project has been operational since 1 June, 2005, and also serves as the Poland-related Wikipedia notice board. I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions. We hope you will join us in them, if you haven't done so already! Unlike many other WikiProjects, we are quite active; in this year alone about 40 threads have been started on our discussion page, and we do a pretty good job at answering all issues raised. In addition to a lively encyclopedic, Poland-related, English-language discussion forum, we have numerous useful tools that can be of use to you - and that you could help us maintain and develop: we have an active assessment department. As of now, our project has tagged almost 80,000 pages as Poland-related, out of which 1,500 still need a quality assessment, and 20,000, importance assessment. we have also begun B-class quality reviews on our talk page, and if our activity increases, hopefully we will be able to institute our own A-class quality reviews. As of now, we have about 500 C-class articles in need of a B-class review. If you'd like to help with them, instructions for doing B-class reviews are to be found in point 10 of our assessment FAQ. once an article is assessed it will appear in our article alerts and news feed, which provides information on which Poland-related articles are considered for deletion, move, or are undergoing a Good or Featured review. Watchlisting that feed, in addition to watchlisting our project's main page, is a good way to make sure you stay up to date on most Poland-related discussions. you can also see detailed deletion discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland (which is another good place to watchlist!) also, those articles will be included in our cleanup listing, which allows us to see which top-importance articles are in need for attention, and so on newly created Poland-related articles are listed here. They need to be reviewed, often cleaned-up, and its creators may need to be welcomed and invited to our project we are maintaining a Portal:Poland automated Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Popular pages lists the most popular Poland-related pages from the previous month(s) This is not all; on our page you can find a list of useful templates (including userboxes), awards and other tools! With all that said, how about you join our discussions at WT:POLAND? Surely, there must be something you could help others with, or perhaps you are in need of assistance yourself? You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a [member link] at WikiProject Poland. • Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

moving pages

Well, it's you who moved the page without a prior discussion, knowing about the different views about it. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Do you actually understand the different definitions of Pomerania in Poland and Germany? The scholary books on the subject (e.g. Meier) don't use your "original name", but who cares, it's just another hoax on wikipedia. Have a nice day. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

One of your recent edits violates the established policy of doublenaming places sharing a German-Polish history as defined in the well known Gdansk vote.

For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig).

Contrary to these principles you removed the alternative names mentioned in brackets. Please restore the proper names in accordance with the Gdansk vote as

Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism.

Thanks. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No shared history in the section mentioned. Hence no double naming just like in other articles about these locations where we only use Polish names-see 1988 Polish strikes for example where only Polish names are used, since no shared history exists. Or Euro 2012 where no Germanized names are used either. Or Adoptation of Christianity by Mieszko were we also don't use Germanizied versions of Polish names.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As the lead section of Pomerania during the High Middle Ages describes it:

Starting in the High Middle Ages, a large influx of German settlers and the introduction of German law, custom, and Low German language gradually turned most of the area into a German one.

Thus the article obviously covers a period of shared history. Unfortunately you preferred to remove further names in violation of the Gdansk vote [1]. Please don’t continue this behaviour as violations of this policy might be treated as vandalism. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So you are going to remove "Szczecin" from AG Vulcan Stettin, Stoewer etc. as there was nothing Polish about these companies. Your misinterpretation of the Gd. vote is remarkable. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"They had Polish workers", Oh I see. I know someone working for a Polish company in Warsaw, didn't know that's enough to Germanize the respective articles. Seriously, that's absurd. HerkusMonte (talk)

As already explained above the Gdansk vote is absolutely clear about the usage of alternate names in brackets, you might take it to WP:3O. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Heads-up re. Roman numerals

I was reading Talk:Szczecin and noticed your (in my opinion, correct) suggestion that Polish sources be used in an article about a Polish city. However, you mentioned something about "XX century" history. You might not realize that this is not how centuries are described in English. Centuries are always numbered in Arabic numerals or words - "20th century" or "twentieth century", but never "XX century". I've been told by other Polish editors that this quirk isn't mentioned in English courses taught at Polish schools or universities, so it can trip up even the most careful editor.

Roman numerals have very limited uses in the anglosphere. You can't be confident that the average anglophone will even understand a Roman numeral, let alone use one. (These days the only place you see them outside the US is on very old clocks and buildings and in monarchs' names, such as Queen Elizabeth II. In the US you see them in the Super Bowl title and, sometimes, in proper names - but in the latter case they rarely get past III.) Good luck! --NellieBly (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem; English is sometimes very strange. --NellieBly (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Do not delete/refactor other editor's threads on the Administrator's noticeboard. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit at AN/I

I'm not sure what you were trying to do with your edit at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but you deleted large portions of several discussions. I've reverted this edit and restored about 160k of text in the process. —C.Fred (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edit to ANI

Hi, this edit by you wiped a lot of other contributors edits from the page - so I have reverted you. You may wish to re-introduce your edit again. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, when posting to ANI or similar high trafficked pages; when you have composed your comment instead of pressing "Save page" instead highlight your text, save it to your clipboard and press "cancel". Then again hit the edit function and paste your comment into the correct place and then hit "Save page". Hopefully the less elapsed time will mean that you will not create a situation where other editors comments are lost. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Brier

Brier is an expert on Polish-German relations and currently working at the German Historical Institute in Warsaw. The source is published by the University of Munich and very detailed. I don't see a reason not to use it. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Brier finished his studies in 2001 and worked at the Center for International Realtions in Warsaw in 2002-2003.[2] I don't have more detailed informations about him. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I’m sure you know how to deal with sources you consider unreliable, a simple deletion is not the right way. However, WP:RS gives just examples of reliable sources. WP:SOURCES explains it more detailed:

"Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources (...). But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, (...) Other reliable sources include university-level (...) books published by respected publishing houses. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria."

I don’t know about Brier’s academic background at the time when he completed this study and whether it might be considered "scholary" per WP:RS. It is for sure on a university-level and it is published at the Bavarian State Library's and University of Munich’s digital library[3], a highly respected institution. If you disagree you might use the appropriate way to solve the problem. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

On behalf of WikiProject Poland

		The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class
		On behalf of WikiProject Poland, for your your Poland-related contributions, I, Piotrus, award you this Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class. Czołem! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to MyMoloboaccount by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk on 01:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Maji Maji Rebellion

The Maji Maji Rebellion could be a project for you. The loss of life was at least 200k, far more than in Namibia. Don't blame me, my fathers parents were US citizens by then, they had renounced allegiance to the Kaiser.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look on that. The article on German colonial empire also needs expansion in the future.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Juliusz Karol Kunitzer

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Your 1RR violation

Your 1RR restriction is a necessary condition of your permaban being vacated. Today, you violated your 1RR restriction at Oder-Neisse line:

• quote added [4]
• your 1st revert [5]
• quote restored with explanation [6]
• your 2nd revert [7]

Skäpperöd (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but that is only one revert[8]. This was a major edit [9] not revert to a previous state before Herkus edit here[10]- I kept the parts about the speech by James F. Byrnes and information but without excessive quoting. Anyway I self-reverted here for safety[11] but missed the cut and past part. It is now restored. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Per WP:1RR, which applies in your case, it is considered a violation if you revert "actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word."
• Your so-called self-revert [12] did not undo your 2nd revert [13], instead, the material was restored later by someone else [14].
• Another necessary condition of your permaban being vacated is that you address any reverts you may perform on the article's talk page. You have failed to do so with either of the abovementioned reverts. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You might want to correct your claims. I wasn't permabanned Skapperod, but subject to indefinite ban. These two are quite different-something I believe you know as experienced Wiki user. Also Moreschi stated that my condition is that you discuss all reverts you do make on the relevant talk page, not that I have to start discussions on relevant talk page but participate in discussions. Which I do-and for your comfort I started one even. But do AGF-I self reverted to avoid accusations of edit warring, but missed that the copy and paste section didn't click on my lousy mouse(In hindsight I shouldn't correct some minor changes at the same edit), also I think that my extensive explanations of edits are sufficient. But I will ask Moreschi for clarification. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

What "permaban"? The blocking of the previous account because it might have been hacked? Slandering users and insinuating things which are blatantly false only contributes to the battleground atmosphere in this area, not to mention that it's just not nice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Nationalists

Hello, MyMoloboaccount. You have new messages at HerkusMonte's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

June 2011

Please stop your baseless accusations of "manipulating" sources as you did here. As I already suggested at Talk:Zygmunt Wojciechowski#Manipulating sources?, we might discuss whether a summary is complete or needs further details. Your repeated accusations show a battleground mentality and are neither reasonable nor acceptable.

You are currently under editing restrictions as outlined here ("..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")

If you continue to accuse editors of a manipulative usage of sources I will take that as a repeated assumption of bad faith and incivility. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Your recent edit to Masuria violates the well known Gdańsk vote (For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig)) as Masuria and the towns within for sure share a Polish-German history.

The Gdansk vote further continues:

Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism.

Please respect this established community consensus. Thanks. HerkusMonte (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No, in this case MMA's change is correct. G/D vote applies to historical naming and to ledes. Those names don't belong in that section of the Masuria article anymore than they belong here in List of cities and towns in Poland (and please don't try to make any WP:POINTY edits to that article). Quite simply, we use modern names. You can of course use historical German names in the history section. I'm going to revert that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't HK. For instance the articles about województwa in Poland don't have German names inserted, even if Warsaw was part of Germany under Nazis.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Manipulation

Once again I ask you to stop using the term "Manipualtion" whenever you might think a user has left out information you regard as important. The repeated usage of such a term is offensive and violates WP:AGF. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Czech photos

I recall you wrote once that Polish photos were allowed for free use up to a certain year. We all know German WWII photos taken by German photographers can be used. The query here is as to a photo-see:Talk:Reinhard Heydrich (File:The place where Reinhard Heydrich was killed.jpg Nominated for Deletion) taken after the assassination attempt. The photo is up for deletion. Do you know anything about Czech photos and whether they are up for free use, too? I think it should be kept, if it can be done. Kierzek (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

RE

Thanks for tip, I got many sources - Motyka, Kulińska, Poliszczuk, but not much time to do it;( Could you help with translation article pl:Grody Czerwieńskie, first of all section: membership. Cherven Towns is diffrent from Red Ruthenia. Redgards--Paweł5586 (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Your recent edit to Collegium Hosianum violates the well known Gdańsk vote (For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig)) as Masuria and the towns within for sure share a Polish-German history.

The Gdansk vote further continues:

Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism.

Please respect this established community consensus. Thanks. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

An amusing quote

See Georg_von_Vincke. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You were reported on the Administrators' noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You might read the page you are posting to:. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. If you would come here first and discussed it friendly matter, I would gladly correct what were some mistakes on my part, that is wrongly given page numbers in couple of cases. Also the page is not for content disputes.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

AfD of potential interest

Perhaps you could offer some insights at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Ost (East). It is closer to your area of expertise than to mine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Thank you. I expressed my opinion. The author before made very good contributions in other aspects of Wiki, and this seems another one, although requiring a better name.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Nowogard, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Grod (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Molobo, thank you again for all your kind words and interesting ideas. It is nice to see that someone else out there who knows and cares about history. I see no problems at all with the clean war myth template, other the need for some references, and maybe a few stylistic changes here or there. Now, that I seeing the end of working the graveyard shift, and getting back to getting days again, that's a huge backload of things that I need to get caught up with around here. So, there a few other things that I wanted to get caught up, and then I'll make some changes There's all sorts of good sources one one can use for this subject, especially that book The Myth of The Eastern Front, which was the subject of such dispute on the Manstein talk page. The only limitation of that book is that it limited to the image of the Wehrmacht and its supposed "clean war" in the United States. But still it reveals much about how history was re-written and repackaged. Two great book on the subject of the "clean war" myth is Wehrmacht Myth, History Reality by Wolfram Wette and War Of Extermination: The German Military in World War II. In English, Christian Streit, Jürgen Förster, Omer Bartov, Richard J. Evans, Michael Burleigh, Lord Russell of Liverpool, Raul Hilberg, Ian Kershwa and Mark Mazower all strong on the subject. Mazower's book Inside Hitler's Greece has an entire chapter on the subject of Wehrmact crimes in Greece. Evans's book In Hitler's Shadow has an entire chapter devoted to blasting the "clean war" myth, which is somewhat depressing if one remembers that book was published in 1989, and still most people out there still believe in the "clean war". Rarely, has the discount between historians and popular memory been so large. Because of the Cold War, most historians in the West believed in the "clean war" in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, but nobody has believed in it since the 1980s, except at Wikipedia, where it still gets repeated ad nauseum.

The only suggestion that I might want to make is, and this something that I talked to you about in more detail later is to look at the reason why people are receptive to the "clean war" myth. You already hit the hammer upon the nail by noting two very good reasons for it. In Germany, there was and still is the nationalist need for a history that makes us feel good. Beyond that, there was the Cold War, which led and still leads some people to see the Wehrmacht as a "bulwark against Bolshevism" holding back the "Asiatic hordes". I might suggest one more reason for the "clean war" myth, and that is sex. The image of the Wehrmact as super-soldiers appeals to men who for whatever reason feel sexually inadequate and so they live out vivacious fantasies of masculinity and power by embracing the Wehrmact as a symbol of power. Having turned the Wehrmacht into manly heroes to allow them to live out a vivacious fantasy, these guys have no interest in hearing about genocide and war crimes by the Wehrmacht. But that is just a minor point. Thanks again for the kind words and keep up the good work!--A.S. Brown (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

January 2012

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MyMoloboaccount regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:Question

Please stop trolling, I already answered your questions at the talk page[15]. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Blockade of Germany

Hi. Here is a project you may want to include on your "to do list" The Blockade of Germany included the blockade of German occupied Poland. The 1928 German academic report on the blockade Deutschlands Gesundheitsverhältnisse unter dem Einfluss des Weltkrieges did not break out the deaths by region. Over 40 years ago older Germans( 80+) from Danzig and the east told me of the WW1 famine, a diet of apples and turnips!! They claimed Germans in the West were not as bad off as they were in the east. I wonder if the Prussian bureaucrats in Berlin were starving the Poles in order to feed Germany. What do Polish academic sources have to tell us on the WW1 blockade? Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Took your side

here (zap one step back to read the dirt).

[self-irony] I am german, and depending on the rotation of the earth, mostly i am closer to the left than to the right edge of the disk [/self-irony]. On the first view it is too much to analyze, whether you have the propagandistic bias that is criticised. I doubt that your politic of editing in wikipedia, and all of your arguments are always sound, as I doubt that for anybody else, including myself. And therefore, digging deeper, I found some of your arguments scientifically well supported. Therefore they have their own right in Wikipedia. In everyday life, with people in germany and in poland, I notice a tendency, to forget unpleasant historic facts, and to make friendship on the base of embellishing the own past. The opposite is neccessary: friendship on base of unpleasant historic reality. Though it sounds crazy.

There are convincing reasons, to treat nazi comparisons as an „unsubject” in internet communication. Nevertheless, I understand your remarks about bad jokes and propaganda, when you tried to defend yourself. The dilemma is, such comparisons, when you want to speak the truth, and want to communicate about the subject in a way that leads to somewhere, need another level of language to work, than you have used. I believe we share the category, whether someone acts humanfriendly or not. The mobbing propaganda against you is absolutely intolerable not only from this point of view. Best wishes, --fluss (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC) small addition --fluss (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC) I concentrate on content, long time ago I realized that this wiki off topic debates about editors are usually waste of time and lead to nothing productive, so most of the tiem I don't even read it these days..--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Kingdom of Poland (1916–1918), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dąbrowa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Linka's Death

"Lekarze orzekli nie mniej ni więcej tylko raka, nie zważając na ogólne kontuzje, opowiedzieli się za koniecznością operacji. Operacja się odbyła, podobno otwarto jamę brzuszną i zaszyto z powrotem z powodu beznadziejnego stanu. Jakaś życzliwa ręka podała mu bezpośrednio po zabiegu alkohol do picia. Ostatnią wolą umierającego była prośba do żony, aby pochowała go w Olsztynie, gdyż wiedział że w Wawrochach nie spoczywałby w spokoju. Zmarł 29 marca 1920 roku w Olsztynie. Tam również został pochowany i od 1973 roku przy al. Wojska Polskiego ma swój pomnik."

My Polish is rudimental but I think the source says that he died after an unsuccessful cancer surgery. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please quote what you mean. I think the first sentence says he was tortured, not murdered. The source describes that he was sent to a hospital because of his injuries but died of cancer, regardless of the treatment before. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that would contradict the detailed version as quoted above. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, because the cancer was lethal. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"Lekarze orzekli nie mniej ni więcej tylko raka, nie zważając na ogólne kontuzje, opowiedzieli się za koniecznością operacji. Operacja się odbyła, podobno otwarto jamę brzuszną i zaszyto z powrotem z powodu beznadziejnego stanu." HerkusMonte (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that our text apprehension differs that much, but I still think that the source clearly states that he died "regardless of his injuries" because his cancer surgery was unsuccessful. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have asked Tymek for a translation. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering that Tymek is known to be in heavy dispute with me that is a surprising choice Herkus.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda

No, both the German and the Polish side established an immense "public relation" campaign. In political context such a campaign is usually described as "Propaganda" and that headline was established long ago. The violent atmosphere was however a result of such propaganda and that's why it belongs to that section. What I don't think is helpful is to mention only German activities under a topic named "Propaganda" while the Polish campaign is presented as an attempt of Masurians to join Poland. In fact the Polish campaign had only very limited support from within Masuria (though I'm sure we disagree on that). HerkusMonte (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC) P.S. I have to take a break for a while, so I'm not going to answer your questions for some hours.

Mittenheide

You do realise that Turosl is a very small village in the middle of nowhere and a rise from 500 to 1,000 is highly unlikely (and OR to write something like that). Any reader might judge on his own which information is more likely. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing ORish to mention the official number of inhabitants 3 years earlier compared to Partisans claims. It's you who tries to claim an immense rise of populace. However, Good Night HerkusMonte (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please respect Gdańsk vote

Your edits at East Prussian plebiscite violate the Gdańsk vote. In the pre-war timeperiod we use German names (modern Polish names in brackets) Contrary to these rules you added (only) the Polonized versions of the names. Please restore the proper names in accordance with the Gdansk vote.

Also remember that: Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism.

Thanks in advance. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Giżycko, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grod (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Gdańsk vote violation

Your latest edits at Masuria violates the Gdańsk vote. Please restore the proper names in accordance with the Gdansk vote.

Also remember that: Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM

Could you please recognize WP:CLAIM. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please watch your edits.

Please watch your edits, this was unacceptable refactoring of other's comments and damaged the page archive. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• and this Fifelfoo (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• and this Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

lice feeders

I'm trying to finish up this article [16], though I'm a bit short on time. The article itself is mostly about Weigl's institute in Lwow and the lice feeders, like Banach and Herbert, who survived the war by working there. However, the article would be missing a good chunk of relevant info if it didn't talk about OTHER experiments on typhus, as carried out by the Nazis in concentration and death camps. If you know of good sources on the topic, I'd appreciate if you could add some info to it - there's a hidden "Typhus experiments on human subjects in German concentration camps" section that could use expanding. Thanks.VolunteerMarek 09:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello MyMoloboaccount. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) and B-class

This article to which you contributed is almost B-class, but needs a few cite requests addressed. If they aren't, we will have to downgrade it to C-class. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

AE

[17]