User talk:Space Cadet
|
|
-Hey Space -- I don't think the Prussian crow was anything but antagonistic...definitely not NPOV or encyclopedic. Perhaps it at least needs an explanation?? JHK
While you're at it, the Wikipedia software doesn't recognize URLs ending in ".JPG" as images. Please change them to ".jpg" (lowercase) before you upload them, or they'll display as links instead of images. -- Lee Daniel Crocker
Someone has placed a parody of a Prussian Eagle on this wiki: Crow entrance. The parody, that had been posted , a depiction of a Prussian crow, by itself, may have been meant to be more or less humorous, by the person, who entered it.(To look at the image you need to look at the wiki history of the Prussian crow entrance). It has by now been removed.
Taking this still existing wiki:Prussian crow link and the (at the moment removed) image in connection with the wiki: Crow text, it becomes representative of the murderous actions taken against the Prussian people starting after 1919 and by the millions in 1944/1945 till 1949 and ongoing (taking away Prussians homeland, expulsions, exiling, genocide).
Should this parody of a specification of a crow be here ?
Frau user:H.J.! Thousand apologies! But does't "Polish Goose" (Polnische Dummkopf)sound much worse than Prussian Crow (Preussische Krahe). Anyway, in my defence, it wasn't the Prussian Eagle, the parody was intended at. You just didn't get.
Space Cadet
To Space Cadet ,
I thought you were already kicked of wiki for your "Nazi" remark ? Well, I guess you apologized to someone then too.
I know that you are trying to translate things on internet by the automatic translation services. I have looked at a few, and found that they do no translate anywhere near acceptable.Therefore they should be used with a great big warning lable , because they most likely create more mischief and harm, than good.
Now to your "Polish Goose" (Polnische Dummkopf). Why do you write that here? What do I have to do with it?
Nevertheless,to answer your question "Polish Goose" would be translated "Polnische Gans". "Dummkopf" in English means "dumb head". In German slang language, and childish people would call each other "Dumme Gans" or "Dumme Kuh" , "dumb goose" or "dumb cow", most often , men would say that to or about a female, as in American they say "dumb broad". Instead of dumb you can also use "bloede" , which is :more dumb ,retarded. Gans is always female, die Gans. So you might have possibly read this somewhere on some internet talk forum. But that does not belong in the wiki articles or wiki talk discussions.
Do did not explain, what you meant by putting a "Prussian crow" on the serious article about crows, other than saying to me "you did not get it". What was it, that was supposed to be gotten ?
You need to make a difference between casual conversation and worldwide supposedly scholarly entries.
I do not know, but I think that basically you mean well. Therefore I would accept your thousand apologies. But I do not really know who is apologizing, is it Space Cadet ?, or is it Pan Mruk ? aka Richard Grayson ? aka Mrukkert von Engeldorf ? (also known as: from Los Angeles).
Perhaps you should next sign as "Spaced out Cadet"
To user:H.J. from Space Cadet. (I'm not so sure about "Spaced out Cadet", have you resorted to name calling again in lack of other arguments?, please explain.)
- No! Nobody attempted to kick me off.
- No! I didn't apologize to anybody. BTW, did you have to apologize for your Commie remark? Remember, back on the Estrid talk page, when you ran out of patience and historical knowledge, and switched to offensive accusations, suggesting that I use Communist propaganda?
- No! It was not a Nazi remark! Having been a member of HJ or BDM as a child, does not make anybody a Nazi!If a child did not want to join, he (and his whole family) would be considered an enemy of the state and sent to KL.
- No! I don't use Beta automatic translations, because I can't understand a word. (And speaking of warning labels, I should probably start employing them, every time I use expression "thousand apologies" as bitter irony).
- Polish goose was a disparaging term in XIX and XX century used by German propaganda in the occupied Polish territories, to describe the Polish White Eagle and I would be surprised, if you were truly not aware of that.
- Also, if I'm a Communist, expression "Pan" does not apply (try to be consistent). Proper form would be "towarzysz", which means "comrade".
- And no! It's not Los Angeles (although you're very close). It's actually a beautiful suburb of Sacramento, with a well developed Polish community - Me, Myself and I.
Spaced out Cadet (your wish is my command! - WARNING!!! - bitter irony).
Fr. user:H.J. --
Have you ever head the phrase, "the pot calling the kettle black"? or, "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"? Others here already mentioned to SC that the crow was in bad taste (and he took it down immediately), but most of his history is pretty decent, if leaning towards the Polish interpretation of things. However, since your contributions have never been anything but biased, not to mention badly written and often walking the line of outright plagiarism, AND continuously disregard any of the naming conventions or any other guidelines to be found on this encyclopedia, what gives you the right to attack anyone?JHK
http://space-cadet.com/meet.html Space Cadet to Space Cadet
Mrukkert von Engeldorf does not translate to "from Sacramento".
- message unsigned
But in Mazurian it translates to "I love Citrus Heights". And in Pomezanian it translates to "Please don't change the arrangement of articles on my page, like I wouldn't on yours". Nice site, 'though, so you're forgiven, you anonymous enterer, you!
Space Cadet
To Space Cadet Mruk, don't you mean Marsian and Venusian ?? (You have changed articles on my personal page several times, not I ) To refresh you on your previous comments (in ref. to above) re-check your comments at user:H.J. Talk. Anyway your latest email seems to explain why you were a little spaced out and are now Self-Censored I guess you are back in orbit. I'll answer by email Ginnis kails user:H.J.
Just once. The Copernicus stuff. But I would never do that again. Space Cadet
OK, I'm glad you're better HJ
- deleted talk that was a copy from Talk:Gdansk (or maybe vica versa)
Would you please explain what Censored.JPG is for? It doesn't look like a picture that would illustrate an article. -PierreAbbat
I thought I deleted it a million years ago! Space Cadet
Hello, Space Cadet,
My opinions on Mazoji Lietuva? Mixed. Certainly has ancient and not-so-ancient Baltic settlements. Certainly was part of Lithuania. Hasn't been for a while, was Teutonic and Polish and Prussian at various times in between. (I'm not 100% certain that area was part of Poland ever.) Certainly isn't now part of Lithuania, nor is it likely to be anytime soon. As to the politics, hey, Lithuania is saying "We'll give all of you visas, just let us have the modicum of control over out borders that a visa allows".
Correction: Was never part of Lithuania. It was Prussian and that is the "Baltic" connection to Lithuania, but only in ancient ethnicity and not in terms of any statehood. Since the middle ages it was contiuosly controlled by the Teutonic Knights, and then incorporated into Germany. "By Poland" -- when would that be? -- other than the post-WWII remaping of Europe by Stalin, sliding Poland to the west by several hundred miles and loping off eastern Germany to Poland. A[nother] Tamulis
Another correction: In 1466 the Teutonic Prussia became the vassal state of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In 1525 Teutonic Prussia secularized and became the protestant Duchy of Prussia - a fief of Poland-Lithuania. Incorporation into Germany, however, did not happen until 1871. And as far as I know, all this time until now the region was populated by 75% Lithuanian population. What does the word "Tamulis" mean?
Hi Space Cadet, I was really pleased, that you've agreed with the Odra compromise. Unfortunately, Taw does not fully agree. I fear, that he will begin to revert my changes, if I start to translate the compromise into action. Maybe, some words from you to him will be more helpful than arguments from my side. I am hoping for good cooperation -- Cordyph 16:08 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
Hi again,
thank you for the friendly words on my talk page. As for your assumption about my name, you are almost right: It is a Serbo-Croatian name. It is reassuring to know, that your words on the Odra talk page were a joke - my wish for good luck in fighting for a Poland from the Rhine to the Ural was a joke as well, of course.
Concerning the "Landsmannschaften" and their revanchist claims, it is my hope, that these folks will become extinct soon (at least those of them talking about regaining German lands). I have the impression, that I hear such claims much rarer than in the past. Although I use to say "Danzig" or "Stettin" (not here on Wikipedia, but in everyday life), you will never hear a word from me questioning, that these cities are anything but Polish. IMO the times of moving the borders in Central Europe are fortunately over.
You will find my e-mail address on my web page (URL on my user page). Sorry for not stating it here, but I do not want to create more spam sources. I am looking forward to receiving your mail. -- Cordyph 15:37 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)
The user 80.213.*.* making all those changes to articles about Poland is identical to User:Heine, a rather new problem user. He appears to have few knowledge about history, but nonetheless he is quite active in stating that Polish cities are German cities under Polish occupation. In my opinion he is just a troll trying to make waves. Since he has no knowledge of what he is writing about, we should revert every edit by him without much ado. -- Cordyph 06:52, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The problem is that the Prussian Confederation article is not about the 20th century, but the history of Prussia. On the English Wikipedia, we use the names of cities as they were known AT THE TIME, not as they are known now. RickK 08:20, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm going to revert them every time. When we write an article about the Dutch colonial period in the United States, we call the city now called New York "New Amsterdam". When we talk about the Prussian Confederation, we call the cities what they were known TO THE PRUSSIANS. RickK 02:55, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
| Contents |
Kaliningrad
See 1911 Encylopedia:
http://36.1911encyclopedia.org/K/KO/KONIGSBERG.htm
I am right. Hard to take the pill when your right :)
Silesian wars reloaded
Hi, I've called a vote to try to resolve the dispute on Talk:Silesia. I'd appreciate your input. Thanks. john 22:59, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Obviously the vote is not accepted by some contributors. The new mediation committee is not established yet, but I did not want to wait until January and asked Uncle Ed for help. If people agree, he will help finding a consense. I withdraw my back-off and will return to discussion about this article (but only, if there is an agreement to mediation by Ed). Since everything else has failed, I would consider it a good idea to go through the controversial points one by one - after discussing one issue for several days we should proceed with the next issue.
What we need now, is reasonable people to help introducing the arguments without name-callings and accusations. And when I think about reasonable people with knowledge of these issues, your name is coming to me. What do you think? Can we try together with Ed to tame the lions and write an article, that everyone around here agrees with?
Krzysztof said something that made me thinking: This is a problem of communication between Wikipedians not with the Silesia article. So probably we just need people who help the combattants to communicate. They must stop calling each other a vandal, demanding each other's ban, and blaming each other for distributing "blatant lies".
Is it possible to achieve this? I am not sure. Should we give it a try? If so, then add your name on Talk:Silesia#Offer of Mediation, and then we may see what we can do. -- Baldhur 20:38, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Oh, you already did. That's good ;-) -- Mirko
Okay, then your comments are definitely all good ideas of things to put into the Silesia article, if we can ever finish this edit war and get it unprotected. john 04:01, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Well, I always read nowadays, that Poles are offended due to the usage of German city names. The style of discussion is often reaching a pitiably low level. Today I read two comments, one of them saying "your beloved Reich", the other one "ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Nico". It is somewhat offensive for me as well, even if I am not the target of these attacks. There is an equalisation of Germans and Nazis all over this place, that I can not understand. Of course this is not your fault. I just wanted to express my regret about this development. Or am I wrong, and it has always been like that? -- Baldhur 20:31, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I just wanted to apologize here for any harshness in the tone of my replies on Talk:Gdansk. I have been rather impolite, and have made some obliquely ad hominem attacks, and I greatly regret that. There's no need for things to become uncivil. I do continue to strongly believe that Gdansk ought to be referred to as Danzig for the period before 1945, and I assume you will continue to feel otherwise, but there's no need to get rude about it (and I think I've been worse on that count). As far as the substantive issue, I was wondering: is your position simply that all cities ought to be referred to by their contemporary names in discussing them throughout their history? I think that might be a defensible position, but I do not think that this is the current Wikipedia policy, which is to refer to things by the name most commonly used in English. (also, as I asked, I believe, szopen somewhere else, would you approve of discussions of the 900 day siege of St. Petersburg?) Or is your position that, in English today, Gdansk is more frequently used to refer to the city before 1945 than Danzig? I think this is substantively false (although this could certainly change, and were it to do so, I would agree that wikipedia should change the name). john 21:29, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi Space, what do you think how we should proceed on the Silesia talk page. I noticed, that there has been little traffic in the last days. The current version of the article is obviously not accepted, and we do not have another version. I would be pleased, if you could give your feedback on Talk:Silesia (above the "Silesia (moderated) always has the consensus version" line). Or, if you want to e-mail me, you may do so. In case that you don't have my address anymore, it is mt AT mirko HYPHEN thiessen DOT de. A similar message goes to Szopen, Kpjas, Nico and Matusz. -- Baldhur 17:30, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Please tell me why the article dealing with the German city of Cologne mention the Polish name in the introduction, while you feel it is not acceptable to mention the German name of Warsaw. In my opinion, the German name is more relevant in the Warsaw article, than the Polish is in the Cologne article. Nico 03:54, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Royal and Ducal Prussia images
Hi, I've changed your image on Ducal Prussia to the one from Royal Prussia: this because they are very similar, and the latter is the better. Also see Talk:Ducal Prussia. If you believe this is in error, I apologize. — Jor 14:37, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
I have posted a response to your message on Talk:Gdansk, and wanted to make sure you saw it. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 20:01, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Unless Fahrenheit and his family called it Gdansk, it should stay as Danzig. RickK 02:25, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
And what's your source for this "extermination"? I have Old-Prussian ancestors myself, and I do not feel myself a victim of such a genocide or extermination. They simply became German. Of course people were killed by the order, but that is as it is in history. Would you call the American actions in Iraq or the crusades "genocide"? Nico 14:37, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Would You call planned mass extermination of Jews during WW II - Germanization?
And then, there are many Jewish holocaust deniers. World is a twisted place.
Space Cadet 15:36, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The comparison is ridiculous. And you know it. Nico 15:41, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Can't say that I do. It's actually a very good analogy, despite huge differences in the historical era. But like I said, there will always be people who deny the most obvious.
Changing the subject: since you are the omly one questioning genocide/extermination, how about coming up with some sources for "Germanization". Not from some XIX century (or XIV century, for that matter)historian and not from some Landsmannschaft site, though, please!
Truly,
Cadet
And what's wrong with XIX century historians? Nico 16:03, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The same as with XIX century physicists, chemists, linguists, archeologists etc. Newtonian mechanics, although taught to this day in high schools, cannot explain high speed phenomena, spacetime curvature or twin paradox. Phlogiston theory although charming, loses to the oxidation as explanation of combustion. Vis Vitalis theory stating that no organic compound can be synthesised from non-organic matter outside of living organisms is a joke since the synthesis of uric acid. And so on and so forth. Science constantly moves forward, verifies and rewrites itself. While the Pythagorean theorem survived millenia, other "canons of knowledge" cannot survive half a decade. The number of resources available to scientists increased unimaginably since XIX century. Also science became more independent from the political indoctrination. The so called "scientific method" crystallized into a very well defined process.
Do you consider yourself an educated, well read person (as I always considered you to be)? Because if don't, then what are you doing at an encyclopedia? Making waves? Excercising shock value?
But at least I'm happy you don't question my request not to use Landsmannschaft sites. Theoretically, you could've asked what's wrong with them, too. After all, you made reference to them several times in various articles.
Hopefully, I was able to clarify some issues troubling you. Count on that always!
Sincerely,
Space Cadet
As you may have noticed, I have nothing against the Landmannschaften. But I don't think they in this particular case are more relevant as historical sources than, say, CDU, SPD, Labour or any political party or organisation.
And I still think genocide and extermination are not the right words when dealing with the issues of the Teutonic Knights and the Baltic Prussians or similar cases in history. Nico 19:17, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
And that's your opinion, which I respect. Whether it belongs in an encyclopedia, is a different issue however.
Space
"Polish nationalism," I would say, is not equivalent to Nazism. I hope you would agree. Further, you'll note that I've reverted edits by Nico as well. For instance, I reverted his attempt to add POV and irrelevant material about "genocide of the Prussian people" after World War II from Otto Braun. john 15:51, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Hi, Nico! It's your old friend Space. I see You've been getting yourself into some revert wars, again. Now, now, Nico. It's OK! You're just a visitor from a parallel universe, with one of those "alternative histories" and you're going through a shock. You hopelesly try to change this world into your own and it's causing you pain. If you just give yourself a chance and try to adjust your perception to the "local" reality, we will all be here for you. Lots of love, dear Nico!Space Cadet 19:06, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) - ------------
population transfer
Can you understand how your preference for the therm population transfer instead of ethnic cleansing may be considered offensive by the persons affected (and, secondarily, by their younger relatives)?
Is your ambition to provoke people into supporting Nico?
--Ruhrjung 17:22, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No I don't understand. My own mother and her whole family were victims of your "ethnic cleansing" and to me or my mom the term population transfer MAY NOT be considered offensive. Ethnic cleansing took place during WW II. Population transfer was a best way they could think of, after the war, to avoid another ethnic cleansing in the future.
My ambition is to use common sense, follow my conscience and be very self critical.
Regards
Space Cadet 17:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
May I ask if you consider ethnic cleansing to be synonymous with population transfer? If not, what's the difference? From what you write above, one could get the impression that transfer was done by you and cleansing by your adversaries. Then it would boil down to the question whether "you" or "your adversaries" were to be granted right of expression on wikipedia.
Anyway, I got an answer on my question. You do not understand that you might be perceived as offensive. I'll have to think over that.
(BTW, you're obviously my elder. My mother was born after the war. My great-aunt, however, worked in Wroclaw (as we know, then called Breslau) til the end. She basically refuses to speak of the last years of the war, and the rest of the 1940s, but I believe her view to be that ethnic Germans, particularly on the countryside, were subjects of terror aimed at forcing them to leave "volountarily", and that this in most cases had nothing with the individuals' prior actions to do, but solely with their ethnicity.)
--Ruhrjung 18:08, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
inviting a wider group of wikipedians?
Have you noted my question at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II?
--Ruhrjung 19:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Mediation
You have been invited to join in mediation regarding placenames in Central Europe. Please accept or decline this request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation# English/Polish/German/Nazi names of the Polish cities . You may also indicate who, if anybody, you would like to act as your representative if you do not want to participate personally, as well as your preferences regarding the choice of mediator. Tuf-Kat 23:18, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
Please see: User:Ed_Poor/Mediation. Ruhrjung 23:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Polish Cities Stuff
Space Cadet, I agree with you that Nico can be very obnoxious in his POV pushing. And I agree with you that we shouldn't be putting this debate in terms of "pro-Polish" vs. "pro-German" contributors. I certainly don't feel myself to be pro-German, and I've argued against some occasional POV pushing by Nico, as well as someone or other's attempts to get Szczecin referred to as "Stettin" throughout it's history in the article on that city. On the other hand, I think it's disingenuous to call it absurd to "refer to cities by different names throughout history." As I've asked you before, are we to refer to the 900 Day Siege of St. Petersburg and how the battle of Volgograd turned the tide in the Second World War? I realize the situation is not exactly analogous, but once you agree that those cities have to be called by different names at different times in their history, I'm not sure why it's any odder to do the same for Gdansk. Among other things, it's highly confusing to discuss how the inhabitants of the "Free City of Gdansk" wanted to be part of Germany, or whatever. john 01:38, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Space Cadet, following Mestwin's link to that picture of the Nazi Danzig ist Deutsch poster, you asked if he'd received it from me or Nico. I found that rather offensive, but I accept your apology that you did not intend to call me a Nazi. As to whether I've accidentally used Nazi propaganda, I've no real idea, but of course one must note that just because the Nazis said something doesn't necessarily mean it was untrue (although I find it hard to think of any good examples on that score...) But I certainly don't intend to suggest that Eastern Europe is rightfully German, and that we all ought to continue to use German names for cities, or anything like that. The crux of my arguments has never been about whether Danzig war Deutsch at any particular time, but what English-language sources call the city at different periods, which I don't think depends on any arguments over the ethnic composition of central Europe. john 03:17, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Mediation
Have I worded your desires correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation? (i.e. do you want Gdansk to act as your representative?) Do you have any qualms about Ed Poor mediating? Tuf-Kat 20:04, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Oops. I got you and User:Yeti mixed up. Since you also specifically requested Ed, I assume you are ready for mediation to begin, and you can disregard this entire message. Tuf-Kat 20:06, Mar 25, 2004
(UTC)
Dawn_of_German_East
I am preparing the new article, dealing with the whole process User_talk:Cautious/Dawn_of_German_East, while Expulsion of Germans after World War II should remain the description of one of the phases of the process.
Please contribute your comments. Cautious 07:50, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Stop losing time for Free City of Danzig. Such usage of Danzig is acceptable from historical point of view. There are more interesting things. For example: Prussian people, Polish Corridor, Dawn of German East and a few other. Look for contributions by User:Wighson.Yeti 21:42, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I do not know Danzig was "Gdansk". It has been Danzig for at least 600 years, and it was surely Danzig at Schlüter's time. Do you use your own private names? The Britannica uses Danzig [1] (http://66.102.11.104/search?q=cache:6cUqX3gO5mgJ:search.britannica.com/eb/article%3Feu%3D67873%26query%3Dmarkusson%2520andreas%26ct%3Deb+%22andreas+schl%C3%BCter%22+britannica&hl=en&ie=UTF-8). So please stop trolling. Anyway, you reverted the page four times, which is not allowed (see [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert#Revert_wars_considered_harmful_(the_three_revert_guideline))). If you do that again you may be banned. Consider yourself warned. Nico 20:22, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I never dare to BARK ORDERS AT YOU. I do not understand yor attack. ByeYeti 14:00, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Andreas Schluter
Space Cadet, i AM going to report you as vandal. 1) I revert on Andreas Schluter page because people are simply ignoring the discussion with was on talk page 2) Second, i haven't call you moron, while you are calling me names instead of choosing to discuss on talk page. Szopen
1) I'm not ignoring any discussion. I digested it and expressed my opinion on the Talk page like you wanted
2) I would never dare calling you a moron! "Palancie" is just Warsaw-style friendly irony regarding the ridiculous inconsistency of your reasoning. You say that the guy surely knew the city as Danzig, but at the same time you forget that in that case he also knew Frombork as Frauenburg!
Let me take a wild guess here: you are not from Warsaw, are you? I once knew a "Poznaniak" from Leszno. "Ordnung muss sein!" on the outside and total inconsistency, chaos and anal retentivity on the inside. Just like YOU! He also liked snitching on his friends and acquaintaces. Pozdrowienia! Cadet
Space Cadet, My opinion on the naming of the city is expressed on Uncle Ed's talk page in mediation paragraph. In short, let us remember that this is English wikipedia; therefore we should names that are meaningful to Englishmen _plus_ names which would help them to find further information. From all discussion on talk:Gdansk page it is clear, that "Danzig" is still widely used in English, even if the using is slowly disappearing. Therefore Danzig/Gdansk may be considered two alternative names in English. This is not the case in Frombork: while Danzig/Gdansk is city quite known, Frombork is virtually unknown, therefore there is no need for alternative name.
Also, there was no edit war over using of Frombork/Frauenberg, but Danzig/Gdansk.
If the "palant" in Warsaw is friendly way to express irony, no wonder Warszawiaks are so disliked in Poznan. In Poznan "palant" is HIGHLY offensive. Szopen
Kosmonauto pieszy, nie jestem jakims hiphopowcem zebys mnie tykal jakims ziomalem.
Jeszcze raz, po polsku, zebys zrozumial.
To jest angielska encyklopedia, nie osrodek edukacji Jana Kowalskiego. Anglicy powszechnie uzywaja nazwy "Danzig", czy nam sie to podoba czy nie, jako nazwy alternatywnej w stosunku do historii Gdanska. W kazdym cholernym artykule z NYT (a to nie sa przecietni Joe Blow'owie) w ktorym wspomina sie hsitoryczny GDansk, uzywa sie nazwy Danzig. Tak wiec forma Danzig/Gdansk albo Danzig (Gdansk) jest rozsadnym kompromisem ktory a) pozwala zrozumiec przecietnemu czlowiekowi gdzie to jest b) edukuje go, ze Danzig i Gdansk to to samo miejsce. Jak widze jednak, dla Ciebie jedyny mozliwy kompromis to totalna kapitulacja jednej z opcji i pokorne pochylenie glow przez Twoja opinia. Szopen
So here it is in English. Where there is self contradiction and incosistency and where are personal attack on you. Show me concrete sentences, Space Cadet. Space Cadet, i'm not a hiphop-fan to let you "fingering" me with some "ziomal". Once again, In Polish, so you would understand. This is English encyclopedia, not education centre of John Doe. Englishmen are widely using "Danzig" no matter if we liked it or not, as alternative name when talking about history of Gdansk. In every damn article in NYT (and those are not average Joe Blows) in which historical Gdansk is mentioned, there is name "Danzis". So form Danzig/Gdansk is reasonable compromise, which helkp average man to a) understand where it is b) and it's educating him that Gdansk and Danzig are the same place. As i see, for you however compromise means total capitulation of one side and humble bowing down before your opinion." Szopen
Are you lying on purpose, Space Cadet, or you are not checking your emails??
From: "Arkadiusz Danilecki" <adanilecki@cs.put.poznan.pl> To: <spacecadet123@inorbit.com> Subject: Wikipedia Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:06:34 +0200
(the points 4), starting with "4) Napisales, ze Twoje stanowisko jest zgodne z kompromisem, co nie jest prawda ..." and 6th starting with "6) Nie mozna sie obrazac na rzeczywistosc..."
You asked for private letter, i've send it. Where is your answer? I understand, that soemone may not answer immedietely (I personally check wikipedia sometimes ocne a week, sometimes even less often). Szopen
Sheesh indeed. I seem to have hit one of those little caching problems that sometimes give me false diffs. Or maybe I really did revert the change you made during a minor revert war, without properly looking at it because your comment msde the clear (though not, as it turns out, accurate) statement that you were continuing Emax's campaign. Anyway, I erred there. I'll be more careful in the future, as no doubt you'll be more specific in submission comments. I still don't see why we'd settle the contents of Wikipedia by following Britannica, if that's what the comment meant. Dandrake 06:55, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
Then look again
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Erika_Steinbach&diff=0&oldid=3681741
--Ruhrjung 01:02, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
image in need of cropping
Hi!
It seems as if your map has a blank space to the right. I don't have software to fix that, and besides, probably it would be more polite to ask you, the autor, to do it. Regards! /Tuomas 08:19, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for noticing and letting me know. However, could you be just a litle more specific as far as where the spot is. I can't see it. I'll be happy to fix it expediciously. Space Cadet 01:11, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Look at the framed thumbnail. Approximately 20% of the picture on the right side is white, which plausibly can be explained by the original picture having an opaque area in the right side. /Tuomas 06:48, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- ...oh, I see, you HAVE fixed it! /Tuomas 08:17, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hi,
Can you have a look into the articles edited by User:Irredenta: Vilnius, Gabriel Fahrenheit, Johann Reinhold Forster, Georg Forster. Regards.Yeti 10:27, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Vilnius/Gdansk and other naming conventions
I just wanted to nfrom you that I have read Gdansk discussions earlier and there is nothing to add here - there are all good arguments known to me and it is strange how some people ignore those arguments. So, I have nothing to add there, but if there will be soem voting or something like that, I will support usage of current English name thoughout the article, no matter that is the article - Gdansk, Vilnius, Szczecin or anything else. It is natural usage in most languages and English is not an exception. Knutux 04:06, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)
Naming issues
I have made a proposition in Talk:Gdansk/Naming convention#Other_concepts. In short, it's sing most controversial names when first name appears in artcile and making a msg saying that the names are controversial and pointing to article explaining why. Please, contribute your opinion.Szopen 10:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What about automatic reverting of ALL edits by Burs...-something untill he will start to discuss his edits?Yeti 21:43, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[He's talking a little bit at Talk:Gdansk, now. Seems to be of the Nico/Jor Expellee viewpoint. Where do all these people come from? Can the "automatic reverting" apply to PolishPoliticians, too, just to be fair? john k 22:22, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)]
Edits by PolishPolicians, SpaceCadet and Yeti on topics concerning German names unfortunately needs to be reverted in most cases. "Automatically", if you want. Burschenschafter
logic, consistency etc.
Oh, are you saying that Poles (=Polish speakers which considered themselves to be Poles) born inside Germany, Austria or Russia before the Polish state was created after WWI were not Poles at all, but Germans, Austrians and Russians? Burschenschafter
And the same applies to Czechs, sorry, I mean Austrians? Burschenschafter
There is a big difference between German families immigrating out of Germany, for generations living outside of Germany and Polish people, whose country has been invaded and partitioned, I mean robbed and stolen.Space Cadet 23:06, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Re: block
I'm not quite sure what you mean by a group hearing. I guess arbitration is like that, but before you get there, you do need to follow the dispute resolution process. Perhaps requesting mediation might be a good idea. This way, you could have a third party (someone on the Mediation Committee) to help you and RickK discuss this issue. Angela. 03:02, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
Why did you revert my answer to Burschenschafter?
- Because you updated his User page, which is against all rules. Why am I reverting you? Because you insist on placing Polish nationalist propaganda on every page you touch. As you are repeatedly told, and which you repeatedly ignore, this is the English Wikipedia, not the Polish Wikipedia, and we WILL use English language versions of all city names. Those names are Danzig, Thorn, Elbing, etc. You can get away with discussing them in Polish terms when discussing modern Polish places, but when you keep reverting historical references to Germans in a German environment in the PAST, you will be reverted. RickK 21:46, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
Who are you?
I have tried to figure you out man, and from what I can gather you are one confused dude. You claim that I'm a Polish nationalist, but it seems that more than one person on here thinks that of you. They also seem to think you are a commie and a nazi (I must admitt I don't know what to believe). If this is some sort of attempt at irony, its lost on me. If you want to mess with ppl on here for shits and giggles thats fine. I just want to know for future reference, whats your deal? Katarzyna 02:13, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Naming wars
Since you were either directly or indirectly once involved into edits revolving around "proper" naming of cities like Gdansk/Danzig etc i thought you may be interested in my proposition in User:Szopen/NamingWar. I would want to create a way aimed at stopping the revert wars in future - through creating something like a msg (in see also list or header) explaining that's there is compromise and why, and by linking to the article explaining changes of the statuses of the Royal Prussia province (I would prefer it ot have it as separate article, not scatter it in plethora other articles). I would be happy to hear from you. Szopen 09:20, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please don't revert without explanation. What is your problem on Pila? Gzornenplatz 02:40, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
Please explain your edits, or I have to ask for arbitration. Gzornenplatz 02:00, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
hi caddie
if you continue with your actions, we will have to separate the articles. One article Danzig which deals with the city before 1945/46 and one article Gdansk which deals with the city after 1946. How about that? Burschenschafter
How about serprate the WIKIPEDIAs. One that deals with the real world and one that deals with yours? SC
Dear Space Cadet,
the Wikipedias are already separated. The People's Republic of Poland version, dealing with your world, are found here: http://pl.wikipedia.org/
Viele Grüße -- Burschenschafter 18:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Dear Nico,
People Republic of Poland doesn't exist for over 14 years, 11 before foundation of WIKIPEDIA. And how would you know which world the Polish WIKI is dealing with if you don't know the language? Why don't you write a book describing your alternate history - where Gdansk was never Polish before 1945, where all Polish kings were German and didn't even speak Polish, etc. - it could be fascinating, and you would be able to really unleash your imagination, instead of just quoting XIX century Prussian "historians", the way you do here. Your friend, SC
Licensing info for maps
For this Image:Hist_central_europe.JPG may I please know what license it is under? Public domain, GFDL, etc? I'm asking because maps tends to be generally nicer with a PNG format, and I was thinking of turning this into a png and reuploading it cleaned-up. Please let me know. Aris Katsaris 15:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Posna
AFAIK the term Posna was an ancient English name, not German. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 07:04, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
Rzeszów
Co miałeś na myśli przez Removed chauvinism przy zamianie transkrypcji Zheshuv na Zheshov ([3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=WikiProject_Cities/Names_issues&diff=0&oldid=5816598))? Obawiam się że nie zrozumiałem... [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 02:01, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
Your User Page
Nice picture, although I don't believe it's yours. What's with the "Lovers of Ducal Prussia Club"?Rübezahl 20:44, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Why don't you believe it's him? What do Space Cadets look like in Germany then? :D [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 22:15, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
I just didn't know YOUR Space Cadets look exactly like OURS. Rübezahl 22:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Typical. Just because we don't live in the West does not mean that our Space Cadets have green skin and fur caps. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]]
But seriously now: I was simply expecting someone more Slavio-Germano-Baltic and less Semito-Chamitic. That's all. Rübezahl 02:45, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ziemie w Prusiech
Mały prezencik, Prusaku jeden :)
--[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 10:57, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Bah, now I understand. All you have to do is go to the image page and hit Ctrl+R to reload the page. It works for me, should work for you as well. Let me know if it worked; if it didn't I'll simply send you the image via mail. Also, did you prepare the original image yourself? If so, what is the license? Żydokomuchomasonorojalista z Kabat
Well hello, I am the last Romanov... Im not quite sure how this words yet, please someone fill me in with the info plz... hok.. so I was gonna ask, can someone tell me how the whole Danzig and East Prussian Coridor issue led to WW2. aight ill stfu now thank you
- Sługa uniżony. Jeśli będziesz przygotowywał jakieś inne mapki a chcesz je utrzymać w tym stylu - podeślij mi je, nie będziemy sobie dublować roboty. płk. Ryba-Nadbrzeżny
Katowice
You may want to look at Talk:Katowice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:00, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- And, if you want to have a good laugh, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RickK. [[User:Halibutt|[[User:Halibutt|]]]] 14:12, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
Zaślubiny z morzem
Zmien wedlug Twego uznania :)--Emax 05:44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Gallery
I magnanimously accept your invitation :D A żeby Ci się łącze zatkało, to mniejszych nie robią? ;) Choć z drugiej strony jak daję negatywy do skanowania to jotpegi przychodzą dużo większe. Ostatnio po 14 mega każdy... A tak na serio - na pewno się zdjęcia przydadzą, tylko trzeba je będzie pomniejszyć nieco. Pobawię się GIMPem jutro lub pojutrze i podeślę Ci linka. --Pozdrawiam [[User:Halibutt|[[User:Halibutt|]]]] 01:13, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
- Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
- Multi-Licensing Guide
- Free the Rambot Articles Project
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
- Option 1
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
- Option 2
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit§ion=new)| talk)
Warsaw dialect
Czołem, Rychu. Jako że swój kizior jesteś i to z Woly, pogapuj na Warsaw dialect. Namachałem się przy tem nielicho, ale ciekawostka fest wyszła. Może cuś dodasz od siebie? [[User:Halibutt|[[User:Halibutt|]]]] 23:27, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
Unverified image
Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:
I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}}: Template:Gfdlif you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}}
This work is copyrighted. The individual who uploaded this work and first used it in an article, and subsequent persons who place it into articles assert that this qualifies as fair use of the material under United States copyright law.
P.S. You can help tag other images at Wikipedia:Untagged_Images. Thanks again.
Also
- Image:Royal Ducal.png
- Image:1863.JPG - Scriptedfate 23:21, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Lucas David
I am trying to broker a compromise on this article. Please come to talk:Lucas David and comment on my suggestions.-gadfium (talk) 21:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Słuchaj, no tego to się nie spodziewałem... na tej stronie w moją stronę rączo poszybowała uwaga o polskich panach i tym, że powinni zostawić Świętą Ruś w spokoju... I sam już doprawdy nie wiem: śmiać się czy płakać? [[User:Halibutt|[[User:Halibutt|]]]] 08:05, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Prosba
Mam prosbe, moglbys zaglosowac za zatrzymaniem szablonu marszalkow? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Marshals--Emax 15:20, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
- dzieki, moglbys jeszcze dac autograf pod http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Sejm_Marshals ?--Emax 20:44, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
Moglbys dac rv na Michael I of Russia i Vasili IV of Russia mi sie juz powoli koncza monety ;)--Emax 07:54, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
Silent reverts
Please explain why you are engaging in silent revert war over a number of articles on Russian/Polish history. Do you have any difficulty using Edit summary and Talk pages? --Gene s 08:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Read Your own Talk page before you start flaming and freaking out on people. And generally - try to calm down.. I read my own page. I even replied there. Did you read it? You still refuse to discuss the issue. Here goes you reply which really fails to mention anything meaningful except your lack of coins:
I engage in reverts of incorrect information, because and only when I truly believe it is incorrect. Sometimes I have a difficulty using Talk pages (when I run out of coins in an internet cafe) and sometimes I forget the edit summaries. Mea Culpa. Space Cadet 08:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You refusal to discuss the changes is abuse of wiki process. Lack of coins is not a good excuse. If you continue to revert pages silently, I will bring this issue up for arbitration. You can be banned from editing Wiki for such abuse. --Gene s 08:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Revert
Do not disguise a sweeping reversion and the removal of a neutrality dispute heading as "reverting vandalism." That's the kind of behavior that'll get you blocked. 172 21:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Your revert even removed a huge chunk of text toward the bottom of the article by the main author. Please clean up your mess. 172 22:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Luckily
(Comment moved here, because of Emax rev. on User SC)Luckily SC is still around (despite often unfortunate Emax-like behavior).
User pages
Please do not edit other peoples user pages, comments go on talk pages. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 22:51, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
Apologies
Hi. Sorry for calling you a mxxxx. That wasn't proper etiquette. Basically, it was your Liebchen comment that made me think so. Maybe you could also apologize to User:24.7.179.169 for that? Now that would be nice. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:48, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
- No you made me curious: why doesn't he have a login? From what i have seen, he seems to be a sensible editor (ignoring disputed polish related edits for a moment). -- Chris 73 Talk 05:02, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
- About Halibut for Admin
- I don't know him well enough yet. But, i just supported User:Piotrus current adminship, if that helps. He seems to be quite level headed with respect to polish matters. -- Chris 73 Talk 05:17, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Free City of Danzig
Raczej Free City of Danzig.
Po pierwsze w czasach jego istnienia funkcjonowało takie pojęcie.
Po drugie powołam się na Normana Daviesa. Nie pisze on wprawdzie o gdansku, ale o Lwowie i kwestii nazw miast na terytorium Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej. Pisze, że "Anglosas może popaść w absolutną rozpacz, gdy się okaże, że w każdym przypadku ma do czynienia z 2, 3, 4, a nawet 5 wariantami...".
Boże Igrzysko, tom. 2, s. 966, wyd. polskie (5), 2004
Pozdrawiam
Niki K 20:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Arthur Schopenhauer
Hi. You may have noticed that Arthur Schopenhauer is currently protected. This is so that a discussion can be worked out on the talk page. As you are one of the involved parties in the previous dispute, you are very welcome to join the discussion, hopefully we can come to a solution, so there is no continuation of the edit war. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:56, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Troche skomentowalem ta jego wersje, krysia nie jest zbyt bystra z tego co zauwazylem - ogolnie to chyba niema pojecia o czym pisze, tylko powoluje sie na komentarze innych. Moglbys wrzucic monete na [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wladislaus_IV_of_Poland), dzieki--Emax 02:31, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
3RR
You have been blocked from editing for 12 hours for breaking the 3RRGeni 03:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote
Hi. Since you have edited on pages with disputes about the names of Polish/German locations, I would invite you to vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote to settle the multi-year dozens-of-pages dispute about the naming of Gdansk/Danzig and other locations. The vote has two parts, one with questions when to use Gdansk/Danzig, and a second part affecting articles related to locations with Polish/German history in general. An enforcement is also voted on. The vote has a total of 10 questions to vote on, and ends in two weeks on Friday, March 4 0:00. Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 11:40, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Oliwa rv
Nie sadzisz, ze troche przesadzasz [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treaty_of_Oliwa&diff=0&oldid=10552916)? Wiekszosc linkow ktore usuwasz wygladaja na przydatne... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Voting Warschau/Warsaw
Hi. Since you have edited on pages with disputes about the names of German/polish locations, I would invite you to vote on Warsaw/Vote to settle the multi-year dozends-of-pages dispute about the naming of Warschau/Warsaw and other locations.--Schlesier 08:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
effected and affected
I can see how a country may be effected, but in what way are they affected? Philip Baird Shearer 01:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Erika Steinbach
Hi. According to the vote about the naming of gdansk (see Talk:Gdansk/Vote):
- 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). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.
- In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdansk) and later Danzig exclusively. In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdansk (Danzig) and later Gdansk exclusively. Persons controversial follow the guidelines according to the applicable period as decided above. Similar applies to other place names in the region that shares a history between Poland and Germany.
Please leave the additional german names in the biographic article of a german. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 08:18, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
VfD: Nazi or German Occupation?
Check this VfD vote: [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/German_military_occupation_of_Norway_during_World_War_II) --Ttyre 19:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
No Prussia no problem
Ktos Ci zmienil zdjecie i zamienil napis na "Poland".--Witkacy 00:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
- Za walke o sprawiedliwosc i rany ktore poniosles w walce (ban) Missing image
Odznaka_za_Rany.gif
Image:Odznaka za Rany.gif
;)--Witkacy 23:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Royal Prussia
Hi, thanks for the correction. I {naively) assumed that Royal Prussia was the same thing as the Kingdom of Prussia, and I see it's not. I'll correct my comment at Talk:Amber. Noel (talk) 21:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I just saw your change at Amber Room. Since the craftsmen in question are ethnic Germans, I think it's reasonable to prefer the Danzig variant of the name, as that's what they presumably called it. Also, according to Talk:Gdansk/Vote, that city is to be referred to as Danzig "between 1308 and 1945" - i.e. at the time we are speaking of in this article. So I put back the Danzig, but left a note that it's now called Gdansk. Noel (talk) 22:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- There is a debate ongoing about whether this was counted correctly. Nevertheless, it currently stands as policy, so please leave the name as called for by current policy. If you keep reverting it, I will cite you for a 3RR violation. Noel (talk) 22:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- PS: Your sarcastic crack about "who have not seen Germany for generations" is demonstrably wrong, since they were working in Berlin when the worked on the Amber Room. Noel (talk) 23:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Gdansk/Vote says "The following rules apply in the case of disputes" (my emphasis). If you keep acting like it doesn't apply, you will discover that it does. Noel (talk) 02:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Zivinbudas
Hi, I see User:Zivinbudas has come back (see User_talk:Jnc#Piotrus broke 3RR rule), so you now have someone you can have as many nice Polish nationalistic edit wars as you want with! I had blocked him previously, but I think it's best if I don't do so any more. In addition to his login ID, he uses lots of anons, so it's a bit hard to keep track of all the places he's reverting, but they include Balts, Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Vilnius. Enjoy! Noel (talk) 19:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Gdansk/Danzig
Because many maps I see currently still include "Gdansk" (Danzig), or "Szczecin" (Stettin), I would support the way the latter page presently operates. Szczecin is the article name, and a search on the one time German name of Stettin redirects to Szczecin. What I would REALLY like to see, but doubt this is likely, is the adoption of an official standard, either using maps and English placenames from the National Geographic Society (USA) or the Royal Geographic Society (UK), and have a system of giving the name on the printed map first (such as Gdansk or Szczecin) and other names of historical interest in the article. So for the case of Dresden, I only see a case for alternate names within a "History of Dresden" section, NOT in the opening paragraph. It is NOW a German city, and on my map it comes up as Dresden. Neither Encarta nor Britannica (online editions) mention any name other than Dresden, but that shouldn't stop us! Again, there's no reason another city name shouldn't or couldn't be listed in the history of the city, but I wouldn't expect to find the Dutch being militant over Niew Amsterdam (the original name of New York City)! Sorry if this rambles, but I hope it helps clarify my position. --JohnDBuell | Talk 01:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Kiev
- from article edit history
- Read the talk pages, Space Cadet!
- I did twice, so? You have the Russian name, so you should have the Polish name, as well!
- Read the talk pages, Space Cadet!
Reasons why we have a ru name and not a pl name is specifically discussed at the Talk:Kiev#Kij.F3w_in_Kiev_article. Please care to respond before reverting. -Irpen 03:20, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
- you wrote: Delete the unnecessary Russian name and none of my homies will bother you no more.
- I repeat, the issue of the Russian name being necessary or unnecessary is discussed at the ref above. If you have anything to say about this, please respond there before bringing havoc to the article. There is a bunch of reasonable people there and if you make a good case, the PL name may get through. The arguments at the level "if RU, then PL" without explanation and response to the points already raised there are unhelpful. -Irpen 03:44, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
you wrote: Stop the exadge! As if mentioning Kijów brought an actual "havoc" to anything! Shyaa...riiight! Logically if Danzig belongs in the Gdansk article, then Kijów belongs in Kiev! Unless you agree with the Britannica convention: current English name throughout, native name bolded in the first sentence, nothing else, unless in the "history" section. In the above case, however, help in getting rid of German names from Gdansk, Szczecin and Wroclaw articles. Your support of logic and common sense will be appreciated. Sincerely, Space Cadet 04:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey, what you are doing is exactly a WP:Point: "If Kiev than Kijow" and the opposite: "Will remove Kijow in you remove Kiev" and then too "If Danzig, than Kijow". Please note from the WP:Point page "If you must..." section:
If after reading this you are still adamant in your desire to pursue a campaign of illustrative editing to demonstrate your point (as you might if your attempts at reasoned discussion have failed), please do so in a responsible fashion that minimizes the ill effects of your campaign. Bear in mind these key points:
- Think through your edits for a while before enacting them. If applicable, wait until you're sober.
- Stop your campaign once your point is made. Don't engage in an edit war to save content you added for rhetorical reasons. People can still see what you did in the page history, and you can link to an old version of the page if you wish to draw attention to it from a talk page.
- Clean up after yourself, reverting content and listing pages for deletion as necessary once you're done making your point.
- Like leaving a restaurant without tipping in societies where tipping is customary, doing this often makes it clear that you're a boor.
I don't want to revert for now. I think you should cleanup after you tried to make a point. And, BTW, you didn't have to because you can very well attempt "a reasoned discussion" as the guideline suggest! Once again, I invite you to respond at the talk:Kiev if you have anything to they on the issue itself. -Irpen 04:16, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
- you wrote: Dear Irpen, I'm not on any campaign per se, except of course the "campaign for logic, consistency and justice for all". Your "sobriety" remark was very rude. Your consistent ignoring of my point, only a little annoying. Tell me what you think about the way Britannica handles those issues. Space Cadet 04:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The advise above was a quote from the WP guidelines WP:Point directly applicable here, and of course I have no reason to think that you were literally not sober. It was part of the phrase: "Think through your edits for a while..." Read the whole thing again if you please.
I am not ignoring your point? I am trying to convinse you to express it clearly at the talk:Kiev page. I have no opinion on Britannica's policy. I would like to stick to the issue at hand which is: (1) should the Kiev article have a RU name in the first line, and (2) should it have the PL name there, or is the RU name alone a sufficient reason for a PL name, or whether the German/Polish naming dispute somehow affects how the Kiev article should look like. If you have anything to say about those issues, please use the talk:Kiev page. Several people, including user:Witkacy, wrote there. You choose to ignore the talk page and simply revert. The justification you give, your quote: "if Danzig belongs in the Gdansk article, then Kijów belongs in Kiev!" and "Delete the unnecessary Russian name and none of my homies will bother you" clearly shows that this is a WP:Point issue. If making a point re the Russian name and an unrelated Gdansk issues is only part of your reasons, please state the rest of at the talk page in response to what's already said there. I am only calling on you reverting your editing yourself if you are motivated solely by WP:Point-like reasons. I have no problem to discuss the issue itself. I hope you will agree to stop this revert war. If you please help improving the Polish section of Kiev history I would really appreciate that. -Irpen 06:30, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Just a small point of order: Britannica does mention multiple names. Please take a look at, for example: Szczecin (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9070793&query=szczecin&ct=), Vilnius (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9075401&query=vilnius&ct=), Kiev (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9106466&query=kiev&ct=) etc.
- Also, since you are engaged in many edit wars over city names, I wonder if you could comment on the ideas discussed in Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Vote on city naming. Since so many of these edit wars are really fought on the basis: "I have to include name A in B, since name C is included in D" and various other variations, we are trying to develop a uniform standard for including names, which would hopefully keep everybody happy. If that is at all possible. Balcer 07:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Are you adding Kijow to the top of the article because you think it belongs there, or just because you're making a point about Gdansk/Danzig or some German names somewhere? If you have an issue with something in the article about Gdansk, deal with it there and don't cause trouble elsewhere. If you think this belongs in Kiev, then explain your edits at talk:Kiev before starting a revert war. Give us a reason to believe that you're not simply vandalizing the article to make a point. —Michael Z. 2005-06-10 13:54 Z
- Thanks again, I just posted a message at Talk:Kiev#a_Kij.F3w.2FKiev_end_note_.28hopefully.29. Regards, Irpen 02:29, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
Danzig/Gdansk naming style
I almost didn't reply, since I'm a) rather annoyed by this stupid edit war, and b) not really very interested in this whole area anyway, but since you're making an attempt to try and discuss this, I will too.
I don't think there's any point in linking to both names, since "Danzig" is merely a redirect to "Gdansk". Just link to whichever comes first, and the one inside the parentheses (the alternate) should be non-linked; people will understand that both names lead to the same article. (Besides that, it's Wikipedia style to only link once to a given article from another).
Also, when you say "hid the fact that these people were born in Poland" (and also when you say "Danzig (now Gdansk, in Poland)"), I have a couple of comments. First, I have no idea where they were born, merely that they were working in Danzig when they were hired for the Amber Room project. Second, I really am dubious about this whole emphasis on nationality, because back then (circa 1700) people just didn't have the same sense of nationality that they do now. If you look at Nationalism#Evolution of nationalism, you'll see that it's very much a phenomenon of the 1800's and after. So I kind of doubt that they thought of themselves as Poles or Germans (well, there wasn't any Germany then - I guess it would be 'Prussians'). You're trying to project modern sensibilities on people who lived many centuries ago, and it just doesn't work that way. They just did not have the same sense of nationality that people today do.
I'm pretty much going to stay away from the Amber Room article anyway. I only edited it recently because someone took out entirely the mention of where they were from, and merely put that they were German (!). I have no interest in being part of this kind of mess. Noel (talk) 23:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)