User talk:Cautious

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.

Gdynia

Would you support something like this very brief wording in the initial sentence?

Gdynia (formerly also Gdingen and Gotenhafen) is...

--Ruhrjung 14:52, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 14:02, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Welcome. Please write in complete sentences. Do not create duplicate articles with the same text; put the article at the best title, and if there are relevent alternative titles use redirects (you write "#REDIRECT [[name of page here]]" only in page that needs to redirect to the other one). Cheers, -- Infrogmation 13:36, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have to reiterate what Infrogmation said, please use complete sentences and bolden the title the first time it occurs in the article (should be in the first sentence). Dori | Talk 17:19, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

Again, please make sure you actually put the title at the beginning of the article, and write in complete sentences. Crenner 14:26, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We appreciate your contributions, but they are consistently lacking in complete sentences, and your links are often incorrect. Please be more careful, and check over your previous work. There are some things I (as a non-polish speaker) cannot verify. -- Crenner 14:52, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I concur: Please take more care when writing an article as for example the numerous identical and not very well formatted articles for the subcamps of the concentration camp Stutthof. -- chris_73 09:37, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

According to Stanislaus I of Poland, he is the same guy - it even repeats information found in the article about his daughter. I checked before I made the redirect :) Adam Bishop 01:28, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why do we need a separate article on the Armenian quote, when all it does is repeat the quote which is given in full in History of Poland (1939-1945)? I have serious doubts that the quote is authentic anyway. Adam 12:39, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) There is a lot of articles dealing with holocaust, genocid, extermination war, Hitler. I am going to add the link to those articles. To authenticity: Danny checked the quote and it is authentic. Cautious 13:08, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Connotations of Völkerwanderung in English

Here's my thought: do Slav and Hungarian historians accept the usage you descibe? "In Central Europe we use translated form of Volkerwanderung, that means The Great Wandering of the Nations, in exact English translation. The word refers to the specific migration, that shaped ethnic structure of Europe for 1000 years to come. Migration, refers to generic meaning of migration." These specific migrations, which separated Antiquity from the Middle Ages included Huns and Slavs, Avars etc. Why would the neutral historical term be German? —except in the German Wikipedia, needles to say. In English we don't say Moyen Age. If we use the term Erklärung in English, we're referring to Lessing and Goethe specifically, not to Diderot and Voltaire too. When the word Völkerwanderung appears in an English sentence, it summons up and draws attention to some historical nationalist baggage, which the term naturally carries in an English context. Which does make a useful distinction, like substituting volksgeist for "national character" etc. Historians in English refer to "Migrations period" "Migrations art." I think there are two perfectly justifiable entries here, but their connotations in English are different and their definitions in the opening paragraph should make the differences clear.Wetman 20:14, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Arianism

I copy edited your recent contrib to Arianism, and moved it to Arianism#Reformation and Enlightenment without trying to integrate it with that of User:Szopen. I'd suggest you

fix anything i screwed up out of my ignorance, and
try to weld the two contributions together, perhaps in consultation with Szopen. --Jerzy 20:33, 2004 Feb 4 (UTC)

Not all of Silesia was annexed, as parts of it already were German. The area Czaja was from is historically known as Austrian Silesia. Nico 13:12, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Copernicus revert war

Addressing this to you just because you are the one with a login name and Talk page:

Hasn't the revert war over Copernicus gone on long enough? I don't know if anyone has tried mediation with an anonymous new user, but it seems worth a try, and maybe you'd want to be the guinea pig. (Or maybe I should join the dispute and then request mediation as a participant. Ugh.) Please, let's do something; right now it's effectively impossible for anyone to make real edits to the page, and it would be no worse if the page were locked. Dandrake 20:04, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

Baltic Sea Ports

Hi Cautious, I had moved that table to an article of its own because Baltic Sea already has too little text and too many lists and suchlike. I thought it would be a good idea to have the statistics outside the article itself, which should IMO focus on things like geography and history in text form. Kosebamse 10:00, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't find the ports on the page. Maybe you hidden it too much. I think there must be prominent article about Economy of the Baltic Sea. Cautious 10:34, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Humus sapiens is not an administrator, so he can't actually ban you, but if he believes that you are doing something that would get you banned, he is entitled to tell you that. His comment that "One more revert will get you banned" is not strictly true. We do have a policy that says you shouldn't revert more than 3 times a day, but this has not been enforced in the past (it is possible it will be in future though). I would encourage you to discuss this on the talk page rather than reverting. If you can not come to any agreement, try asking other people to comment by leaving a link to the talk page from Wikipedia:requests for comment. Go through the proper procedures of dispute resolution rather than getting in an edit war. Angela . 13:32, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

duplicate table with bad lay-out

Please, try to refrain from duplicating chunks of information. The major disadvantage of this is that corrections in one place do not automatically propagate to other places, which leads to wikipedia contradicting itself, which is BAD.

In the particular case of the harbour table, it has to be added that the table itself is in dire need of improved lay-out.

Finally, I would really wish that you took issues to the appropriate talk page instead of trying to force your ideas on the wikipedia community. Your attitude is far from the most damageing here around, but your action in this very case does nothing to improve cooperation and trust between wikipedia contributors - which is badly needed!

I hope you will remove the table by yourself!
--Ruhrjung 14:06, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oder-Neisse line

It looks like PMA has unprotected it. You might be interested to know there is a Wikipedia:Requests for page unprotection that you can leave such requests on in future. Angela . 16:59, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

UTF? in titles?

I saw this List_of_subcamps_of_GroÎ²_Rosen and I got worried... ? Did you intend to use UTF in the title, or something similar? If so, I think it is not supported... ... ... I do not know what can be done, though. Pfortuny 10:56, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. I added it right now, but that is the place for asking for a quick deletion of a wrongly created page.

"Nonsense"

Is everything not according to your POV "nonsense"? Jo r 17:50, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On Molotov

If you are genuinely interested in discussing the article on Molotov, please respond to what I have written on the talk page. I strongly object to what you have added to the article, and if we can't reach some kind of compromise, this mutual reverting is just going to continue. Everyking 17:52, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you

For changes in Oder-Neisse line and Poland. Moving controversial topics into separate articles is good idea. At least it causes less page being protected. I hope this will end often occuring wars on Oder-Neisse. Przepla 14:34, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dear Muriel! You are probably right. However, the fact, that User:Adam Carr consider a list of camps Anti-Semitism and call it Polish chauvinism makes me extremely offended. I will remove it.Cautious 14:52, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes people get a bit nrvous around here. Thats why we need to be extra ... Cautious. Cheers, Muriel 15:02, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

World War II traitors hunt: sorry for late answer. I don't feel I am capable of any help here. I have no systematic historical knowledge. What I'm doing here in wikipedia is fixing obvious blunders that catch my eye. Initially I was going to contribute in computer science and ballroom dance. It turned out, I have no time for my hobbies here :-(. Mikkalai ~

User:Cautious/Editing Polish-related articles

If I figured it out correctly, about a month ago you posted messages on the Christianity and Anti-Semitism page that it's neutrality and accuracy are disputed. Some work has been done on the article since then. Could you go over it and (if I am right that it was you) see if you still think its neutrality and accuracy are suspect? If not, please delete the messages. If so, please sum up your concerns on the talk page, so contributors can address them. Thanks, Slrubenstein

Hey Cautious: some of your new articles are far removed from NPOV; Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies is POV from the title onwards. I know you feel strongly about this; maybe you should let someone who doesn't feel so strongly edit these pages. DJ Clayworth 18:44, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You should also watch out for factual errors. Poland was not the first country occupied by Germany at the start of WW2. Can I suggest you cool off and let someone else edit these articles for a while? DJ Clayworth 19:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I believe Czechoslovakia was occupied by the Germans (occupied not invaded, note).

I agree with you that many people in Poland feel betrayed about what happened to them at the end of WW2, and I'm not surprised. It is valid to record that they feel betrayed. However the way you phrased the article was too accusatory and oversimplified. It does not take into account that there might be another way of looking at things. DJ Clayworth 19:55, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We should continue this on one user page. I've replied on DJ Clayworth if that's OK. DJ Clayworth 20:32, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you've just given up on this and started trying to recruit every Pole on Wikipedia to your point of view. Instead we could work together to find an acceptable form of words to go into the main Polish history articles, that would include the Polish feelings about the situation. All that is going to happen here is that we will argue about the name of the article. Probably nothing about the subject will end up being put into the history articles. DJ Clayworth 21:46, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey, Clayworth, don't panic! We, Poles have some brains too ;) and can decide for ourselves. For example Szopen voted against article and for merging with history and I voted conditional 'for' (Cautious: look at it) marking the need for expanding or merging.

But to the point: as I said on VfD page, we need both page expressing aftermath of Potsdam for all the nations involved and page expressing Polish feelings about it (in advent of German Expellees activism it would be desirable to balance their POV). I need to know however if the overview could be worked out amicably - I don't want to create another arena for edit wars.

Forseti 09:08, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

BTW: Cautious, did my mail reached you? If not call GG:7000398 please. Forseti 09:08, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cautious, did you see my changes to the 1921 in Germany article? Does that make it less offensive? At any rate, given that the article is pretty specific about which regions voted for Germany and which for Poland, I think it makes sense not to try to make any general statements about how much of the province voted for whoever. Just leave it as is, with the specific discussion already present. As to why the voting was different, I would imagine that you're right that there was some intimidation going on during the plebiscite, although it's also likely that some Germanophones moved out of the Polish part of the province (and that Poles from the rest of Poland moved in) in the aftermath of the territorial transfer, thus changing the demographics of the region. At any rate, tell me what you think of the changes to the article. I tried to remove the implication that the violence was all the fault of the Poles, and that the Germans were just defending themselves, which strikes me as nonsense. john 16:51, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is much better. The only what I dislike, is that comparison of 40% votes for Poland (out of inhabitants of the region and emigrants) and 48% of inhabitants only, that went to Poland. The last sentence should be balance by the sentence that rural areas, which voted for Poland went to Germany. In the matter of fact, when the city votes for one country and district otherwise, it is difficult to keep city where it voted, because nobody can make a city an exclave. The eventual balance depends on the population balance between city and district.

According to http://www.literad.de/regional/fremdspr_krei.html rural areas had up to 70% of Polish majority, cities otherwise. Cautious 17:20, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not enough knowledge to judge Poland's betrayal by western countries. Politics is never a straight line and there are no betrayals in politics since everyone cheats and the word betrayal loses his meaning. I don't live in Poland since I was 9, I don't know what people are thinking of this. I'll ask my parents about their opinion, they should know. Then maybe I'll vote. Schopenhauer 20:41, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

--- Markowa

Hello -- to respond to your comment on VfD -- the article in question isn't my text, and, be that as it may, you are certainly welcome to improve the article if you can. You seem to be better informed than I am, so edit away, I say. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:23, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gdynia, briefer

I would like to suggest the very brief wording of the initial sentence along the line:

Gdynia (formerly also Gdingen and Gotenhafen) is...

What do you say about that?
--Ruhrjung 14:52, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Prima April admin

Hey. I removed your entry from Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship. It's only about the third or fourth one to be trashed today, so don't worry. :) If you actually intended it as a serious proposal, you should not make April Fools' jokes in it. (I won't remove it if you replace it as-is, but I'm sure someone else will.) - Fennec 13:33, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

1921 in Germany

Hello, Cautious. Looking over your comments, I'd note that I had removed some of the more blatant POV stuff shortly before you made your comments. As far as the statistical stuff, I think we'd need to actually get down and look at it, but it is certainly quite possible that the Germans won more districts, simply because they might have won their districts by narrower margins than the Poles won theirs. Tomorrow (maybe...) I'll try to look at Mommsen's account of the plesbiscite in his history of Weimar and see if I can try to clear up some of that stuff. john 08:25, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cautious, I was not referring to Theodor Mommsen, the 19th century historian of Ancient Rome (who had, at any rate, died before the First World War), but to his grandson, Hans Mommsen, a well-known lefty German historian who has written the standard account of the Weimar Republic (translated in English as The Rise and Fall of Weimar Democracy). He is assuredly not a pan-German enthusiast. john 15:27, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

moving articles

It's a good thing to move articles so that their titles are improved.

It's however a bad thing to do this without discussing potentially controversial matters first.

The right place is at the respective talk pages.

Your recent move of several articles might provoke responses from other users, and result in unnecessary warfare, which could have been avoided if you followed ordinary wikipedia routines.

Please do not do this again, or consider yourself warned against going in this kind of rampage, which ultimately could result in you being (briefly) banned from editing the wikipedia.

regards!

--Ruhrjung 14:36, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Surely that message was meant for someone else? All I did was fix a typo, I have no interest in the dispute. Everyking 07:23, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User talk:Cautious/Dawn of German East

More neutral accounts? What on earth would that be? His is the standard account of the history of the Weimar Republic in German and English. He may be somewhat biased (as all historians are), but he's certainly not biased in a pro-pan-Germanc way. And you have no idea what you're talking about. What books are you using as your source? john 18:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Look, you've posted a lot of statistical data, not any actual historical accounts. I will say that I have absolutely no idea what Mommsen says about the Silesian plebiscites - I've only read the latter part of his book - but that I suspect that it is not a very "German" perspective on it, and is likely highly critical of the German position at this period. Again, I am not looking at the history of this period from a "German" perspective, I am looking at it from the perspective of academic history. Mommsen is a very important academic historian, and not one who is particularly sympathetic to German nationalism in the 1920s. I am not interested in what German Silesians or Polish Silesians particularly have to say on the matter, but rather what historians say about it. john 20:58, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The same style and stubbornes in writing 19th century German fantastic myths as User:H.J. The contributions are obviously nationalistic, revisionistic and aggresive. The article about Polish Corridor was a real curiosum (for example Poland attacked Germany in 1939). I have hevily re-edited it, but read his version to have some fun. I have got idea how to fight such efforts: mayby we sholud write alternative versions of Polish mithology to (and place it in talk) for better comparison.Yeti 21:30, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Marggrabova - Treuburg - Olecko

I am not sure what you are saying, Cautious, that Olecko is not the former East Prussian Treuburg. It certainly is. Yes, there is a difference between a "Landkreis" and a "Stadtkreis", also that the town now is no longer a "Kreisstadt", but please tell me what the present Polish name of the former German town of Marggrabova, which was later renamed Treuburg, is. There is no separate town in that area which might be called Olecko, it surely has to be the same place.

Another site http://www.ostpreussenkarten.de.vu (click on righ-hand top corner "Karte als Textlink", on the Karten page click either "Karte 310" or "Karte 283" and will show Treuburg on Great Lake Olecko (Grosser Oletzkoer See). Treuburg is now the town Olecko.

You will find a history in the website http://www.lo.olecko.pl/olec/oleckon.htm aand it is shown as Marggrabova - Treuburg - Olecko.

In http://www.genealogienetz.de/reg/OPRU/oprus.html the Regierungsbezirk (district) of Gumbinnen with 16 Kreisen (counties - [incorrectly stated]) gives Oletzko (Treuburg).

See: http://www.ostpreussen.net/contents.php?kreis=02&stadt=01 has Kreis: Treuburg, Stadt: Treuburg, Geschichte von Marggrabova bzw. Oletzko bzw. Treuburg (Namensgebung für die Stadt Treuburg.

I came across the town as it was the birthplace of Arthur Zimmermann, he of the Zimmermann telegram. I shall leave the reference in the article the way it is. --Dieter Simon 00:50, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok, Cautious, we'll compromise. It is part of Olecko, after all no matter where you live in a town, it is part of that town. --Dieter Simon

I do not agree that "Evacuation of East Prussia" is an appropriate title, so I have basically restored the old version. You know perfectly well what happened to those who weren't evacuated. Nico 06:06, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Stop reverting Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Why are you removing the pictures? This is bordering on vandalism. Nico 07:57, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

--Wighson 00:31, 2004 Apr 11 (UTC)

1. Are you sure about Oletzko County. Is this article really necessary? Mayby link to Olecko would be sufficient?Yeti 17:57, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you, Yeti, Oletzko is another German name for the present Olecko. County, in conjunction with the German spelling of Oletzko would have been translated as Grafschaft, but Oletzko - Treuburg - Marggrabova would have been a Kreis, and as a town a Kreisstadt, and would never been called a Grafschaft in German. It was a district town - Kreisstadt in the olden days. Now it is an independent town, no longer a district town.--Dieter Simon 00:12, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that. But we should be precise. The official name of Congress Kingdom was Kingdom of POland of course. But it is not the basic meaning of the term. We should work it out in some way.Yeti 09:55, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I have prepared a new article in place of the old one, which is a obvious non-sense. Please, feel free to express your opinion. Talk:Carpathian Ruthenia, Yeti 21:02, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Created a stub about Estonia (province). Andres 16:27, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

stimulating the barbarian within us

Please consider http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Erika_Steinbach&diff=0&oldid=3681741 at Talk:Erika Steinbach
--Ruhrjung 01:05, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Stalin

Is it true, that 1948-53 Soviet media started already anti-Semitic campaign? I was convinced that this was to come after Doctor's plot? Cautious 22:50, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. Keywords: Itzik Feffer, Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, Rootless cosmopolitan; and not only in wikipedia. Mikkalai 00:08, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I just now see what was the reason of your question. I don't know how to split the hair here with respect to anti-Semitic term. According to the wikipedia definition (which I disagree with) antiSemitism is "ideologically motivated hostility towards.... jewish culture". With Stalin, formally this was exactly the case, however the issue was not jews as jews per se.. I don't want to go into much philosophy, but after a brief "blossoming" of all national cultures, they were repressed everywhere, except for designated singers of socialism. National cultures were correctly identified by Stalin as seeds of independence. Stalin's ideal is one, "Soviet" culture, one nation: "Soviet people". This is remarkably parallel to developments of Alexander II of Russia. An additional problem with Jews was their international ties. Stalin didn't want Soviet people to know how people really live abroad, and vice versa. Mikkalai 00:27, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

History of the Czech Republic

Maybe "the Czech Republic" isn't best, but "History of the Czechia" makes even less sense (in english). Perhaps you can think of a better title? Maximus Rex 00:16, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cities

Divided cities United cities

Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies

The page has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion#Poland.27s_betrayal_by_the_Western_Allies_.26mdash.3B_Add_to_this_discussion Votes for Deletion. From your previous participation in the VfD debate I assume that you might be interested.

A tak po naszemu - tamten artykuł rzeczywiście pozostawia wiele do życzenia, ale nie widzę żadnego sensownego powodu za jego wykasowaniem. Halibutt 10:05, Jul 7, 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)

Copyright of E.H. Lewinski-Corwin's work.

As far as I know, copyright is held 75 years after the author's death. Therefore if Mr. Lewinski-Corwin died before 1929, the copyright is indeed expired. Naturally, there may be some interim regulations that I am not aware of, but burden of proof is on you on that matter. Nevertheless, I pointed out those facts on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and if they say it is not copyvio, I shall gladly revert my changes. You could defend your case here.Przepla 14:56, 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)

Small mistake in polabian

u added table to Kashubian language 28.jan. 13:23 and same info to polabian But I am afraid polabian language is not used in Canada and Poland! :) So please check my correction and correct again if it is needed :)

Thanx! 3.9.2004 Liso

Polish Geography

Perhaps you might be interested in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Polish Voivodships. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 19:03, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Are you there? [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 12:44, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Kielce pogrom

Hello. You copied, with almost no changes, the entire article from the external link http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Kielce.html to Kielce pogrom. I have marked this as a copyright violation and removed the article text. Please don't do this anymore. If for some reason you had permission to copy this article you should cite it and note the source and the permission in the Talk page. Ntk 23:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Redirect you created at "Kolomya"

User:Jnc/NeverRedirMissingTarget Noel (talk) 20:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Jnc/ReplyMyTalk

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:

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:

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&section=new)) (talk)}[[]] 13:55, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Ashgabat???

Hi. I don't know how often you visit the List of European cities with alternative names these days, but there has been a controversy on its talk page for the past ten days or so, and I was wondering if you would care to review it and possibly intervene. Thank you. Pasquale 18:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

198.82.71.55

That IP has not made any edits since December 17...where have they been abusing you? Adam Bishop 00:45, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well I see that, but the last contribution was over a week ago. I'm not going to block them if they aren't even here anymore. Adam Bishop 00:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you want to prove that this IP is GabrielF, you might want to try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration. I don't think I can help you. Adam Bishop 01:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there is a place to report abuse, other than the links I gave you. Adam Bishop 01:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stop slandering me on my user page. I am not 198.82.71.55, if you whois that IP you will see it is from Virginia Tech, which is more than 500 miles away from any location from which I've ever posted. Ask an admin to check this. I did move your rant on Jerzy Kosinski off the Elie Wiesel page, and on to the talk page. I outlined the reasons for which I did this: 1. It was POV 2. It was poorly written 3. It was about the same length of the entire article when the role Dr. Wiesel played in the Kosinski business was in fact peripheral at best. I said all of these things politely and I did not refer to you at all, there was another comment posted after what I wrote and italicized which called you "dimwitted", but I didn't write that. GabrielF 04:27, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please take a look at versions [[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elie_Wiesel&action=history)] where comments originally written by User:198.82.71.55 were subsequently extended and eventually signed by User:GabrielF. For me it very important tip that both are the same person. 22:46, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again, those edits are days apart. Just because two different people edit the same page doesn't make them the same person! GabrielF 01:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I have put in a Wikipedia:Request for Mediation which I urge you to support. This is getting ridiculous.GabrielF 01:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gdańsk

tricity is only Gdańsk, Gdynia, Sopot. Gdańsk, Gdynia, Tczew, Wejherowo, Rumia, Sopot (we cant say Sopot and many smaller town, because is only one Reda), Reda - the main city is Gdańsk. Gdańsk is also capital of Pomerania Voivodship but not metropolitan area! :)

Esbi 08:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I dont undestand You because You talk no on subject. Name of quaters of Gdansk have nothing to problem - Gdansk and tricty.

Esbi 14:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Polish Wikipedians' notice board

Shortcut:
WP:WNBP

zapraszam.--Witkacy 13:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Portion

Well no exact definition states sizes, but scrap sounds uneducated.--naryathegreat | (talk) 14:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I understand completely. I am trying to learn Spanish ("trying" being the operative word) and this is difficult. English is especially annoying because we have such a variety of connotations (dictionary definitions are denotations); scrap is more of an informal kind of way of saying part, portion, or some other such word. It is kind of inappropriate to use it in a more formal context, like an encyclopedia. It's a kind of thing I just have a feeling for, not something tied to the word itself. Suffice to say, if I were writing a paper for a teacher in college, I would not use the word scrap, it just begs to have another word there.--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:00, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:47, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Union of Poles in Germany

Hi - I've just been tweaking this article. There is a list of names. I assume that these are heads of the organisation, but could you clarify? Paul B 23:20, 16 june 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Cautious"