User talk:Skäpperöd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Star full.svg
Crystal Clear action bookmark.png
Star max-b.png
Star full.svg
Crystal Clear action bookmark.png
Star max-b.png
Star full.svg
Crystal Clear action bookmark.png
Star max-b.png
Star full.svg
Crystal Clear action bookmark.png
SVG exact five-armed star filled.svg
SVG exact five-armed star filled.svg
Star full.svg
Crystal Clear action bookmark.png
Star max-b.png
Crystal Clear action bookmark.png
Star max-b.png
Star full.svg
Crystal Clear action bookmark.png
Star max-b.png
Star full.svg
Crystal Clear action bookmark.png
Star max-b.png
Star full.svg
Crystal Clear action bookmark.png
Granitzwald Steilufer.JPG Welcome!

DYK for Lutici[edit]

BorgQueen (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Oñate treaty[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


Okay. B-Machine (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help[edit]

Thanks for the quick instructions on how to edit Kruszwica's history section. I was reading that section and immediately recognized it as coming from Lewinski-Corwin's book, because I had literally started reading the book earlier in the day. I felt compelled to create a user account for the sole purpose inquiring on how to give credit to this book, but now that I have it will probably try to contribute here and there where I can.

I saw on your account profile you are from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, and was pleased to see someone is working towards expanding English based pages detailing the region and it's history.

Thanks again.

--MeckPomm (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Treaty of Constantinople (1700)[edit]

RlevseTalk 12:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Treaty of Kiel[edit]

RlevseTalk 18:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Treaties of Cölln and Mewe[edit]

RlevseTalk 00:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutral notification[edit]

As somebody who took part in the previous move discussion, you may be interested in the current move discussion here. Varsovian (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

1938 rename of East Prussian placenames[edit]

Hello Skäpperöd. Somebody suggested that 1938 rename of East Prussian placenames might be a good candidate for WP:DYK, but it's a little short at 1200 characters. Do you think you could expand the article a little bit to bring it to 1500 characters? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I added a short section on parallel renaming in Silesia. Perhaps the scope and title of the article is better changed to be more general than just East Prussia. BTW, the source I added also has information on the subsequent renaming by Polish authorities after the war which could be useful in the parallel article.radek (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Radeksz. It's long enough for DYK now. I suppose you should raise the question of scope and title on the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've nominated 1938 rename of East Prussian placenames, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lancken-Granitz dolmens[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1938 rename of East Prussian placenames[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

good to know[edit]

that Wikipedia already had an article However, when redirecting, can you please remember to carry over inter'wiki links and the like. Radek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radeksz (talkcontribs)

Peace at fifty?[edit]

Dyk50CE.svg The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
Well I look back at your previous DYK entries and notice a fine balance between biographies, wars and treaties. I haven't added them up myself but I'm hoping there are more treaties than wars. On the other hand if there are more wars than treaties then ... could you fix the balance of the scores before you get to 100? More seriously - thanks from me and the wiki. Fifty is a real achievement. Well done. Victuallers (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much - I think I wrote many more articles about treaties, but I haven't counted either. Much appreciated Skäpperöd (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Archaeologists discover Britain's 'oldest house[edit]

This story was posted to the BBC News Website, you may find it of interest

--Woogie10w (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Your harassment[edit]

and clarification

I leave the project. Too much harassment and stalking. I did like to do disambiguation work, fixing lots of wrong incoming links to ambiguous article titles etc. Hope the stalkers can have a nice party now. ADIOS! Schwyz (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Good bye. [1] [2] [3] [4] Skäpperöd (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello again? I do not oppose you coming back and do uncontroversial dab work, but not like that. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A good day[edit]

My compliments for keeping your nerve in a big moving thing today. Good editor. Here is my Written Barnstar. -DePiep (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciated your comments, too. Skäpperöd (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Veste Landskron[edit]

Courcelles 18:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You can set the record straight. Go for it.[edit]

Skapperod you are there, what can you tell us about this surge of Neo-Nazi activity in your backyard?

NDR online is interesting, the world has gotten a lot smaller with the internet

BTW I am giving you an opening to point out that most people in Germany today condemn the Neo-Nazis. Too many people in here in the US believe that the Germans are still Nazis. You can set the record straight. Go for it.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what record am I supposed to set straight??? You were asking about the "surge", and I am glad you moved the comment here because the article talk page is not suitable for that kind of conversation. First, it is not a surge, rather a small, but persistent annoyance. The neo Nazis here are a small, heterogeneous group. Part of them are violent, loud and seemingly disorganized (small local groups not subordinate to any larger association). The degree to which they actually are neo Nazis varies considerably, some are just using Nazi symbols to some extend but are not really involved with the ideology. Others are members of local NPD groups, who atm are trying to avoid violent acts of their members (with limited success) to present a more right-wing-populist and less Nazi-like image. Others are organized in small splinter parties who periodically get banned and altogether are insignificant and unknown. Politicians and NGOs of all coleurs have been trying to ban the NPD for years now, but the Verfassungsschutz had inadvertedly torpedoed the last ban initiative by infiltrating the NPD to such a degree that the case failed when brought before the supreme court (and only the court has the power to ban parties). The occasional rallies of the far right largely do not consist of local neo Nazis, but of participants who travel there from other parts of the state, and even that way they do not achieve significant levels of particpation. These people are usually escorted by the police from the trains or busses they arrive with, the police then herds them through the prepared route which is usually far away from main roads, take anyone into custody who shows any kind of illegal behavior (pretty much everything to do with Nazism is illegal in Germany), and then escorts them back to the train/bus station and disperse the group. The police is really doing a good job on this. That way, such rallies are barely noted and their impact is about zero. Maybe you understand better now why I do not want that these rallies get an attention here that's being successfully denied to them in RL. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
RL?--Woogie10w (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
real life, the wonderful universe outside of the virtual dungeons of wikipedia. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
As Columbo would say Just one more thing Why do you spend so much time in the virtual dungeons of wikipedia? [5]--Woogie10w (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Lost a ring. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I think a guy named Bilbo now has it.radek (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mass suicide in Demmin[edit]

RlevseTalk 06:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Skäpperöd, Thanks for your message. It's nice that we were both correct and incorrect. Best wishes, Ericoides (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Demmin 1945[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to explain the background of the current events in MVP. I now have a better understanding of the political situation there and how it relates to Germany’s tragic past. One observation that I would like to make regarding the You-Tube clips of the marches in Demmin, in my opinion the young people in those public demonstrations may be the target of police surveillance. Based on my knowledge of Germany it could also have a negative impact on their careers.

Thank you again for taking time to answer my postings, wishing you all the best. Regards --Woogie10w (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. The young people are probably not target of surveillance, the ones with the ties - most definetely. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt that they are on Wikipedia also, anybody can edit.

Überwachungsstaat Deutschland [6]

Innenminister Lorenz Caffier setzt Initiative “Wehrhafte Demokratie” fort![7]

--Woogie10w (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Radical ties could also have a negative impact on the careers of young people [8] --[9]

Woogie10w (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what you want to tell me with that - I am aware of the above, but what is the subject you want to talk about? Their impact on wikipedia? From my experience, that is about zero. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
My point is that the article may attract police attention because the issue of May 8th 1945 is a hot potato in MVP (auf deutsch ein heisses Eisen). In my opinion it would be best to point out the NPD exploitation of the issue and the current efforts of the MVP government to combat Neo-Nazi activity in Demmin. --Woogie10w (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
You wrote Their impact on wikipedia? From my experience, that is about zero Nobody saw the Stasi, but you knew they were there.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Meine Meinung war nicht von ungefahr [10]

Deutsch Humor ist die beste [11]

--Woogie10w (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course the police are patrolling the web, it would be a shame if they wouldn't. I also like the haGalil approach though, they are doing a good job.
Re "Deutsch Humor ist die beste" - arguably, not. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I do not know what is going on upstairs. I just play the piano downstairs. [12]--Woogie10w (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Megaliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I just made an edit at Erika Steinbach. You may want to contribute there since you have access to the German media reports on her resignation. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Second Northern War[edit]

Sounds ok. The chapter covers the time when Cossack Hetmanate was allowed to conduct an independent foreign policy trying to secure its brittle sovereignty, while being involved in what could have been an early partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Apparently there was a split in the Polish society at that time with possibly Poland becoming a protestant state. Russia sided with Poland, while it was contradicting the recent treaties with Zaporizhia. The single page that I mentioned is the first of that chapter which covers about three pages. A sort of similar situation situation took place in eastern Poland when the Swedish Karl XII "strolled" through the region. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"strolled" was a good one :) I modified the ref slightly, thanks Skäpperöd (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


I've filed a request for mediation here [13].radek (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

AE request involving you[edit]

I mention you here. Varsovian (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


U forgot to sign this:[14]--Jacurek (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Kantzow[edit]

The historic matrikel of the University of Rostock are online, Kantzow is mentioned here (WS 1525/26). HerkusMonte (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Great, thank you! Skäpperöd (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Kantzow[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Template change[edit]

I have integrated Template:Campaignbox Livonian War into Template:Livonian War treaties and moved the latter to Template:Campaigns and treaties of the Livonian War. Since it's used twice in your userpages, I thought this notice wouldn't go amiss. For the time being, the campaignbox will remain, but I should want it deleted redirected as soon as possible. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Grandiose. I appreciate your efforts to combine the templates, yet I am afraid that this is not going to get consensus. Campaignboxes always had this fixed standartized width and are supposed to fit under the infobox, also (to my dismay) treaties are not usually combined with battles. I guess it would be a good idea to discuss that at some military noticeboard first, since it would become a precedent for combining further campaign and treaty templates for other wars. My feeling though is that the military guys won't like the idea, that's why whenever I created a treaties navbox I only put an unobtrusive bar on the bottom of the corresponding campaign templates, containing the link, hoping nobody would mind that decent bar...
Personally, I think that treaties are likewise and sometimes even more important than battles for the course of a war, and should be included in campaignboxes. But we are talking MOS and MLHIST traditions here, and I don't have much experience with either.
Another unrelated issue: You removed some footnotes here as "unnecessary" - I disagree. It's better to have more footnotes, since people might want to verify a sentence or gather more information about the respective fact, but may only have access to one of the books referenced. Since wikipedia has unlimited amounts of server space, removal is not necessary - if there are too many footnotes piling up behind a sentence, one can combine them into one footnote instead. I'd like to restore the references. Best regards Skäpperöd (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll put it to wider consensus when I get the chance. (Oh, and the footnotes can stay for now, there's no rush.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Livonian War[edit]

"following the double election of Batory's fiancèe Anna Jagiellon and Maximillian II in 1655." Surely not? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Huh, most certainly not. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I changed it already. I am pleased with the way the article has developed, do you still want to bring it up one more level? Iirc you mentioned FAC somewhere... Skäpperöd (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, although there's no rush. (FA-quality demands a level of detail which if one were to pick and chose which bits one ramped up the detail on, you'd end up with an unbalanced article. Best to leave the article feasible after any change.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


I'd appreciate it if you could blank or refactor your ArbCom statement here to remove personal attacks and other unfair accusations. EE battlegrounds will not dissipate till editors apply WP:FORGIVE and stop giving others a reason to think "this guy tried to get me at AN(I)/AE/ARBCOM/etc. and now I have to get back at him, or at least show everybody else how evil he is." Each time editor A criticizes editor B, it becomes that much harder for editor B to keep assuming good faith about editor A. On the other hand, each time editor A stays quiet, avoiding criticizing former opponents, the axe becomes buried deeper, not to mention the times where editors A and B compliment each other or collaborate (and on that lines, I am happy to publicly state that I respect your content contributions and activity in copyright project, I wish you to be more active, and have no wish to see you restricted, even criticized, in any shape or form). Please consider that. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Livonian War - GA[edit]

Symbol support vote.svg

‎As you can see there, Livonian War has been promoted to Good Article status. Personally, I think it's a fair wedge above that, but we shall see. Thanks for all your help. What do you think the next step is? I'd like to see it make FA (it would be my first to have contributed significantly to). As part of WP:MILHIST, we have a viable option of peer review (leaving aside A-Class for the moment) which I think would be a good option. The article's come a long way, and there are times the people doing most of the contributing should step back and think about it. What do you think? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, great that we have brought it to GA. I am certainly open to expanding it more, but I can't help with all the MOS stuff required for FA . Skäpperöd (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Liberated territories[edit]

Something similar is going on in Curzon line and related articles. Greetings, - - Ziegenspeck (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


Please do not use my former account name in your edits. I've changed it for a reason, due to off-wiki harassment, as was my right to do so. Since you in particular were responsible for the spreading of the information which outted myself as well as my family members and friends personal info on Wikipedia, you in particular should be extremely careful about these kinds of statements.

I'm extending this notice as a courtesy, since I notified others. In those cases however there was little question that they were acting in good faith. Don't use the former account name and redact instances where you did so recently. Thanks. Volunteer Marek  20:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

First: The only one who ever posted your alleged real name on-wiki was you. That I once alerted arbcom to a post of yours where you copied part of your inbox on-wiki while proxying for your topic banned EEML-friend Molobo was necessary to record your continuous off-wiki-coordinated tag teaming, and did not involve any outing on my part.
Second, I doubt that you have the right to demand that your former username may not be mentioned anymore: at least with respect to me, you continue the aggressive behaviour and tag teaming that got you in trouble under your former username. That's not a WP:CLEANSTART. If you want a clean start, start clean. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to ignore the personal attacks and false accusations. Basically, I'm asking you this as a courtesy, like I asked others - none of whom had any problem with it. If you don't want to be courteous, that's your choice, but I will regard such behavior in the future as incivil (not to mention completely unnecessary). Volunteer Marek  16:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag pomerania.PNG[edit]

Hello. You have created File:Flag pomerania.PNG, and I want to ask you for source, that this flag was based on. Especially I'm interested in hue (tint) of the blue colour, and proportions. Thank You for answers. JDavid (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there are any "official" tints or proportions, as it is a regional flag, not a state flag. It is however integrated in the Flag of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, where the Pomeranian blue and white is combined with the Mecklenburgian red-yellow-blue, as are the CoAs of Mecklenburg (Ox) and Pomerania (Griffin). I guess the colors and proportions used in that flag are the only official hint you get, although there may be some official layout from the pre-1945 province of Pomerania (which I suppose would be moot now). The flags actually hoisted throughout Pomerania have the whole spectrum from dark to light blue, though the lightest ones are most probably bleached (plenty of wind, salty air and sunshine here). I don't think it matters much what kind of blue is used, as long as it's blue and white, and I am not sure whether there actually is some official body defining the blue tint. At the flag-of-Mecklenburg-Vorpommern article, I found this useful link though. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I just realized you are from Pomerania, too, so I apologize for telling you about the wind and salty air here... Skäpperöd (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes. And page gives us an information that the Mecklenburg-West Pomerania government has made some specification sheet, and I want to find it. But I'm not a German, so it's really difficult for me. I just want to present verifiable information, like legislated, established flag. If it really is. Could you help me? JDavid (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what specification sheet he is referring to either, and since he gave no hint at all, I don't even know where to start searching. It could be an answer to his private request or anything. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Site gives us the sources like those publcations:

  • Hellmuth Hecker, Günter Hoog : Deutsche Flaggen: Sammlung von Vorschriften zum Flaggenrecht Deutschlands und der deutschen Küstenländer. 1978, ISBN 3-7875-2132-1 = ISBN 978-3-7875-2132-6
  • Jürgen Arndt: Wappen und Flaggen des Deutschen Reiches und seiner Bundesstaaten (1871-1918) ISBN 3-921846-81-1 = ISBN 978-3-921846 Parameter error in {{isbn}}: Invalid ISBN.-81-10 , 3 editions (1979 ... 1988)

list of libraries in Germany:
Hecker & Hoog book
Arndt book only Dortmund

I think those books can help to explain everything. Other good thing could be a sending an email to Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Government or email to Landtag Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. JDavid (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I found the specification sheet of the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern government, passed on 17 Dec 1996, enacted in May 1998. The flag of the Pomeranian part of the state is accordingly defined as follows:
  • format 25:15
  • blue: CMYK 100/10/0/0; HKS 48; RAL 5015
  • white
The specification sheet is online:
Note that these specifications are the current ones of the MV government - as far as I am aware, no such detailed specification existed before. This is a link to an 1889 encyclopedic entry simply giving "blue/white" as the Pomeranian colors based on a Prussian cabinet's order of 22 Oct 1882 (bottom right). Skäpperöd (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


(3:5) Flag of the Vorpommern

I have found a high quality specification the same like links above, but it's PDF file with vector images. So I tried to find an accurate colour from specification, and it was a big problem because:

  •   CMYK 100/10/0/0 -- very very light blue colour
  •   HKS 48 -- little dark blue colour
    (from Corel Draw X3)
  •   RAL 5015 -- dark blue colour
    (from 1st source 2nd source)
  •   RAL 5015 -- dark blue colour
    (from RAL gemeinnützige GmbH)

Because there are such many colour interpretations and none of them is not simmilar with Hellblau (lightblue colour) I have taken colour directly from "Ein Land - ein Bild" PDF file (with vector files)

  •   lightblue RGB 0/168/223 -- Hellblau

But do you have an access to Act Decision on 17 Dec 1996, or Act Law from May 1998? JDavid (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the differing colors is impossible to solve sufficiently because of the differing output devices:
  • CMYK is not the actual color, but a command to mix ink in cartriges - what color you actually get depends on the medium (kind of paper, kind of clothes) you print on or your type of monitor and its settings.
  • In contrast, HKS and RAL are defined color standards, but to actually view them you have to get (buy) samples from the respective institutions/enterprises. And even if you get your monitor to show a color matching HKS 48 or RAL 5015, other monitors won't display them alike except if they are 100% identical with yours in model, condition and settings (impossible).
The solution is, in my view, to lower our standards in a way that we are satisfied with a color somewhat approaching, not matching, HKS 48 and/or RAL5015. You already did a very good job on this with the flag shown above. I fail to see how you would achieve an even better result. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
(2:3) Flag of the Provinz Pommern
Thank You :) I also wondered about File:Provinz Pommern flag.svg. I thought that I would have found a good colour. But every source of good colour is mistaken. For example Marcus Schmöger from FOTW used just CMYK colours from Vorpommern flag specifications, and also had thought that colour was wrong, so he changed him as for his original research. Colour is so also very bright, and not equal with computer screen CMYK. Current colour of this flag is just my mistake, but I think it is compromise between File:Vorpommern flag.svg and FOTW version. Probably the best verifiable result could be blue colour from Jürgen Arndt's (and Hugo Strohl) book. Anyway I made everything that I can. :) JDavid (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC) PS. I think File:Flag pomerania.PNG could be tagged with {{db-f8}} or another.

To Skäpperöd[edit]

Dearest, just would like to express my appreciation and adoration to you after reading many discussion about Pommern. You have many supporters between members of academia and between old pommeranians as well. I wish you good luck and lots of love, S v. Pommern

Thank you. My grandparents had a Tarnow poem at the wall reading
Mötst di nich argern, hett keinen Wiert,
Mötst di blot wunnern wat all passiert.
Mötst ümmer denken de Lüd sünd nich klook,
Jeder hett Grappen, du hest se ok.
Mötst di nich argern, Hett keinen Sinn,
Ward di blot schaden un bringt di nix in,
Ward an di fräten as Qualm un Rook.
Is't nahst vergäten, büst grad so klook.
Mötst di nich argern is Unrecht di dahn,
Haug mal up'n Disch - un glieck is't vergahn.
Kort is dien Leben un lang' büst du dod,
Minsch, blot nich argern, ne, lachen deit good!
Skäpperöd (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Vielen Dank, it is absolutely beautiful! I shall show it to my relatives and we could enjoy it together. I would like to register me with wiki and would be delighted to be in contact with you and possibly to contribute some materials which we constantly discover in old books (most of my interest is of course Pommern) (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC) S. v. Pommern

You are welcome to register. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Stralsund Hauptbahnhof[edit]

Thanks for edits. Nice to know that somebody reads my translations.--Grahame (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. I admire people who write articles knowing that most readers will be maintenance bots, but write them anyway for the sake of freedom and accessibility of information. I admit that I wrote several such articles myself... Skäpperöd (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Kroczyhski Hieronim doesn't exist[edit]

Please correct your error.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The "h"-typo was corrected to proper "ń" long before you posted here. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


Catalogue Regional Library of Mecklenburg Vorpommern

Title: Der Feldzug in Polen

Author: Lettow-Vorbeck, Oscar von *1839-1904*

Published: Berlin : Mittler, 1893

Extent: XV, 209 S. : Ill., zahlr. Kt. + 2 Beil.

Collective title: Der Krieg von 1806 und 1807 / bearb. von Oscar von Lettow-Vorbeck ; Bd. 3

--Woogie10w (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


Wow, it is very very pretty. Thank you! :) Renata (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, the stars are well-deserved. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Siege of Kolberg (1807)[edit]

I sincerely raplied in some detail to 3o requests at Talk:Siege of Kolberg (1807) and I hope this helps alleviate some of the controversy there. I see you have some history of disputes with the editor Volunteer Marek. Perhaps you see him/her as excessively advancing a Polish agenda or of other bad-faith practices, but, really, there is not much in this particular article that is worth a controversy of any kind. Picture sizes and caption details of what to most people are obscure figures from the Naploenoic War seems like only minor details when you probably have a lot more new information to contribute to Wikipedia which isn't covered elsewhere. I am happy to reduce the discontent and lessen disputes if you let me, but I also invite you to consider how much your time is worth and how little this dispute in this article means to 99.9% of Wikipedia readers, or how little these disputes play into the overall message of the article. You have a lot of ability and interest in relevant subjects, it seems something of a detour to me when I see you are worried over a 75 versus 90 picture size of tertiary figures in history. Thanks for your many efforts in this article and to Wikipedia generally, I'll be happy to stay involved here as long as my appearance is valued. Leidseplein (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Siege of Kolberg (1807)[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It was also featured on Portal:Germany, archived. If you have more DYK related to Germany, feel free to place it there yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


I'm afraid due to real life I'll have to stay away from Wikipedia for a few days. Bad timing I know, but the FA looks like it'll be waiting for my return. You could ask for help from others if you want to get as much done as possible in the next few days. Copyeditor maybe? Thanks. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I see what I can do, FA will probably take some time anyway. Enjoy your break. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'm back. Do you want to continue with the FA or withdraw it, work on it a bit, then maybe go via A class review? That's what I was thinking, but if you wish to persevere, so will I. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 07:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
That was a short break...
It's your nom, so you decide. I think it was a bit too early, but on the other hand, that is what I thought about the GA nom, too, and it worked out.
I would not withdraw now, but address the valuable input of Nikkimaria, Renata3 and Dank (the EEML comments don't need to bother you). Renata3 has already said she is going to fix some issues, and she is good at that. I will pay attention too atp, and as I see it, most of the issues are manageable. What none of the commentators monitored so far, but what I regard the main issue with the article, is that the lead is not an accurate summary/introduction and should be rewritten by a native English speaker. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I am a native English speaker! Seriously, though, perhaps it needs work but I can't do as it is it stands as my work. I'm going to withdraw the, primarily because I can't see it passing even if we account for all the points, it has too much baggage. The list of things needing improvement is helpful - at my talk, Dank suggested I/we take it to A class review, which might be helpful in determining those things which are actually required. The problem with a slightly-off but almost FAC is that when people find actual faults, it encourages them to throw in their personal preferences as well. I'll make sure the withdrawal goes through first though. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok then, but before you take it somewhere else or put it up for FA again I'd suggest that we wait some time and address everything pointed out at FAR first, without a hurry, and I hope that Renata3 will nevertheless go over the article, too. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Yup, I'm working on it. Might take some time to get the sources through. Essentially I'll try to trime the FAR points to a manageable level before getting further input. It is mostly the suggestions of incompleteness and/or inaccuracy I'm most worried about, so I'll need to find the sources again to cover my back. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you possibly replace the Journal of Central European Affairs ref with what you make of this (and potentially the next page). With my OK level of German, it looks to say the same thing, but I think it would be helped as a reference if it was done by an actual German speaker. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll have a look... Skäpperöd (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I added it as a ref for the sale, because everything about that is in there; it lacks however the part about the recognition by the PLC. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In this edit a while back you introduce "Stone (1991)", is that the same book as "Stone (2001)"? AN oversight on your part, perhaps, or is something else going on? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sture Murders[edit]

Orlady (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

History of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth[edit]

Great work. There are however large parts that still need references, are you going to add them as soon as you are finished? If you are writing from memory or from a university course script, I could help you out with adding refs. I noted you are currently working on the Swedish war, I could add refs to that from RI Frost and P Englund - if you want me to, just drop me a note as soon as you are done with that chapter. If you are going to add refs by yourself, nevermind. Best Skäpperöd (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The History of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569-1648 and 1648-1764) articles are finished, if there are references or other things that you'd like to add, that would be great. Orczar (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I found no paragraph left unsourced. Great work, and fun to read. The series is good, there is only gnomish work left. Again, great job! Skäpperöd (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The following is a closed debate. Please do not modify it.
It went to ANI and died [15] [16]


Third opinion is used only in discussions between two editors. Since more than two editors are involved in discussion I have removed your request per instructions issued on the start of the page.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Molobo, 3O is for neutral, outside input. You are not neutral, outside input. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
A neutral input when two editors are in disagreement. The discussion here is between more than two editors and thus third opinion procedure doesn't apply in this case. Also I didn't agree with everything Volunteer Marek wrote(I suggest that you use the proper name of the editor rather than continue what may violate outying policy).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Radeksz is the former username of Volunteer Marek. Please explain how mentioning that "may violate outying policy", or redact your accusation at once. Outing is a very serious offence, and you are not supposed to throw accusations like that on people without substantiating that claim. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I informed the interested party of your behaviour and it is up to him to pursue this further if he feels need to. I don't see any need to further discuss this, since you are exploiting it to continue the problematic behaviour. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You accused me of outing. I asked and still ask you to substantiate or redact that. If I refer to the EEML case, a I did in the diffs above, I need to refer to Volunteer Marek by his old username Radeksz, simply because there is no Volunteer Marek in the evidence, findings or remedies, even though it is the same, renamed account. User:Radeksz redirects to the new username anyways, and it has to, since the name change occured while he was restricted (and still is) and those name changes are only possible within close limits. Radeksz did not opt for a clean start, he did a simple, open username change. It is nowhere close to WP:OUTING, i.e. posting personal information on-wiki, to point that out. If Volunteer Marek wants the new name used for all instances of his editing history, he has to make sure that the old username is manually replaced by the new one in cases where this is not done automatically, per Wikipedia:Username policy#Changing your username. So I again ask you to redact your outing allegation. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
From WP:OUTING: It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. . It doesn't say anything about a "clean start". Your excuse, that you link to my old username simply because you make a reference to the ArbCom case is unconvincing - you can't just throw in a link to an old arbcom case every time you feel like outing somebody and then argue that that makes it ok. You are using my old username in a completely unrelated, irrelevant context. It's harassment, plan and simple, particularly since I asked you explicitly not to use my old username, and particularly since you contributed to originally spreading my personal private information on Wikipedia. I'm gonna give you a chance to redact. Please take that opportunity.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Unrelated, irrelevant context? You were found guilty of tag teaming and off-line coordination with Molobo on multiple occasions, as evident from the EEML case - this certainly disqualifies Molobo to provide a 3O pretending to be a neutral party. You are listed in the EEML case as user:Radeksz, and accordingly it is this username that needs to be used if your account is being linked to that case. The quote you provided from the outing policy does only apply to users "whose old identifying marks can still be found", which is not the case here: your post, where you yourself posted private information (incidentally, while proxying for the very Molobo account now providing a neutral "3O" in your support), is oversighted.
Comments like "every time you feel like outing somebody" are way out of line. I have never outed anybody. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
So you're not going to redact? (And Molobo was obviously not "pretending to be a neutral party" so stop making false accusations. He was merely pointing out that the appropriate DR process in this case was an RfC rather than a 3O. Again, of course you know this.) You are outing me now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not outing anybody, and take serious offense in your respective claim. Re "Molobo was obviously not 'pretending to be a neutral party'" and did not provide "a 3O": Molobo said verbatim "third opinion provided", and 3Os need to be given by neutral users only per the 3O requirements spelled out on that very page, and I am sure that this is known to him. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not outing anybody - yes you are. I've given you the chance to remove my personal name from your edits and so far you have been intransigent about it. Your continuing belligerent refusal to deal with this politely and adult-like is a form of harassment or at best is indicative of your battleground mentality. Please redact it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I have not mentioned your personal name, I have mentioned your former username, there is a huge difference between these two things. Your other remarks just escalate this non-issue even more, and they reflect more on you than on me. If you want your new username applied thouroughly to all your wiki-history, get it applied accordingly. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
3o is only for disputes between two editors, and the dispute on the discussion page is between several editors. I mentioned this in my message. I have now clarified this removal since you didn't understood this. Further options remain for you: "Perhaps you should try WP:Requests for Comment or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options."--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
You said verbatim "third opinion provided, the discussion is now between more than two editors". You were not entitled to provide a 3O as you are not neutral, as evident from your long history of tag teaming with one of the disputants in part recorded at WP:EEML. You were not entitled to remove a 3O request when it is this your very "3O" that makes it a discussion "now between more than two editors" (your words, emphasis added). Don't say now that I "didn't understood this", I am a literate person. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Also 3o is quite clear: For more complex disputes that involve more than two editors, or that cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, editors should follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process. I suggest that you do read the pages where you edit more closely in the future. Cheers. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You also forgot that I made comments regarding the current heavy biased history section way earlier[19] Cheers. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The linked comment of yours is to another section, not discussing the lead proposals. The section I asked a 3O in was not edited by you when I asked for the 3O, diffs are above. Why do you stand in the way of getting neutral, outside input? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes you started another section after my comment, that doesn't mean I didn't previously contest your problematic editing, and your When did you stop beating your wife? question is hardly constructive. You are dealing with 3o which is used to solve issues between two users, not several, and your have been debated for a considerable time on discussion page by- again-several users. Starting a new section right after a comment by another user and demanding 3o right away before others involved in the article managed to comment, seems hardly constructive too, come to think of it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Even if all your unsubstantiated claims were correct, which I refute, the question remains why you, by posting a "3O" despite being a non-neutral user, prevented a genuine neutreal user from doing so. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
You really should stop using the tactic of asking me if stopped beating my wife Skapperod. The point that this is not a dispute between two editors is quite obvious as is the fact that 3o is not for dispute resolution of several editors but for only two. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I wanted a 3O, and all I got is this section. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why you changed a quote from "An historical geography of Europe, 450 B.C.-A.D.1330" and inserted non-existing text within it[edit]

In this edit[20] you changed a quote from An historical geography of Europe, 450 B.C.-A.D.1330 by Norman John Greville Pounds, Cambridge University Press 1973,page 241 The original quote was(and can be confirmed by google books search):

  • "By 1121 Polish armies had penetrated its forests, captured its chief city of Szczecin"

Your edit changed the quote into:

  • "By 1121 Polish armies had penetrated its forests, captured its chief city of Stettin"

Introducing the germanised name of the city which is not named by germanised version in the source text.

I would like to know why you did this? Were any other quotes or text in Wiki articles you edited changed in similar way deviating from original form? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Per the Gdansk vote, Stettin is used prior to 1945, Szczecin thereafter. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No, per Gdansk vote, Stettin is used between 1308 and 1945. You know this. Why are you saying something which is obviously untrue?Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing in the Gdansk vote saying "Stettin is used between 1308 and 1945." It would not make sense either as 1308 has no meaning to this place. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes there is, as has already been pointed out to you numerous times, yet you're pretending otherwise with a IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Specifically here [21] and here [22]. What this means is that the same rules which apply to Gdansk/Danzig specifically apply to general locations with shared Polish/German history. Yes, 1308 might not make sense for every single one of these but a date's got to be picked and this was it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Stop using that insinuating language. The diffs you provided do not support your claim that "Stettin is used between 1308 and 1945":
  • first diff ([23]) deals with Gdansk/Danzig prior to 1308, not with Szczecin/Stettin
  • second diff ([24]) refers to Szczecin/Stettin, but not with regard to 1308: "The naming of many places in the region that share a history between Germany and Poland are also a source of edit wars. For these places, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin)."
Your claims thus remain unsubstantiated. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a direct quote from the book, not Wikipedia content typed by an editor. Did you use Gdańsk vote to manipulate other quotes on Wiki and changed content of other quoted sources to push forward germanised version of city names, even when the sources quotes used other names? I am not asking about Wiki text typed by editors. I am asking if you manipulated other quotes in the same way you did here to show they use germanised names rather then their actual content.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you refused to answer if you manipulated other scholarly quotes on Wikipedia and confirmed that you manipulated the quote on purpose I have picked up this issue on Admin board.[25] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The exact words of quotations should never be changed. Even spelling mistakes should not be altered. One can add (sic) in brackets after an apparent error or oddity, but that's all. I don't think that would be appropriate in this case. Paul B (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I also see that in the same edit you changed wikilinks and google books links. As a result the links were broken. Please be more careful in future. Paul B (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)



Skäpperöd, from now on please refer to Volunteer Marek on-wiki only by his current username. This appears to be a reasonable request on his part given the history and circumstances. Please see the ANI thread for more comments. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


Greetings! First, I wish to congratulate you excellent contributions of yours! As I assume that You are Swedish (as I live myself in Stockholm), it would be interesting to see more of your contributions in subjects like Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This because I know that in Swedish books, there is another focus on things and situations are described in other way than in many polish publications.
It is naturally that each country write own history from own point of view. I see in this great value to add so it can broaden the articles and raise questions. I have been though many books that I found In Kungliga Bilbioteket in Stockholm where you find every cent spend on the war noted :) By such contribution, we can read story from at least two sides. The more different opinions, the closer to the truth that is impossible to find. Same with German publications if you have access to those.
I can for example tell that in polish publications you generally feel positive opinion about the Jagiellon dynasty in Poland. This view is not confirmed by German or Hungarian sources. In Hungarian sources, the Jagiellons are described more like a catastrophe, also in German publication the notes for this dynasty are very low. Maybe except Jogaila, the first king in Poland of that dynasty that is noted as fair - not bad but nothing exceptional, more like "average ruler". In such way, you can contribute with changing some stereotypes.
It would be interesting to exchange some thought with you on this matter. By the way, did you read Stackelberg's report of Poland during the time of Poniatowski, the last King of Poland? Ok, enough writing, let's celebrate the National Day of Sweden! :)Camdan 12:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hej hej, thank you for your friendly note! From my expierence, nowadays the scholars' perspectives do not depend that much on the scholar's national background, but only on personal assessment. The work groups on a given topic and the scholars' curricula vitae are pretty international, as is the distribution of archives. I won't disclose my nationality here either I am sorry to admit that I have not read Stackelberg. Best regards Skäpperöd (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Åbo Bloodbath[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Arvid Stålarm the Younger[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Treaty of Mozhaysk[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Dominium maris baltici[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

New SPI case[edit]

The originators of the three sections just above this one are now the subject of an SPI investigation located at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Magicwith121221. I have chosen to not remove their attack comments for this reason. If they are removed, please also remove this section. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I didn't see this until after I removed another one of those disgusting attacks, below. Skapperod can restore if they like. Skapperod, would you like for this page to be semi-protected per WP:UPROT? Drmies (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I want them deleted once they are not needed as evidence anymore. I guess sysops can access revdel'd diffs, but I am not sure. If that is the case, you can revdel them right now. Thank you very much. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes they can. Take care, Drmies (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Treaties of Roskilde (1568)[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

appreciation to S[edit]

Great contributions, a feeling of hope in our unusual to you soon, S L v P — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Treaty of Arnswalde[edit]

Hello Skäpperöd, I found now that on 31 July the article Treaty of Arnswalde was shifted to Treaty of Choszczno with the argument that in the case of the Danzig/Gdansk question the vote had come out in favour of Gdansk. But this is a quite different matter. At the time of the treaty the place certainly was called Arnswalde, not Choszczno. Does there exist general consense for this rather strange modification? Regards, - - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


Good to see you back again. Please continue your marvellous contributions to wikipedia. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Choszczno, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ina (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) 11:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Your information can't be found in the book you use as source[edit]

Based on Polish research up to 1998 Boockmann gives a number close to a hundred dead Try as I might, I can't find anything about research in Poland up to 1998 in the source you gave. Where is it? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thirteen Years' War (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) 10:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Funnelbeaker culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bug (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) 11:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

IBAN authorship[edit]

Your comment at WP:AE is clearly incorrect. Please see my explanation here [27] and strike your erroneous comment.VolunteerMarek 07:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) and B-class[edit]

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)

Refactor request[edit]

Please refactor your comment about me at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Volunteer_Marek_and_MyMoloboaccount. I consider it highly offensive. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I commented on you? The request is on VM and Molobo. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • As you have identified the main offending comment on my talk, I consider the above question moot. Moving on. First, the ArbCom never identified me or anyone as a leader, ringleader, or such, so your assertion to the contrary is a false accusation. Second, you have no right to demand information about anything related to my off wiki life, and considering the harassment I was subject to during and in the aftermath of EEML, including viscous outing attack pages (if you are not aware of them, ArbCom is), I don't feel like discussing anything related to the said off wiki life on Wikipedia. In the spirit of good faith and collaboration, I will give you my word that from the very beginning of the EEML case, the mailing list ceased to be used for any purposes which were (or could be) the subject of the ArbCom criticism. Now, unless you can present any evidence that would demonstrate EEML continued engagement in any form of disruptive on-wiki activities, I ask that you refactor your AE statement(s) to account for that lack of proof. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I would be a lot happier if you had just told me that the EEML is gone for good, but well. You have to consider also the harassment of my person by the EEML and the role you played in that. With tons of AGF, I have removed you from my statement. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Refactor please[edit]

Per this injunction by Newyorkbrad [28] please remove any mentions of my former username accordingly.VolunteerMarek 20:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No. NYB's comment was neither an injunction, nor is that really an issue anymore since you openly declared your former username as recently as 26 Jun 2012. See [29]. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not about "me declaring my former username" (it's no secret). It's about you using my former username as an intimidation tactic. Newyorkbrad's precise wording was "Skäpperöd, from now on please refer to Volunteer Marek on-wiki only by his current username. This appears to be a reasonable request on his part given the history and circumstances." The part about "given the circumstances" is referring to the fact that you spread my personal details around Wikipedia. Look, it's simple. You were explicitly asked not to use my former username. You were explicitly asked, by an arbitrator to only refer to me by my current name. There was no "unless VM mentions it somewhere" clause in there. Your refusal bespeaks of your entrenched battleground mentality and the personal vendetta you have against me (which is why you were asked this in the first place).VolunteerMarek 08:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for enforcement - Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount[edit]


I noticed that you opened a request for enforcement against Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount. I'm not an expert regarding all these Wiki dispute resolutions, but I've seen that you complained about several of Volunteer Mareks references which do not support the sentences referenced. Maybe it's interesting for you to know that I experienced exactly the same with MyMoloboaccount. I listed all differences on the talk page here. Maybe it helps you somehow. Karasek (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited The plague during the Great Northern War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Björneborg (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) 04:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


Hello, recently I've made some edits in the article Pomerelia. I've noticed that the history of Pomerania is your favorite topic, but does it include the history of Gdańsk Pomerania as well? If so I would be glad if you, for the old times sake, had a look at my recent edits and perhaps add some things that I did not mention. The article was, at the start, written very poorly and there were parts written in a manner of some 19th century German historians, who tried to justify German presence in the east in every possible way. This was very similar to methods used by some Polish historians, who had no doubt about 100% Polishness of the whole of the Recovered territories after 1945. :)

I used reliable sources and took some parts from other sourced Wikipedia articles. But I do not possess a detailed history of Gdańska Pomerania and me basing mostly on Andrzej Chwalba's History of Poland may not be enough. It has however some interesting details that may interest you. His research led him to a conclusion that Gdańsk Pomerania was reconquered by Poland in 1116 and not as it was previously thought, in 1119 (p.45) He also puts the conquest of Szczecin and Wolin Pomerania into 1119 (earlier scholars usually agreed on 1121-1123) (p. 45).

Hope to hear from you soon. Best wishes (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you again! I see you used Chwalba, but I think you got the title wrong (it should be Kalendarium dziejów Polski and , not historii, and was Chwalba really the author or just the one who lent his name to the edition, redakcja naukowa is ambiguous in this respect ;)
Concerning the dates, overview works often don't give the primary sources for their findings, but in the case of Boleslaw's campaign in Pomerania there is eg Gallus Anonymus, who describes (and exaggerates, it is a work written as praise) the events until 1113; then there is a Polish chronicle extending to 1119 that is unfortunately lost, but fortunately in part copied to the annals of the Holy Cross and Cracow; the first one is called either Annales Cracovienses vetusti or Rocznik Swietokrzyski dawny or Rocznik Dawny (depends on edition, either in MGH or MPH), the second one is, at least in the MPH edition I linked, called Rocznik kapitulny krakowski.
Now both of these annales contain the information from the lost annals up to 1119, and that last entry for 1119 is a campaign into Pomerania. The Holy Cross annals, but not the Cracow Chapter annals have another entry for 1122 reading Zuetopolc dux Odrensis interfectus est, and the question is what historians make of that. The mainstream is that 1119 was the start of the campaign, and 1122 the end, because the 1122 can be cross-referenced with the Vitae Ottonis written on the basis of written and eyewitness accounts from the 1124-1128 missions of Otto from Bamberg, and they talk eg about the sack of Stettin in the winter and of the battles having taken place three years prior to Otto's arrival, so the conquest of the Oder mouth in the winter of 1121/22 sounds reasonable; also, Boleslaw paid the tribute for Pomerania to the emperor for 12 years in 1135 (and 1116 for Pomerelia and 1121/2 for Pomerania is indeed what you will find in almost any book about this topic).
What I found problematic on a first glance was the sentence "1123 Polish rule reaches the island of Rugia" - this is pure speculation. It derives from a very very bold interpretation of one sentence in the Traski annals, reading for 1123 Boleslaus tercius mare transivit et castra obtinuit, which can mean any waterbody and any castrum, and there are a variety of interpretations reaching from traveling to Denmark to crusading in the Holy Land (see eg here, but there are even more theories afaik), so I'd like to remove that sentence. Also, there were several disputes concerning Pomerelia in the 13th century that are missing (eg Denmark, Wratislaw vs Mestwin, Brandenburg), but I won't have time to really get into that now, perhaps in a week or so. And I don't right now know exactly what literature there is that can be used - the kalendarium you used is a good start, but may be weak when it comes to details which are important for regional, but not for Polish history.
I will not be online over the weekend, and probably not or only sporadicly thereafter, but maybe the information above already helps you, and I am looking forward to work with you on that (or something else) as soon as I have more time. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes It's "Kalendarium". I didn't want to get into translation of this title but I can try. It's something like "chronicle of history of Poland". "Dzieje" basicly means "history". :) Chwalaba gives his name, and the one who's in charge of the Medieval period is prof. Krzysztof Stopka - Medieval historian and the current director of the Jagiellonian University Museum. He have most likely taken into account all those Medieval documents that are stored in Kraków - the town where he works (on page 46 he actually writes about Rocznik dawny previously known as Rocznik świętokrzyski dawny). At lest the second date is noncontroversial. When it comes to the other one we can write about these two options. Stopka writes that trdaitionally, historians thought that this campaign started in 1121 but in his opinion it's 1119. He must have done some extra research, because noone would say such a thing lightly. :) The case of Rugia and, as Stopka calls it, the northern byoder (zaodrze) - territories west of Odra - can also be described as possible but not deffinitive. Besides there is nothing there about anexing Rugia but just reaching the island. If I wrote that there was a Polish rule over Rugia then that is an honest mistake and I will alter it at once. :)

When it comes to Danemark and Brandenburg claims that's something I left for you. There was little when I started (I added some but not as much as about Poland) but I have nothing detailed about it, because my sources concentrate on the Polish influences there. I trust you have something that tells more about Danes and Brandenburgians. Contact me on my talk page when you are avaliable (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The plague during the Great Northern War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luzin (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) 11:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Your request at WP:AE needs participation[edit]

Your AE request is no longer getting much participation, and it seems possible that it may be closed with no action, or with just a warning to some of the parties. The aspect that concerns me is how to ensure that progress can be made at articles such as Königsberg. With this in mind I proposed a negotiated agreement on 24 August. (See WP:AE#Statement by EdJohnston). The parties who would need to negotiate are yourself, Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent comment in the AE. It appears to me that your complaint could have a germ of a real issue, but the discussion is unlikely to converge on any vigorous admin action. There is an underlying problem with the correct editing of the Baltic articles according to WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS. The information you supplied in the complaint is not focused well enough on this problem for admins to do much with it. Both sides of the dispute have bitterly complained about the conduct of the other side. I would strike out most of these complaints, if I had free reign to edit the request. I would also want to see details of the edit history at Königsberg and the other articles, showing that VM and MyMoloboAccount have actually prevented progress. (There appears to be a lack of regular dispute resolution about these articles, a thing which ought to take place prior to AE. It would make a difference if you could show that you yourself were interested in dispute resolution but the others would not participate). Unless Seraphimblade has some time to investigate this AE in the near future, I suspect it will be closed with no admin action. I have some ideas of how the participants can go forward which I would put in the closure. Of course this is subject to commentary by other admins if they want to express an opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I have not focussed my report on NPOV since (a) I would have expected the usual "content dispute, no admin action required," and (b) what bothered me much more than that was that I received a shithead mail per wikipedia, and the behavior that followed by the sender and the other person named in the mail, both of whom have a history of harrassing me. I would have thought that this is not going to be tolerated, and I am disappointed that it seemingly is. If you think that the evidence provided is not sufficient to force them to disengage from me, and don't want the case to drag on eternally (me neither!), I at least want a close that reflects the issues raised, i.e.

That is the minimum I'd expect to be noted in the closing comment as unacceptable, whatever admin action follows or not. I think these are clear-cut issues without much room for interpretation. In addition, I had liked to see the various accusations against me dropped after evaluation by the admins, but this will take more time and I don't see atm that this is going to happen.

What do you think? Skäpperöd (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your AE complaint is being archived until such time as User:Volunteer Marek returns to editing. In my opinion, you should be able to resume editing articles on Baltic places such as Königsberg so long as you make reasonable efforts to find consensus. If VM is not active there he will not be an obstacle to your work. User:MyMoloboaccount is not currently active either; he has been away from Wikipedia since August 6. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Great Northern War plague outbreak[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)



I was studying some old maps of my hometown - Opole - and I found a name of one district "Kandzioras Vro.". The name Kandzioras is a germanized form of a surname Kędziora (the guy still lives nearby). The abbreviation Vro. stands for "Vorroerk", but what does it mean? Google translator suggests its in afrikaans but has no translation neither in German nor in the language of the South African colonists. Do you have any idea what Vorroerk means?

Best wishes (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like a corruption/misreading/misspelling of "Vorwerk," the abbreviation would then be "Vw." - "w" and "ro" look extremely similar in old print and Sütterlin handwriting. Vorwerk is a very common historical denotation of villages or village units, which may or may not have another name. Vorwerk, sometimes also spelled "Vorwerck," literally means "foreworks." Back when large estates were owned by nobles/junkers, the area of the estate often was to large to run them as one economical unit, so they were split into several independently working units, called "Vorwerke" (pl. of Vorwerk). In the approximate center of each unit were the houses of the peasants working on the respective Vorwerk's fields, these houses often were formerly independent villages which at some time had been added to the noble's estate (--> Bauernlegen, I don't know if there is an English term for that), and thus kept their name with sometimes "Vorwerk" added as a denotatation, or "Hof I," "Hof II" etc. Hope that helps ... Skäpperöd (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Here is a Kandzioras descendant saying Kandziorowie pochodzą z okolic Opola, posiadali nawet swego czasu folwark w okolicy obecnego Zaodrza i wciąż licznie mieszkają w mieście i podopolskich miejscowościach / Kandzioras stamm(en) aus der Gegend um Oppeln ab, sie besaßen sogar mal ein Vorwerk in der Nähe des jetzigen Odervorstadt und leben immer noch zahlreich in der Stadt wie auch in den Dörfern drum herum." So if your Kandzioras Vorwerk is near the Oder suburb, that should be it. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Folwark. Volunteer Marek  07:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
That's it. Thanks a lot. I was looking at that map for a long time and had a hint that it could be "Vorwerk" but "w" looked so much like "or" that I was not sure and thought that perhaps its some old and now unused German word of some sort. (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

DDR Sprache[edit]

The GDR was known for its Orwellian use of the German language – here is a good example-DDR Sprache - Sachsen Dialekt [30]

I am just another wiseguy from Brooklyn who studied German in school, you will understand better than I.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Gdańsk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romanesque (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) 11:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


Flådens Historie -website Flådens officerer

Carlsen, Friderich Christian Marcus -Birth 1655 --Mike Majewski (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but says
  • Carlsen, Friderich Christian Marcus - født 1755
and I am looking for a Carlsen/Carlson who died in 1713... Skäpperöd (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Skäpperöd. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for February 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christian Thomesen Carl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Altona (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) 11:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Vielen Dank[edit]

Mange Tak, Thank you for the Guidance Barnstar - it is good to see your article progressing well. If any other Danish Naval Officer comes under your scrutiny, just ask for the relevant pages from Topsøe-Jensen. Viking1808 (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Christian Thomsen Carl[edit]

Carabinieri (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

″Problematic map″[edit]

Hey, Skäp, would you like to comment on the discussion on a 'problematic map'? Regards, Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Paper chase[edit]

Hello Skäpperöd, it looks as though I'm playing paper chase with My best wishes/Hodja Nasreddin/Biophys and quoted you but had to guess and search. What do you mean by "were found tag teaming"? --walkeetalkee 15:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Cloister Conspiracy by Philip Jackson (1).jpg

All accounts you mentioned as tag-teaming in Aug 2012 and what I quoted showed up as night fell, all of them, all voting, all attacking me (the only ones who ever attacked me), making the paper chase more frightening. Volunteer Marek alleged he appeared because his name was mentioned. So, aside from your tag-teaming argument it could (also) be Hanako-san ghosts.Face-smile.svg--walkeetalkee 13:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

AN inclusion[edit]

That was not a useful contribution, even if you collapsed it. Links to the source materials are more appropriate.

I would appreciate it if you reconsidered and truncate your own submission there, reducing it to links to what it came from.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

DRN dispute[edit]

Hi there, just to let you know I have opened your DRN case for discussion. Thanks, Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 12:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have access to an academic library you should be able to read the electronic version of the New Cambridge Medieval History. I am now reading the Cambridge History of China at the NY Public Library. The Cambridge Histories are the Bible of historians. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I have access to that book, but I don't agree with the 'bible for historians' bit. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I just submitted a request for Das historische Pommern : Personen, Orte, Ereignisse / von Roderich Schmidt and Die Slawen in Deutschland : Joachim Herrmann. Both books should be available by Saturday. Lets see what German historians have said about Boloslaw campaigns. Please understand my POV. I was an Accountant for over thirty years. All of my work was under constant scrutiny by government auditors, banks and above all the owners of the firm.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I can provide you with the respective citations right now, but I prefer to keep that off DRN as this is unnecessarily derailing the discussion. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Herrmann p. 384: "Etwa gleichzeitig nahm der polnische Feudalstaat unter Boleslaw Schiefmund (1102—1138) seine expansionistische Politik gegenüber den Pomoranen, d. h. in Richtung Ostseeküste und Odermündung, und auch gegen die mittleren Odergebiete wieder auf. Boleslaw eroberte 1121/22 Stettin (Szczecin), unterwarf Herzog [p. 385] Wartislaw und Pommern der polnischen Oberhoheit und zwang den Pommernfürsten, für sich und sein Land das Christentum anzunehmen. Weitere Eroberungszüge gegen die Lutizen haben Boleslaw bis an die Müritz geführt.[15] Ergebnis der gleichzeitigen Expansion des polnischen Staates Richtung Westen war die wohl 1123/24 erfolgte Gründung des Bistums Lebus." Ref 15 is on p. 552, a reference to the fisherman story in Ebo III/4.
Schmidt, p. 113: "Nachdem der Polen-hzg. Boleslaw III. einen Kriegszug in das Gebiet der Lutizen (bis zur Müritz) unternommen und im Oderraum Stettin 1121/22 erobert hatte, mußte sich Wartislaw I. zur Tributleistung, Heeresfolge und Annahme des Christentums verpflichten. Er bewahrte aber seine Selbständigkeit. Indem er seinerseits lutiz. Gebiete bis an die Peene (Demmin) gewann, erweiterte er seine Herrschaft über das pomoran. Stammesgebiet hinaus und lockerte allmähl. seine Abhängigkeit von Polen, da der lutiz. Raum zum Markengebiet des dt. Reiches gehörte."
Skäpperöd (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Gebiete bis an die Peene (Demmin) gewann- Does this support VM's argument?--Woogie10w (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This refers to Wartislaw, not Boleslaw. Translation: "With the acquisition of the Lutician areas up to the Peene (Demmin), he extended his realm beyond the Pomoranian tribal area and loosened his dependency on Poland, as the Lutician area belonged to the marches' territory of the German empire." Skäpperöd (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Boleslaw conquered Pomerania took Duke Wartislaw as a vassal (1121/22) and dominated Lutiz which includes Demmin. Boleslaw then undertook the campaign on the Baltic coast. Gradually Wartislaw reduced his dependency on Poland. --Woogie10w (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
"and dominated Lutiz which includes Demmin. Boleslaw then undertook the campaign on the Baltic coast." - where did you find that? The rest of your statement is undisputed. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

seine expansionistische Politik gegenüber den Pomoranen, d. h. in Richtung Ostseeküste und Odermündung, und auch gegen die mittleren Odergebiete wieder auf--Woogie10w (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that is clearly refering to the Pomoranian Baltic coast (i.e. east of the Oder), not to the Lutician one. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

und auch gegen die mittleren Odergebiete wieder auf later middle Oder region--Woogie10w (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the Lebus area. (undisputed) Skäpperöd (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW that Polish Atlas clearly marks the West-Pommern region as a vassal, not part of Poland--Woogie10w (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

All we know of Boleslaw's 1121 Lutician campaign stems from Ebo's report linked above. Ebo says that in 1128 when he visited the Müritz area with Otto von Bamberg, it was completely de-populated, only a fisherman had found a refuge on an island in that lake. The fisherman told him that a Polish duke came there in 1121 and devastated the area. That is all there is about Boleslaw's Lutician campaign in primary sources. So there is a consensus in secondary sources that Boleslaw reached the Müritz in 1121 (undisputed). How he had come there etc is all in the fog of history. If all of a sudden a non-expert in local history, in an overview series about Slavs in general, produces a map with a detailed course of the 1121 campaign, that raises eyebrows, doesn't it. Do you now realize why I insist on a secondary source? Skäpperöd (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Why I insist on a secondary source like the NCMH-4/2 which puts Boleslaw's Lutician campaign in Rugen area--Woogie10w (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

In 1123, not 1121. Before we get into details about that, can we agree that this is not the 1121 campaign in question? Skäpperöd (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

How is This?

In 1121/22, Boleslaw III of Poland mounted an expedition into the Müritz area west of the Oder and took duke Wartislaw I of Luticia as a vassel, Boleslaw then controled the region up to Demmin (Dymin)-SourceSchmidt, later in 1123 Boleslaw III campaigned in the area of Rugen-Source NCMH4/2. The Polish domination of the region west of the Oder was short lived and Luticia reverted to German control after 1124 Source NCMH4/2 --Woogie10w (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. Wartislaw was not a Lutician duke, he was the Pomeranian prince, and the Pomeranians lived east of the Oder river (Luticians west of it). It was, per the quotes above, not Boleslaw, but Wartislaw who controlled the Lutician areas up to Demmin, but this expansion of Wartislaw only happened after Boleslaw's campaign was over. (Boleslaw's campaign to the Müritz: 1121, Wartislaw sieged and subdued in Stettin: winter of 1121/2, then westward expansion of Wartislaw). The 1123 bit I contest on other grounds, but let's first agree on the 1121 stuff. I already added to the articles the Müritz campaign of 1121 and Boleslaw subduing Wartislaw in 1121/2, there is no dispute about that. The dispute re 1121 is solely about whether Boleslaw's campaign targeted Demmin and Stralsund. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You wrote-The fishermans story-That is all there is about Boleslaw's Lutician campaign in primary sources. your text is the 19th century German opus. Are you sure that is all that was writen about Boleslaw's Lutician campaign--Woogie10w (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

  • "your text is the 19th century German opus." - What I linked to is the MGH, a standard compendium of medieval primary sources. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC) I know this, my point is that besides MGH there are other primary sources,MGH is over 100 years old.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
MGH is not the primary source, it is a collection of primary sources. The primary source is Ebo. Since Ebo is about 900 years old, it does not matter when the print edition was published, it won't change ... Skäpperöd (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
In the NCMH4/2 there are numerous primary sources listed in the bibliography. I suspect the Polish historians have their own accounts of Boleslaw III's campaign. Can we identify the Polish primary sources?--Woogie10w (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Stopp! Bitte Anlauf nehmen [31]--Woogie10w (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Copernicus (RfC: rewrite of the nationality section)[edit]

As you probably already know, some Polish users seem to be 'silenced down' by (German?) admins from voicing their opinions and concerns regarding the handling of article's edits/amendments on Copernicus' nationality.

My comment, for that matter, has been deleted. See its' copy below:


  • I support the version proposed by Astronomer28 ([32]), which provides a clear, concise & neutral explanation of Copernicus' nationality, with the focus not on multiple free quotes from different historians and other people, but mainly on providing encyclopedic sources stating his nationality, which is Wikipedia's core principle. Also, regarding the above comment by IIIraute, I certainly don't agree with your proposal that "only established editor opinions should be taken into account", as before this new section was estbalished and the discussion started, two Polish users Astronomer28 and Mieszko_8 were banned yesterday by the admin Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise, whose native language is - surprise, surprise - German. Hence, it may give rise to justified suspicion of a typical German sneaky attitude for handling the case in their favour in an unfair way.


It appears that Wikipedia is sadly drifting into the direction of right and righteous. Should it be the case, it would lead to Wikipedia's gradual demise. (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 Please note: I am a volunteer at DRN and have read over the case you are involved in, it is my opinion that a consensus will be unable to be reached at DRN as such I have closed the case as failed. it is my recommendation that a case be filed with The mediation committee --Cameron11598 (Converse) 07:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Lutici/Pomerania during the High Middle Ages". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 April 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Lutici". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 29 April 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 00:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted[edit]

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Lutici, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lutici, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, User:PhilKnight (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Erich Keyser[edit]

You inserted this source [33] here. It looks like it's from 2003. The de:Erich Keyser I know of, died in 1968. So I'm assuming it's either a different Erich Keyser or this 2003 publication is a reprint of a much older reprint. Can you clarify the nature of this source? Thanks.Volunteer Marek 01:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Erich Keyser founded the series, Heinz Stoob continued it, both deceased a long time ago while the series kept to be re-edited. Peter Johanek is the editor of the current edition. It is common practice to retain the names of former editors even if they have nothing to do with the current edition. If you had looked at the source, you would have noted the Golgatha crosses attached to Keyser's (and Stoob's) names, and that they are noted only for historical reference ("begründet von ... [34] fortgeführt von ... [35]"), which would have excluded your reprint suspicion right away. You also should have asked yourself, before you assumed that to be a reprint, how it is possible that Johanek is contributing there, and is the editor-in-chief, if the book was a reprint - Johanek had not even graduated from university when Keyser died...
I will thus revert your removal and change the ref text a bit so it is more clear who the editor of that particular edition is, that should settle this. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification.Volunteer Marek 21:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Skäpperöd. You have new messages at Volunteer Marek's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

x2.Volunteer Marek 01:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


With regard to that source, I can't see much beyond a short snippet. You mentioned that the info was in a table. Is there a way you could re-do/re-type the table here? Volunteer Marek 21:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The snippet view works for me. Herrman has a timetable in table format, one of the rows says 1121 - Müritz-campaign-text, next row says 1121 - capture-of-Stettin-text. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
It only has a mention of Boleslaw but not the table. Can you put in what "text" says in the above? Somehow that's missing.Volunteer Marek 02:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Your edits at article Germany[edit]

Your latest edits were probably made at the same time of my revert of Horst-schlaemma's huge controversial additions. I didn't mean to revert or stop your changes aswell - sorry, if you had to make them twice. Of course all constructive additions are more than welcome, thanks for contributing. GermanJoe (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs[edit]

Symbol question.svg Thank you for your recent articles, including Selencia, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

What ever happend to[edit]

Skäpperöd ? - Last edit long ago.--Zweedorf22 (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Forts of Prussia[edit]

I've created a new category you may be interested in populating. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

File:411px-WalMenz.PNG listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:411px-WalMenz.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


Spread of megalithic culture in Europe

Hi, I've been trying to trace the author of a map that is used on a few sites showing the spread of Megalithic culture as I can't match it with any studies and/or the studies I have are only for the UK.

I finally worked out it was created by a user TharkunColl who added it 15:17, 18 September 2011 to the Megalith article. But it was not in the latest article. So I then tracked down and found you removed it on 7th March 2012 saying: "wrong info for Danmark, Germany, Skåne. Megalith tombs there were built mainly 3500-3200 BC, only some Swedish ones are younger".

You were wrong!! It's also wrong in Britain! However, ... more seriously, I now have to find an alternative map and as I've already spent a few days trying to track this one down without finding anything better, I would be grateful if you know of an appropriate source.

I've also found this: [36] but as there's no description I've no idea what it is supposed to show except it is very similar.


ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Schnee.JPG[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The file File:Schnee.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned personal file with no foreseeable use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Tannengrün.JPG[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The file File:Tannengrün.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned personal file with no foreseeable use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)