User talk:Kaiser von Europa

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Kaiser von Europa! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Reply to Welcome

Hello, thanks for the kind message. I shall study this in detail in the near future. Regards, - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explanations to the graphical representation of the Curzon Line

They aren't any "explanations" but mostly OR or POV.Xx236 (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but this is by no means POV! I solely commented the meaning of the coloured areas and lines of the graph. Regards,- - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lviv

Hi

I noticed your edits and wondered if you could answer my questions on the talk page please Talk:Lviv.

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The material which you added, being discussed here, was hidden (and thus challenged) by me until discussions had taken place. Please note this section and indeed the following ones.

The idea is that we gain consensus on the matter before the correct NPOV text was to be included. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had not seen that the text was hidden on the edit page. I thought it had been wiped out altogether. I have now added all information I found here. - - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please join discussion here.

[[1]]

Bydgoszcz

Hi! Thanks for expanding the article about Bydgoszcz. I have noticed that your information covers only 18 years out of seven centuries of the town's history. Can you please add few more sentences about the city's ethnic diversity in the ages prior to the twentieth century? Thanks in advance Bosyantek (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I will have a look at this in the near future.-- Kaiser von Europa (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV phrasing

Ok, putting aside the fact that you're putting in info based on very old and possibly biased 19th century sources into these articles, can you at least avoid using highly POV language in your edits? Specifically, the phrasing "the Polish Corridor was arranged on German territory" is highly POV. Obviously the Polish Corridor was Polish territory. The phrasing "X was placed under the administration of Poland" is also highly POV as it is that ol' German-ultranationalist canard that supposedly the territories Germany lost to Poland after WWII did not legally become part of Poland (they did) but only were "temporarily administered" by Poland. Thanks. Volunteer Marek 17:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This and this you? Volunteer Marek 07:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your comments, the impression that the first sentence in question could eventually be interpreted as "highly POV", as you put it, can obviously be avoided easily by inserting the word "former" into it. So, why did you not simply do it? As regards your complaint on the phrasing "X was placed under the administration of Poland" (after World War II), which is many times used in articles of this kind and which is historically completely correct, this phrase in my opinion is merely used in order to circumnavigate lengthy and complicated explanations concerning the post-war period in central Europe. Your viewpoint according to which the German territories became "legally ... part of Poland" immediately after the end of WWII is obviously not compatible with the Atlantic Charter, which exlcudes such national or imperialistic territorial claims.

As regards your question of 22 April 2013, I recommend you better resort to Wikipedia's history of the articles concerned if you would like to find out who contributed to them. Regards, --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really answer the question. It actually is Wikipedia's history of the articles concerned which suggests very strongly that you are the same as the User:Ziegenspeck account (same 18th century source added, same nature of edits) and are associated with the anon IP as well. Which does bring up the question of why you are editing with several accounts simultaneously.

which exlcudes such national or imperialistic territorial claims. - you do realize that the name of your account (this one) is "Kaiser von Europa", right? And that your bringing up of the Atlantic Charter in this context amounts to arguing that these locations somehow aren't legally part of Poland (i.e. you're the one making "imperialistic territorial claims")?.Volunteer Marek 18:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of proceeding with guessing you should perhaps have a look at the two user pages involved, where you can find a clear answer to your first question. I decided to do this because I tend to contribute edits to entirely different fields of work, history and physics.

Referring to your second question, I personally am deeply convinced that applying the principles of the Atlantic Charter would mantain peace in Europe in the future and that anything else in the long run, I fear, will not. --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, I missed that. Are you associated with the other account(s)?

Also, I don't know if you realize but Erich Weise was a Nazi historian and as such cannot be used (not a reliable source). Atlantic Charter and peace among nations and all that. Please stop adding him into Polish articles all over the place and find a reliable/non-Nazi associated source instead.Volunteer Marek 19:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if you do put in sources by Erich Weise then please put his name in there, rather than strangely omitting it, for some reason, like you did here [2] and many other places. That way it's easier to find, identify and remove as appropriate.Volunteer Marek 19:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have never omitted the name of Erich Weise from reasons you suggest, and I also cannot see any reason for doing so. The reason why I omitted his name is simply that I was unsure about the level of his contribution, since after all he is only the editor - what you apparently overlooked. The book of 1981 is an unaltered reprint of the first edition of 1966, and I was not sure whether Weise had been the editor already of the first edition. The book the content of which has been compiled by 16 historians is recognized in Germany as scientically correct and reliable. Contrary to your suggestion, the content of the book has absolutely nothing to do with the political past of its editor. --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi activists and war criminals are never reliable, especially when in control of editing history books. Btw-I am quite interested in the name of the other people engaged in this book. Can't find them on the net, would you be so kind and list them here? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the book in any greater public library in your neighbourhood. Apart from this, if you would like to judge on a book then I strongly recommend that your first read it or at least have a look at it. --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid this book edited by Nazi Erich Weise is not my local library. Since you have access to it, could you provide the names of the other authors or explanation why you are unwilling to do this?

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative way of getting hold of the book Handbuch der historischen Stätten: Ost- und Westpreußen edited in 1981 by Prof. Udo Arnold, Chairman of Historische Kommission für ost- und westpreußische Landesforschung, would be that you order it in a bookshop. I strongly recommend that you buy the book. As a matter of fact, you should first read a book, before you try to judge on it. The price of the book is only about 15 $, and you would own a really good book from which you could learn quite a lot indeed. If you rather prefer to buy the older version of the book edited in 1966 by Erich Weise, then you should try in a second-hand bookshop or in the internet. --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your unwillingess to reveal the names of the authors seems strange, especially since you seem to have access to the book. However I managed to gain information that it was written by several Nazis, including Erich Keyser, a chief Nazi ideologist, supporting ethnic cleansing in Central Europe. Again - I suggest using modern and reliable source.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responsible for the correctness of the scientic content of the book is its editor: Prof. Udo Arnold, University of Bonn. As you can convince yourself by reading his curriculum vitae in the German Wikipedia, last year he was awarded a Dr. h. c. type of honorable academic degree from the University of Warmenia-Masuria. The book edited by him is considered by the scientific community as being very reliable and free of Nazi ideology, and I agree with this. Please stop removing sourced information from the articles. --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ISBN number for the book however indicates that the volume was edited by Weise, and does not mention Arnold: [3]. The German Wikipedia article on Arnold does not list the volume as one of his works de:Udo Arnold. A google book search for ""Handbuch der historischen Stätten" "Udo Arnold"" does not indicate that he edited it. In fact, pretty much all the hits list Weise as the editor, for example [4], [5] [6]. In the English Wikipedia article on Erich Weise you added Arnold as an editor... to a book edited by Weise. Maybe I'm missing something, but this looks like just an attempt to hide the fact that Weise was the editor of the relevant volume. Also, can you please list the other authors already? Volunteer Marek 19:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Between the list of contents of the 1981 edition of the book (Inhalt) and its preface (Vorwort) a note has been inserted by Prof. Udo Arnold himself. In this note he calls himself Erich Weise's successor as editor, and he states that nine of the 14 coworkers of the book have already died. May I suggest that you contact the publisher if you have any further questions? --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. I would like it if you clarified it. If one does a search for ""Handbuch der historischen Stätten" "Udo Arnold"" on google one gets about 30 hits. Of these, about half+ are the Wikipedia articles you spammed this book into, with an apparently incorrect editor-attribution for Udo Arnold. The rest are places where some work by "Udo Arnold" and "Handbuch der historischen Stätten..." get mentioned separately. There is no indication anywhere that Udo Arnold edited the 1981 edition of the book (much less the 1966 one of course).Volunteer Marek 22:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since Erich Weise had died already in 1972, the publisher will hardly have nominated him as the editor of the 1981 edition, yet somebody must have followed in Weise's footsteps in order to take over responsibility for the scientific content of the book. To the best of my knowledge, this person has been the historian Prof. Udo Arnold. If you would like to question this, then please contact the publisher. I regret very much that I cannot help you any further in this matter. --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 07:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not if this is simply a reprint of the 1961 work, which it appears to be. And again, there's no indication that I can find that Udo Arnold took over as editor. And what do you mean "to the best of my knowledge"? Either you know or you don't.Volunteer Marek 15:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask the publisher or borrow or buy the book, so that you can read what is written in it. --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you cannot or unwilling to show that Udo Arnold edited the book, we go by how the book is listed in library catalogs, google books, and Worldcat. And that means that Erich Weise was the editor, and the book was reprinted in 1981. So IF we were to use the source it needs to be under Erich Weise, rather than completely omitting the editor or attributing it to someone else (which look like attempts to hide Weise's association with the work). However, given that Erich Weise WAS a Nazi archivist/historian, responsible for the looting of Polish archives and other war crimes during World War II, per discussion at Reliable Sources Noticeboard we simply do not use such a source. Please stop putting it into articles - find modern, reliable sources instead.Volunteer Marek 17:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that even IF Udo Arnold was in some capacity associated with the 1981 reprint, short of him completely revising the book, inviting new authors, and basically issuing a completely different work simply under the same title, the fact remains that the 1981 edition is still the 1966 volume compiled by Erich Weise, and hence, given the baggage associated with that author, still unreliable.

In fact, IF Udo Arnold WAS NOT associated with the book, contrary to your claims, then that would be an ADDITIONAL serious issue with your editing behavior.Volunteer Marek 17:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plaese ask the publisher. --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, let me just text him right now. ???. That's not how WP:VERIFY works.Volunteer Marek 18:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you do realize that you yourself stated "The book, which was first published in 1966 and which was re-published in unaltered form in 1981", right? Volunteer Marek 18:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask the publisher. --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I have noticed that you use a source by notorious Nazi Erich Weise in a lot of articles. Additionally I noticed you have used a source from 1934 Nazi Germany. Please don't as Nazis are not a reliable source of knowledge and several modern sources confirm his views as outdated and natonalistic. Also you use a lot of very old German sources(XVII and XIX century) to claim German majority, I am sure there are modern reliable sources that can be used instead. The sources used by you are too outdated and likely unreliable and biased. I am fine with modern sources by reliable historians. Please reconsider using Nazi and XIX century sources. Thank you and have a good day. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the impression you apparently have, I do by no means use "Nazi sources". The book "Ost- und Westpreußen", first published in 1966 as one volume of the scientific book series "Handbuch der historischen Stätten", has been compiled by 16 authors, and Erich Weise has been the editor. The book is recognized by German and international universities as correct and reliable. It would have vanished from book shelfs already a long time ago, if this would be not the case. You can find the book in any greater public library in Germany. You are also wrong with your suggestion, that the volume from 1934 of the encyclopedia "Der Große Brockhaus" is a "Nazi source". The Brockhaus is a very big encyclopedia, and it takes many years to compile the content of one single volume. Apart from this, the Brockhaus is a politically neutral encyclopedia which had nothing to do with the Nazi ideology. So, please do not remove theses sources from articles. Please stop also to remove other sourced information from the articles. A nice day to you too, --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That a book by dedicated Nazi war criminal is in a library is hardly an argument that it is reliable. Many books by Nazis and nationalists can be found in libraries. Also I am sure you can find modern sources without using books published under Nazi Germany which as totalitarian regime bent on exterminating Poles, Jews, Roma dictated every aspect of life to the idea of German supremacy-as such publications from Nazi Germany can't be seen as reliable, especially regarding population statistics. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book, which was first published in 1966 and which was re-published in unaltered form in 1981, had been compiled by 16 historians, and Weise was only its editor. The book is recognized by German and international universities and other scientific institutions as being very reliable indeed. I also do not "claim German majority", but I rather simply transfer data from reliable sources, no matter who was in possession of the majority. At other occasions I have explicitely stressed that there had existed a Polish majority, when this was the truth. --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like once again to remind you that Nazi publications like those from 1934 are not reliable source of information and urge you to use modern and reliable publications. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have alredy explained here in length that this is no "Nazi publication". If you cannot believe it then I propose you ask professional historians instead. Please stop removing sourced information from the articles. ––Kaiser von Europa (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again-please don't use Nazi sources to claim German majority in Polish cities. I am sure that if the information is correct, you can find modern and reliable sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not employ "Nazi sources". Please stop removing sourced information from the articles. --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sockpuppeting on German Wikipedia?

I've also noticed that you're indefinetly banned from the German Wikipedia, and the reasons are instructive - extremist POV pushing, use and abuse of sketchy sources and making edits which it took a lot of time to clean up. I.e. pretty much the exact same problems which are appearing here. [7] [8]

I also noticed that shortly after your edits on the English Wikipedia article on Erich Weise a strange new account appeared on the German Wikipedia article on de:Erich Weise and made pretty much the same edits [9] as you did on English Wikipedia. It looks like you're using sock puppets to evade a ban there. Is that what's going on, there? Volunteer Marek 19:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop harassing this user, Marek. No-one cares who's been banned in German wiki. There are plenty of newspaper articles out there that cover the dictatorial atmosphere and far-left dominance there in German wiki. This has nothing to do with problems you have with that particular user here on English wiki, that thank god does not have the problems German wiki has. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 07:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, Miacek we already know that in your opinion the German wikipedia has been taken over by evil left-wingers. The thing is that this user's behavior here is exactly what got them indef banned on German Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek 15:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not left-wingers, but far-left. Note the difference. Secondly, it is sort of odd to judge other user's behaviour if you do not even speak the language of the edition you are trying to comment on. Google Translate has its limits, too, I guess.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, "far left", as decided and judged by Estlandia and Kaiser von Europa. The second of whom is indefinetly banned from there for pushing extremist POV and abusing sources and the first one... I can't remember, are you banned on there or did you "retire"?

Anyway, I could speak only Martian and it still looks like Kaiser is sockpuppeting there in evasion of his ban (unless Clinx84 is you - given the timing of these edits, that pretty much exhausts the pool of possibilities).Volunteer Marek 18:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion about your continued use of Nazi publications

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved[10]. Thank you.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Grudziądz. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source in the article Grudziądz, which I restored and which you removed again without knowing it, asserting that it is a "Nazi source", is by no maeans a Nazi source. The user, who first removed the source, does not know the book, has never seen it before (as he admits himself in the discussion above) and just speculates on it, just as you do. This is no good scientific bevahiour from both of you. Please restore the source again. --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do know the book and I have just seen it, which is how I know you're lying about Udo Arnold rather than Weise being the editor.Volunteer Marek 17:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you better read in it. That Erich Weise had been the editor of the 1966 edition is well known. In the 1981 edition, however, Udo Arnold introduces himself as the "editor in succession of Erich Weise" (Herausgeber in Nachfolge von Erich Weise) and he states that he and the publisher have decided to issue an unaltered reprint of the 1966 edition. In other words, he took over full scientific responsibility for the content of the 1981 edition. Why do you not contact the publisher and ask him who should be considered as editor of the 1981 edition? I suggested it already several times. --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you give the full quote? What it says is Doch das macht die Vorbereitung einer Neuauflage , deren Herausgabe ich in Nachfolge von Erich Weise ubernommen habe, schwieriger und vor allem zeitraubender. Which means he took over the publication, NOT that he's the new editor. In fact he then says that the 1981 reprint is "unveranderten Nachdruck der ersten Auflage wieder vorzulegen" of the 1966 edition. Hence there's nothing to "edit" since it's exactly the same. So no, Udo Arnold is NOT the editor of the 1981 volume. And neither does ANY library catalog, bibliographic reference, worldcat or anyone else except you pretend that he is. The book is edited by Erich Weise.

And I'm not gonna contact the publisher, neither do I have to (and I expect you're being facetious). The book is listed all over the place and it's trivial to verify that it's Weise not Arnold who was the editor. Now stop misrepresenting this source and stop trying to use this Nazi war criminal in Wikipedia articles.Volunteer Marek 13:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a book of this kind is published and its first editor has died then the publisher will in general nominate a successor who is familiar with its content and who can provide answers if there come questions from the side of the readers. There exist many cases, similar to the present one, where somebody succeeded as editor who had contributed virtually nothing to the book for which he then became responsible. In any case, Prof. Udo Arnold is without any doubt scientifically responsible for the fact that the book has been reprinted in 1981. Calling the book a "Nazi source", as you currently do, implicates that you are indirectly accusing Prof. Arnold of bringing Nazi literature under the public, a mean and vile accusation which is - I regret that I must say this here - simply nonsense. You should be ashamed of your behaviour.

You should also refrain from calling Weise a "war criminal". He has been in the first place a scientist. After WWII, property that had not belonged to Germany has been restored in general without any hesitation. Since the British historian focused on Weise speaks of a "struggle for the documents", there seemingly have existed serious doubts on the German side, whether Polish claims concerning these documents were justified. If apparently even after WWII German historians had such doubts, why then are you unwilling to accept that Weise, when supervising Polish archives, had serious doubts that these documents actually were legal property of Poland?

Yesterday I sent an eMail to Kröner Verlag in order to find out who should be regarded as the editor proper of the 1981 edition of the book. I will leave a note here as soon as I get an answer. --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources, unreliable sources

Please read WP:PRIMARY. Specifically: "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." So stop inserting material from purely primary sources into articles (especially given their sketchy nature).

Please read WP:RS. Specifically a book edited by the Nazi war criminal Erich Weise is not a reliable source. Furthermore, please don't try to hide the fact that this a source edited by Weise by either omitting his name from the source description, falsely pretending that the book was edited by someone else, or only listing authors of individual chapters rather than the editor himself.

You've violated both policies repeatedly despite multiple explanations and warnings. Your latest spree was here here here here here here here here here here here here here here [11] here here, among others.

Volunteer Marek 20:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I transfer numbers from reliable sources. If during my edits I should accidentally come across a Nazi source, I will give you a message. Until now, this has not yet happened. As a general rule, if you would like to identify a book as a Nazi source, you will have to prove it. It is not sufficient that you simply assert it. --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are not reliable sources. One is a book edited by a Nazi war criminal. The rest are primary sources which you are misusing in violation of WP:PRIMARY.Volunteer Marek 22:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to call somebody a "Nazi war criminal" if a corresponding judicial decision had been taken in the past by some competent national or international court. I am not aware that in the case of Erich Weise a decision of this kind had ever been taken. Probably he also never had been brought to court in this context. I therefore assume that what you are stating here and in the article on Erich Weise is merely your private opinion and boils down to POV. If relatives of Weise read your various statements, they might eventually be in the position to force you into court and to initiate an action for default.

I do not use sources which are in conflict with WP:PRIMARY. The booklets from the series Handbuch der historischen Stätten are no primary sources, nor are the Brockhaus or Meyers Konversations-Lexikon primary sources. Also the books by Johann Friedrich Goldbeck are no primary sources. The work by Michael Rademacher has been compiled from other sources stated by him and, therefore, is no primary source either.

Please stop removing sourced information from the articles. --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 09:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you can lawyer the "war criminal" part, the fact remains that Weise was a Nazi, and his book an unreliable source (see discussion at WP:RSN as well). And yes those are primary sources and/or anachronistic. Please use modern reliable secondary sources.Volunteer Marek 13:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well Kwaśniewski was also a member of the PZPR, do we have to label him as 'communist' all the time?Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not help any further, user Volunteer Marek, if you carry on asserting that the book is "unreliable", without delivering any convincing proof. If you would like to prove that the book "Handbuch der historischen Stätten, Ost- und Westpreußen", which since 1966 is used at universities and in science in general as a reference, belongs into the category of Nazi literature, then you have to prove either a) that the book propagates Nazi ideology or b) that it adds deliberately untrue historical facts or deteriorates history deliberately in an inadequate manner. Hitherto no such complaints have become known in science since now almost half a century, and, as far as literature indicates, you are the only one worldwide who tries to make such absurd claims.

Please stop removing sources and sourced information from the articles. --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A book edited (and partly written) by a Nazi historian who was in charge of the looting of Polish archives, with contributions from other authors who served as ideologues of the Nazi party is clearly not reliable. This was also the opinion expressed by the two uninvolved editors in the discussion on WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I don't know if it's "Nazi literature" but it is very obviously unreliable. Why would you want to use such a source? Why would you want to give credence to the writings of Erich Weise? Why are you incapable of finding modern, reliable, secondary sources for your edits?

And oh yeah. Why were you banned indefinietly from German Wikipedia? It seems I'm NOT "the only one worldwide" who thinks there's some very serious problems with your editing. Why did you start over forty sock puppets there to evade you ban? Do you have any alternative accounts (other then Ziegenspeck) here? Volunteer Marek 16:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since a few days ago you apparently got hold of a copy of the book Ost- und Westpreußen edited by Erich Weise in 1966, you should now be in the convenient position to deliver hard facts and to show by refering to a few historical examples that the book is actually not reliable. So please do that and prove your assertion here. I fear, however, that you will not be able to deliver this proof.

As concerns "looting", up to now my question on the talk page of the article Erich Weise, of who looted the documents first, which had been confiscated by Erich Weise, has not yet been answered. During the Napoleonic time Prussian (and Italian) archives had been looted and German national monuments had been plundered by the war criminal and close political friend of Poland, Napoleon Bonaparte. I do not know, however, whether these cases are related to one another. In any case, before Weise is blamed of looting it should be clarified who owned the documents first.

Please stop removing sources and sourced information from the articles. --Kaiser von Europa (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's pretty simple: the fact that Weise was an ardent Nazi and that the book has contributions from several other Nazi ideologues is "proof" enough that it's not reliable. You can spin all kinds of stories and make all kinds of excuses (and dishonestly try to misrepresent the source to hide its authorship and editorship) but that's all it comes down to. And uninvolved editors at WP:RSN agreed with that assessment.

Why would you want to use such a source? Why would you want to give credence to the writings of Erich Weise? Why are you incapable of finding modern, reliable, secondary sources for your edits?

Why were you banned indefinietly from German Wikipedia? It seems I'm NOT "the only one worldwide" who thinks there's some very serious problems with your editing. Why did you start over forty sock puppets there to evade you ban? Do you have any alternative accounts (other then Ziegenspeck) here? Volunteer Marek 19:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once more: whether one has registered 40, 400 or 4000 accounts (AFAIAC the more, the better) in German (Bolsche)Wikipedia has no relevance as to the question here. Supposed misdeeds in an edition that has been criticized for its heavy bias and Stasi methods by mainstream media and where you generally get indeffed after one critical comment (example from just today [12]) do not burden in any way a user in English wiki. Please concentrate on the real issue instead of trying to find compromising stuff where nothing of substance is to be found. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that you think that extensive sock puppeting on a WMF project is a-ok... as long as it's "for the right causes" (with emphasis on the "right").Volunteer Marek 19:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well based on what Kaiser von Europa notes on his userpage (Political compass score), a civilized left-wing cause in this particular case rather...Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A "civilized left-wing cause" would not use sources by Nazi authors, except for some very strange definitions of "civilized" and "left-wing". And oh yeah, he also misrepresented the source under discussion, and tried to hide its association with its Nazi editor so...Volunteer Marek 20:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I use books from the series "Handbuch der historischen Stätten" from no other reason than the fact that they have the scientific repute to be reliable. I do not only use the book edited by Weise but use also other books from the same series, which have other editors. ––Kaiser von Europa (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

let's try this another way

Let me approach this another way.

There is something fundamentally offensive and indecent (never-mind that it violates several Wikipedia policies) about using a Nazi author who was in charge of looting Warsaw archives to source information about Polish cities. Even in cases where the text itself is not that controversial it's a bit like using Adolf Eichmann as a source for the railroad network in German-occupied Europe. You just don't do it, unless you got some weird agenda in mind. And like I said, it's against Wikipedia policies (WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:NPOV). Now, I understand that you want to document the "German history" of some of these places and that's perfectly fine. But please find MODERN, RELIABLE, SECONDARY sources to do it with.

If you can get those kinds of sources then there will be no problems with your edits. I know there are some modern, reliable, secondary, sources which are involved with genealogical research out there that concern these regions (try the Church of Latter Day Saints and Ancestry.com) but the primary sources and the Erich Weise source is just simply not reliable for an encyclopedia. You find modern, reliable, secondary sources and it's all good.Volunteer Marek 03:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Kaiser von Europa, I have just blocked you indefinitely for disruptive editing. If you wish to know more about the reason for this block, please contact me in private. If you want to appeal this block, please use the {{unblock}} template – note to reviewing admin: please contact me in private before lifting this block. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unexplained and unjustified block. Which edits were 'disruptive'? Where was the case considered? Where's the explanation for such a block? Why does another admin need to contact you in private only - to avoid open discussion on the merit of your action? Questions, questions, questions...Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!