User talk:Molobo

Welcome

Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nice with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay · Talk 15:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

please, sign yourself

Hi Molobo, please, sign yourself when you take part in a discussion. This way you will be regarded more seriously by other editors. To sign yourself, please, click the second right bar above a message window. Welcome! --SylwiaS 16:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Voting

Please vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland. --Ttyre 13:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Kilka wskazówek

Molobo, jeszcze kilka wskazówek jak korzystać z Wiki. Poniżej wklejam wskazówki, które sama dostałam od Piotra:

== Welcome! ==

Hi Molobo! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oprócz tego, kilka wskazówek w skrócie, bo i tak pewnie nie przeczytasz od razu wszystkich powyższych linków. Do głosowania używa się gwiazdki (*), która pojawia się na ekranie jako niebieski kwadracik. Również słowa delete/keep/rename/remove/merge powinny być wyboldowane. Jeśli odpowiadasz na kometarz innej osoby, Twoja odpowiedź powinna być wcięta w stosunku do tekstu powyżej. Używasz do tego dwukropka (:). Czym więcej dwukropków, tym bardziej wcięty tekst. Żeby zobaczyć, jak wygląda Twój tekst przed zapisaniem, kliknij 'show preview'.

Na prywatnych stronach użytkowników (takich jak ta) można używać polskiego, na wszystkich innych, również Polish Wikipedians' Notice Board obowiązuje angielski. Klinknij link w kwadratowym okienku, żeby dostać się do naszej kanciapy.

Jeśli masz jeszcze jakieś pytania, zapraszam. Bardziej skomplikowane pytania kieruj do Piotra. :) --SylwiaS 16:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Dzięki --Molobo

Magdenburg rights - please reconsider your last edit

Hello, I would like to point, that the correction you have added "especially new cities founded" recently to Magdeburg rights is not correct historically. Cities never have been founded as they are these days in medieval Europe. Before a city has been established, it always existed as a village. After willage has grown substantially for inter-city trade or a local self goverment was necessary, it was given the mMgenburg city rights and automaticlly received a status of a city. These facts have been preserved in various chronicles, and in many cases these were the first writteen sources the locality was named. So many cities celebrate their foundry date the date they have been mentioned in chronicles. I din't wan't to disregard you, so better fix that yourself . Have a nice day :) DariusMazeika 21:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Rommel

I left this message at Cadorna's talk page as well: You two are not helping the article with your frequent POV edits and reverts on the Rommel page. I would suggest that you read WP:NPOV, and please try and play nice. Leithp 11:58, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from your current confrontational editing style, and try to improve your spelling and grammar, this is the English Wikipedia after all. GeneralPatton 19:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Molbo, the quotes are taken out of context. The Poland section also contains some sneaky stuff that is also not properly in context. It just looks like your trying hard to push some kind of a personal agenda. That’s certainly not NPOV. GeneralPatton 00:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Dodalem

Dzieki, dodalem - gdyby ktos Cie atakowal rasistowskimi tekstami, ponownie daj znac.--Witkacy 20:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Panie Witkacy, mam tylko jedno pytanie: Czy to, że mówisz o "rasistowskich" tekstach, znaczy że Polacy są jakąś osobną "rasą" w stosunku do innych białych ludzi? Jestem naprawdę ciekaw! --Thorsten1 17:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Być może są ludzie którzy tak uważają i na tej podstawie dyskryminują Polaków(warto zastnowić się nad włączeniem tego do artykułu o antypoloniżmie :), zresztą pojęcie rasizm zawiera wiele form dyskryminacji wobec grup etnicznych które rasami nie są.Radzę poczytać coś na temat, może rozszerzysz swoje horyzonty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism Assuming that character and abilities of an individual substantially depend on racial or ethnic stereotypes is race prejudice, and granting or withholding rights or privileges based on such stereotypes is racially discriminatory prejudice. The term racism sometimes is used to mean a strong and persistent bias or inclination towards these attitudes. --Molobo 18:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Widocznie artykuł Racism jest trochę zagmatwany - ponieważ wg. tej definicji nie byłoby żadnej różnicy między rasizmem a zwykłą ksenofobią. Dziękuję za tą informację. --Thorsten1 18:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC) When in doubt-change the article.W sumie to już trzeci raz chyba gdy na info że się mylisz pędzisz zmienić artykuł aby przyznał ci rację. :) --Molobo 22:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC) No ale tego nie zmienisz : http://www.imadr.org/pub/web/staven1.html "If racism is understood as a set of beliefs and practices whereby certain ethnic groups are discriminated against in a given society because of their real or imagined racial and/or ethnic characteristics, then the new name of racism at the end of the twentieth century is no longer colonialism, apartheid or nazi ideology but rather xenophobia and social exclusion related to international migrations, the emerging of new kinds of ethnic or racial minorities, and the persistent and in fact growing inequalities between the "haves" and the "have nots" in a globalised economy.

To the extent that "race" is a social construct and "racialisation" a social and political process, certain ethnic groups become "racialised" in the global society and the concept "race" is used extensively by dominant groups and public opinion in general to signify difference, incompatibility, hostility, exclusion, discrimination, rejection of specific collectivities on the basis of their real or imagined (constructed) biological and/or cultural characteristics. Consequently, racism can be directed not only at "racial" groups but at "ethnic" groups as well."

)--Molobo 22:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, you can always try and redefine things until they all mean the same. We social scientists are really good at that... ;) In the 1980s and 1990s, "racism" has been elevated to a key concept to understand any kind of discrimination within the social sciences. However, the fact remains that in common usage the word "racism" is reserved discrimination of people of a different "race", i.e. with distinguishable physical differences from the dominant discriminating party. That is why you will rarely hear the word "racism" in connection with, say, U.S. American resentment against Canadians or the French, German resentment against the Dutch, etc.

I do not believe that you are really using the word "racism" to label what you consider as anti-Polish sentiments because you interpret "race" as a social construct to discriminate against migrant have-nots within a globalised economy. That wouldn't be quite your style. To be perfectly frank, I do not believe you even understand what you are quoting...

I believe the reason is much simpler: "Racism" is simply a much stronger word than xenophobia. People will commiserate much more with anyone who is a victim of the big bad R-word, and not just some banal national stereotyping. The problem is, if I can see through this, most people will, too. Tough luck! --Thorsten1 23:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Arbcom

You really leave me with few options but to take your case over to the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. You seem to not understand some of our main principles such as NPOV policy and editorial consensus. GeneralPatton 01:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Wiking

Just cool down a bit, i just combined the existing intro with your section on war crimes GeneralPatton 14:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Nie daj sie

Zamotac, w zwiazku z dawnymi sprawami generalek nie przepada za krajem Wislan.--Witkacy 20:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Dzieki, nie pierwszy i nie ostatni :)--Witkacy 23:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Right wing propaganda

Molobo,

I do not appreciate being accused of advocating right wing propaganda. The edits in question, for the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend article I shall justify my edits below.
1) Malmedy Massacre. a)The perpertrators of the Malmedy massacre were elements of Kampfgruppe Peiper, the spearhead of the 1.SS-Panzer-Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler. In post war trials held at Dachau, Peiper, along with many other LSSAH personnel and even 6.SS-Panzer-Armee commander Josef Dietrich was broght to trial. 12.SS-Panzer-Division Hitlerjugend was involved in heavy fighting to break through the Elsenborn Ridge and to reach Kampfgruppe Peiper at the time of the Massacre. The Bagunez Crossroads at Malmedy were well out of the operational area of the HJ, and there was a US combat division between them.
b) The malmedy massacre took place in December 1944 during the Battle of the Bulge. In June, when you state the massacre took place, the HJ was based in Normandy, over 200km from Malmedy (in Belgium).
c) HJ had only two panzergrenadier regiments, not three.Have a look at FACTS before you start writing.
2) Meyer's release caused enourmous outrage among the public.

Meyer's release brought neither a positive or a negative reaction. His release had been secured only through the help of a Canadian priest and several of his contemporaries from Normandy, including General Sir George W. E. J. Bobby Erskine, GCB, KBE, DSO, commander of the famous British 7th Armoured Division. See the Warcrimes section of the Kurt Meyer (Panzermeyer) article.

In summation, if you have a problem with the POV in any article i've edited, please don't hesitate to message me. I'll be more than happy to discuss your greivances. Accusing me of spitting Right Wing Propaganda is insulting and unjust, especially considering the more-than-dubious claims you have been advocating. --Ansbachdragoner 00:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"Right Wing Propaganda is insulting and unjust"... I couldn't possibly agree more, especially as Molobo has himself been pushing an extreme right-wing POV on a number of pages about Poland and topics remotely connected with Poland. He is showing a remarkable talent in randomly picking out Google results that appear (to him) to prove his points, without any profound knowledge of the context. This can't go on for much longer. --Thorsten1 00:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Slavic differences

I don't have time to prosecute the topic, but, honestly, my belief is that only the Poles could talk seriously about the Mongolian influence on Russian politics. In my experience, the Poles talk about Russians, as anti-Semites talk about Jews. But now to the topic. I don't think that free nomads like Mongols or Huns were particularly inclined to authoritorianism. As the EB 2005 states, the Russian authoritorianism is rooted in the Byzantine Empire, whom the tsars aspired to emulate, and, consequently, in the Roman imperial traditions. Read about Moscow as the Third Rome doctrine for more information. On the other hand, Russia has the most ancient democratic traditions among all Slavic peoples. You may read about them in the articles on Novgorod Republic and Don Cossacks. Without such traditions, the Russian Revolution wouldn't have been possible. --Ghirlandajo

Warcrimes

Molbo, why are you removing mentions of alleged allied war crimes? Do you believe in victors justice or NPOV? And what about the numerous and well documented Red Army war crimes. While we all know Nazis were despicable, however other sides also didn't play it all by the books. Yet you zealously add info about the one side while taking out the info about the other. Nobody is pro Nazi here, we’re just trying to make a fair and NPOV encyclopedia. GeneralPatton 19:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

It is Molobo not Molbo.I didn't remove any allegations of war crimes committed by Alied side.I asked for sources in relation to statement about confrontation with SS forces in which it was stated that both sides committed widespread war crimes.I might add that I have yet to see a war crime committed by Allied side that can be compared to Nazi side, so far I known only incidents where violations were made by invidual soldiers(sometimes in shock over German Reich behaviour, like in Dachau incident), not policy of deliberate atrocities aimed at extermination of people defined as subhuman. As to Red Army, so far I have not edited any articles dealing with its behaviour in detail, so the accusation is baseless--Molobo 00:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"I might add that I have yet to see a war crime committed by Allied side that can be compared to Nazi side." Being a Pole, I'm shocked that you never heard of the Katyn massacre. At least, that's what you imply with that statement. I also believe that that the bombings of Dresden or Hiroshima may ring a bell - do they? And just to make my position clear, I suscribe a 100% to what GeneralPatton says: we're just trying to make a NPOV encyclopedia, not supporting the Nazis: I happen to be of Jewish heritage myself. Regarding your requirement for sources on the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend, it's you who must provide them to support your views when you want to introduce changes to the text that Ansbachdragoner has written, not the other way around. FYI, forcing undiscussed changes is not the way to do things properly around here. Ask yourself how you'd feel if someone drops at Anti-polonism and deletes your work with the same claim that you wield against Ansbachdragoner. I'm positive that your reaction would not be to accept it calmly. Shauri 15:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not at all relevant to Rommel (like most of this discussion page), but I'd dispute your assertation that the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war-crimes. Leithp 15:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Leithp, this is Molbo's Talk Page, not the Rommel's article one, so no wonder it is not relevant to that subject. And although I'm tempted to engage with you in a debate that has gone over and over for 60 years now, rendering no results other than metaphisic claims in either sense, I don't have the time nor the energies to perform such a useless task. It is a little ironic tho, that by adhering to that position, you are aligning yourself with Paul Johnson! Just a teasing comment, and I hope you take it as lightly as I intend it to be. Shauri 06:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Neither Dresden nor Hiroshima and Nagasaki were crimes.Katyn was genocide but not comparable to Nazi war crimes since it didn't have a goal of eradicating whole nation as subhumans.Furthermore Soviets were their own side and the crime happened during their alliance with German Reich. As to disproving any allegation its absurd.Should I find proof that Allies weren't Martians when somebody writes that ? It is the accuser who needs to proof what he claims.--Molobo 18:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, see the talk page on Hitlerjugend Division. Again, your constant POV edits, with spurious facts based on spurious sources are becoming irritating. This kind of constant POV pushing belongs on a web forum, not a NPOV encyclopaedia.

Please, if you're going to change something, provide proofs, and no, a Polish high school webpage is not sufficient proof. Claiming that the Panzer regiment of the Hermann Göring was involved in war crimes during the Warsaw Uprising - considering that every source i've come across places the unit in almost constant action against the Soviet 3rd Corps at Modlin during this period - is ridiculous. --Ansbachdragoner 03:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Poczytam

Racja, nadal uwazam artykul za stuba :)--Witkacy 01:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

To byłeś Ty?

Molobo, ktoś podpisał się na stronie talku antypolonizmu Twoim imieniem, ale wygląda jak anon. To byłeś Ty, tylko zapomniałeś się zalogować, czy ktoś inny? --SylwiaS 19:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Fajnie ze wrociles, kilku przyjaciol za Odry, postanowilo nas odwiedzic i swoim anty-polskim dzialaniem (wandalizm, o komentarzach nie wspomne bo rece opadaja) udowodnic ze antypolonizm w Niemczech nie istnieje ;)--Witkacy 23:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Rewizjonizm idzie pełną parą

a tak zgadza sie :) kilka cytatow Marka Edelmana: [mowa o centrum wypedzonych] "Jeśli pomysł Centrum wychodzi ze środowisk Związku Wypędzonych, to znaczy, że jest to zakamuflowany powrót do idei Drang nach Osten. W niemieckiej podświadomości stale tli się przekonanie, że Niemcy mają za mało Lebensraum, że tak wielki naród musi mieć wielką przestrzeń do istnienia, że mu się to zwyczajnie należy., "Nacjonalizm jest ciągle nośny. Zwłaszcza w Niemczech: przecież jeszcze niedawno na nacjonalizmie właśnie oparta była polityka tego kraju. To nie mija bez śladu. Dlatego odgrzewanie tam takich nastrojów jest tak niebezpieczne." , " Nie chodzi o pokutę: oni mają obowiązek zapłacić za te winy! Nie jedno, drugie czy trzecie pokolenie - ale tyle pokoleń, aż z niemieckiej mentalności znikną tęsknoty o narodzie panów.", " Niemcy za to stale krzyczą, że ich cywile ginęli podczas bombardowań alianckich. To świadczy o zadufaniu. I bezczelności. Oraz dowodzi, że nic nie zrozumieli z nauki II wojny. Więcej: ta wojna była przez Niemców wyczekiwana. Naród był za Hitlerem. Chcieli zapanować nad całym światem. I może by im się udało, gdyby nie popełnili błędu, prowokując wojnę z Ameryką. Też z zadufania.", "Ja byłem pięć lat pod okupacją. Mówią: byli Niemcy źli i dobrzy. Ale dlaczego nie miałem wtedy szczęścia spotkać tego dobrego?", [Żadnego?] "Żadnego. Nie miałem szczęścia spotkać ani jednego dobrego Niemca. Tylko takich, co bili mnie po mordzie.", [A co by Pan zaproponował Niemcom w takim Centrum?] "Nic! Żeby się nie pchali ze swoim nieszczęściem. Nie należy się im miłosierdzie, należy się im pokuta. I to przez wiele pokoleń, bo inaczej wróci ta ich pycha i buta." wyskubalem najciekawsze :)--Witkacy 03:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Ten wywiad z Edelmanem jest rzeczywiście bardzo dobry. Zwłaszcza, że Edelman to poważny autorytet słuchany nie tylko w Polsce. Rzuć okiem na to, co udało się wypracować w sprawie Pawelki na stronie dyskusji. Wydaje mi się, że to, co zaproponował NightBeAsT oddaje to, o co chodzi z tą kreaturą. Alx-pl D 18:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Moja intencja też jest taka, żeby edukować innych o Polsce i polskich sprawach. Zauważ jednak, że ja staram się to robić szukając argumentów, które są w stanie przekonać drugą stronę i spokojnie na ich temat dyskutując. Mam przy tym nadzieję, że spokojne tłumaczenie zyska więcej sympatii niż pokrzykiwanie i ostre stawianie sprawy na zasadzie wszystko albo nic. Otwierając się na argumenty drugiej strony zyskujemy sympatię, pokazując jej twardymi argumentami, że mamy rację - zyskujemy szacunek. Szacunek zyskujemy też, wycofując się ze sformułowań, które są nie do obronienia. Zauważ, że to, co chcemy uzyskać, to szacunek innych przez respektowanie tutejszych praw, w szczególności NPOV. A NPOV to jest coś takiego, co dyskusji się nie boi, nie walczy przez rewerty, ale przez dialog, źródła, dowody, miłość do prawdy itp. Alx-pl D 20:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

To nie tak. Cokolwiek się uzyska w takim starciu przez dyskusję będzie o wiele bardziej wiarygodne niż w starciu przez rewerty. Trzeba z tymi ludźmi dyskutować, nawet jeśli na końcu oni nie będą przekonani. A w takim wypadku trzeba dyskusję zamknąć w takim punkcie, że jasne jest, że przeciwnik wykazywał złą wolę. Rewertując a nie dyskutując - my pokazujemy złą wolę. Wchodząc w dyskusję - dobrą. Poza tym NPOV jest taką zasadą, w której nieprzekonani to tylko margines. Dlatego warto przekonać na przykład Niemców do artykułu, bo 60 mln ludzi trudno uważać za margnies, a poza tym problem antypolonizmu w dużym stopniu dotyczy ich. Alx-pl D 20:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Przesadzasz. Ale oczywiście artykuł końcowy będzie musiał obejmować też ich POV, bo taka jest natura NPOV. Alx-pl D 20:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Te artykuły mnie nie obchodzą, jeśli chcesz możesz wrzucić. Natomiast zauważ drobną różnicę - nazizm i antysemityzm są pozycjami niecywilizowanymi. Bycie Niemcem jest pozycją cywilizowaną. Oznacza to, że trzeba Niemców traktować w sposób cywilizowany, czyli dyskutować. Aha, oczywiście Pawelka nie jest cywilizowany, żeby nie było wątpliwości. Rzuć jeszcze okiem tutaj. Alx-pl D 21:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No właśnie, jak nie wrodzona cecha, to znaczy, że można próbować edukować. Jeśli jakieś zachowania wydają się antypolskie, to trzeba tłumaczyć. Ale jak zaczniemy tłumaczyć im od tego, że "hej facet jesteś antypolski", to nie będą chcieli dyskutować. Natomiast, jak będziemy rozmawiać w ten sposób, że skoro uważasz tak, to zwuważ jeszcze tamto, to dopiero wtedy otworzy się pole do dyskusji i do udoskanalania tego artykułu. Nawet jeśli oni się w takiej dyskusji nie przekonają, to my pokażemy wszystkie nasze argumenty, a wtedy jak ktoś nowy się przyłączy na miejscu już będzie cały materiał. Alx-pl D 21:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Do poczytania: [1], [2], - skoro Erika Steinbach dystansuje sie od Rugiego Pawelki, to mozna sobie wyobrazic co z niego za osobnik :) (P.S. Gazeta Wyborcza to pismak jak Wprost!) ;) Co do Axla wierze ze jeszcze zauwazy jak tu sprawy sie tocza na wikipedii i jak poznac tych ktorzy chca tylko zaszkodzic :)--Witkacy 14:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Dlugo nie trzeba bylo czekac, ale bylo do przewidzenia :)--Witkacy 11:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Zerknij na Kulturkampf - kolega Nightbeast twierdzi ze niema nic wspolnego z antypolonizmem, zapewne znow bedzie probowal usunac kategorie, a ze ostatnio mam nie za duzo czasu na wiki - zerknij czasem na ten artykul :)--Witkacy 01:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Bismarck jako przyjaciel Polski

Dzieki, ciekawe linki (szczegolnie ten drugi). Co do "problemu polskiego" popieram - trzeba to rowniez rozwinac na AP. Co do antyniemieckiej postawy, zgadza sie - podobnie antyniemiecko byli nastawieni Polacy podczas kampanii wrzesniowej, bo zamiast popelnic zbiorowe samobojstwo, narazali Niemcow w ladnych mundurach na utrate zdrowia a nawet zycia ;)--Witkacy 12:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Nightbeast skasowal Twoja wypowiedz [3] - wpierw domaga sie o zrodlo dla kazdego slowa, a pozniej kasuje wypowiedzi.--Witkacy 13:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Problem w tym, że i Wy i on macie rację. To znaczy, jego racja polega na tym, że definicja antypolonizmu jest taka, że nie pasuje do sytuacji, zaś Wasza racja polega na tym, że macie solidne źródła wskazujące na to, że polityka Bismarcka była antypolska. Ten problem można prawdopodobnie rozwiązać przez analizę definicji - zauważ, że inne anty-xxx mają trochę inne definicje, więc tutaj pewnie jest sporo miejsca na kompromis. Oczywiście należy sobie też jakoś poradzić z faktem, że oprócz tego, iż była antypolska była też skierowana przeciwko Kościołowi katolickiemu. Na to argument jest taki, że jak ktoś jest obywatelem USA, to nie przeszkadza w określaniu go jako mówiący po angielsku (choć są przecież tacy, którzy tylko po hiszpańsku). Alx-pl D 05:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You wrote here

Thank you for your answer. In the light of your statement: "You cannot root out within seconds our attitudes that were shaped up by the most respecable members of our community and by the most valuable pieces of our literature throughout the last 200 years of our history" I understand that your goal is different than to show the truth. As I said, we're not soul engineers. I regret that you have a different attitude and make the job of German nationalists easier. I hope it is due to your kindliness (or naivety) and not due to conscious agenda.

Well, my conscious agenda w.r.t. this article is to find a balance between your POV and the POV of Germans and this can be only done on the basis of truth; no doubt about it. I realise that my personal POV is different than yours. In particular, I can agree that there is certain anti-Polish sentiment in Germany these days, but I cannot agree that the German society in general is irrationaly or maliciously hostile against Poland. Of course, this is my current POV and if you bring decent documentation that your POV is closer to the reality I will change my mind. I think the best way to pursue now is to bring sources, bring solutions and bring arguments for these solutions - this eventually will lead to a balanced presentation of the truth. I took an effort to formulate a platform for this (Talk:Anti-Polonism#Rudi Pawelka - summary). If you can win the argument in a clear way then no one - even me and German nationalists - will stop you from inserting your version of the content. We can also make a poll concerning some issues in the article and gather opinions of non-Germans and non-Poles with regard of the text. Note also that I brought up a proposal ([4], [5]) to extend the article with new content and I have a good deal of documentation for this proposal (see for instance here), which I do not present only because I have to focus myself on the other issues, so my action is not one-sided. Alx-pl D 10:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You and me, we're done.

I won't argue with you anymore, Molobo. It's useless. I've had the "pleasure" of knowing what several other Polish editors think about you, and I won't waste my energy in engaging in pointless discussions. At Chris' Talk Page, I didn't say anything but a truth accepted and observed by many, and that's all I'll say. I hate Nazis wholeheartedly, as all people of Jewish heritage do (surprised that I am one?). But it's not just Nazism you hate, it's everything that comes from Germany, and you never reason against that. You should stop for a second, think calmly and perform some self-criticism, and see the harm you're bringing to Wikipedia by enraging both German and Polish moderate editors alike.

If you are truly an honest person, as I think you are, you'll know deep inside that I speak the truth. I was *this* close of filing a RfC on you during the Rommel discussion at the urging of several editors, but I decided to give you a chance: go there and see that I invited you to participate after the article's unprotection. Prove me that I was right to do so.

You don't have to reply to this, and if you don't, you won't hear from me anytime soon. Hopefully, our paths won't cross again in the nearby future. And when they do, I hope you've done some thinking on my words. Trust me - it'll be for your own good. Pozdrowienia, Shauri 23:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Please don't come to my Talk Page anymore

Quod erat demonstrandum. How naif from me to think that you could be reasonable. Amusing to see how you still insist on the SS crimes as if it was the only issue. Regarding that, post all you want, as long as if it's true... not flagrant mistakes (I hope that's what they are, instead of simple lies) like placing the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend as responsible for the Malmedy massacre. Just a simple example of the many errors you comit whenever you press the "Save page" button. Why don't you also mention that "victims" of your edits include Konrad Adenauer, for example? I don't think disagreing with you on your acusations on him has anything to do with nazism... but with your confessed anti Germanism, which is the omnipresent underlying issue here.

Know what? Forget about it. I don't wanna hear about you anymore. Don't post at my Talk Page anymore, please, and I'll be most happy to return you the same favor. I'm just one of many you've acussed of "right wing propagandists" simply because we point you your mistakes and biases. Ansbachdragoner, Thorsten1, Chris 73, GeneralPatton, Alx-pl... I'm in good company. As long as you remain on this radical position, you will eventually end up in trouble here. But, as Saruman The White once said, "it will be none of my doing. I merely foresee". Shauri 13:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

"Goodbye and I hope you will be able to overcome your prejudices." Ditto. Hope I never hear from you again. Shauri 22:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

at the time called ...

Hi. Just a note: Writing (at the time called Gdańsk) sounds to me like the city is no longer called Gdansk nowadays, which I think is incorrect and probably not what you want to say. Also, I think both names were used throughout history. Just a suggestion -- Chris 73 Talk 19:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Germanisation attempts by certain users leave me no other choice. --Molobo 17:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

For your info, there was a vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote, where a large majority voted for double naming (that being the German and the Polish name), since both are used in English (and this is the english wiki). Please do not remove double naming of the places in question against the community consensus. Details can be found at Talk:Gdansk/Vote. -- Chris 73 Talk 16:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The edit in question is [6], where you removed the German name for Sztutowo (Stutthof). Please do not do that again. -- Chris 73 Talk 18:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

the vote was only in regards to Gdansk - actually, no. Please read the vote again, this applies to many cities in Poland, not only Gdansk. Please do not remove the alternative English name, since they are still in use for native English speakers -- Chris 73 Talk 07:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Voting results

To answer your question about whether voting results for Talk:Gdansk/Vote can be binding. Voting is not a way to establish rules on Wikipedia, it can be used for informative purposes only. See Wikipedia:Survey guidelines for further explanations. Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made on consesnus basis, and voting can be a useful tool to show if there is consensus or not on a particular issue. In my opinion the voting results of Gdansk/Danzig survey clearly show that there is no consensus on naming for the period of 1466 to 1793 as well as some other qestions (including "enforcement" and "cross naming"). This said, we should think of some way to prevent constant Gdańsk/Danzig naming edit wars in the future. Any idea ? --Wojsyl ^(talk) 08:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Polonism in Germany

Note that the way you formulated your proposal in Anti-Polonism#Anti-Polonism in Germany leaves very little room for further discussion. I advise you to restructure it in the same way as the section was structured during the block. I also want you to treat this message as one of the two attempts to resolve the dispute which are mentioned here. Alx-pl D 09:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking about the structure of the section and reasonable ways to conduct the dispute. Alx-pl D 09:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Gdansk/Gdańsk/Danzig

You are right about the google counts. GoogleBattle shows that Gdansk wins against Danzig by 4,790,000:2,630,000. If you add 2,170,000 hits for Gdańsk to it, Danzig clearly looses by a factor 2.6:1 --Wojsyl ^(talk) 09:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC) (UTC)