User talk:Space Cadet/Archive 3

Personal attacks

Attempting to add a userbox to someone else's userpage after they have specifically asked you quite nicely to stop falls pretty easily within the realm of a Personal attack. Consider this your warning against doing this again.--Isotope23 16:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK it was just a misunderstanding, my intentions were good.Space Cadet 22:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comment you left on my talk page... Sorry, but I have not the foggiest notion what you are talking about...--Isotope23 00:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on my talkpage.--Isotope23 14:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment you left on User talk:Isotope23 looks a lot like a threat to me. If that was a misunderstanding, please be a lot more careful in the future. It's at least edging into what would be blockable. Georgewilliamherbert 01:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when Xx starts referring to me as a "Prussian Canadian" and I take offence to it, it doesn't mean I really like the term and secretly want it plastered on my userpage. you also stated: you decided it was an excuse to take aggressive steps towards me (snitching and crying to the admins). Fine! Another reason you should consider yourself Prussian. If I was Prussian, I simply would have walked all over you, the Prussians didn't "snitch" or "rat" or "cry". And why would I plot to have steps taken against you? I had not edited the same article with you for a long time before this week. I don't hold grudges like you might.

--Jadger 16:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space Cadet: Actually, Isotope23 did take it as a threat, as he posted to WP:ANI last night. That's why I got involved.

Please be more careful in how you phrase things. Georgewilliamherbert 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your AIV report

Thank you for making a report in respect of R9tgokunks (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Removing and reporting vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them again to the AIV noticeboard. Thanks. (Note: This appears to be about content disputes rather than about issues of vandalism; consider using dispute resolution). Sandstein 22:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperation

I know that we have had our disagreements in the past, particularly because of our very different viewpoints as to many things which tend to cause conflict, however, I hope that in the future and from hence forth, we can work together to improve Wikipedia, and create reasonable compromises on the various articles that tend to be creating conflict between the different groups present on Wikipedia... it is becoming very tiring for quite a few of the articles to be in a state of endless edit-war, when in the end I don't really believe that either side is right. Antman -- chat 20:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure :/ Does it mean 'Ant'? My most recent Polish-English dictionary was last printed during the first half of the 20th century :/ Antman -- chat 21:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:jadger

yes, when you say "rv" (Revert Vandalism) in an edit summary, when a edit is not vandalism, that is a personal attack

--Jadger 01:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get so defensive, I was just pointing out how you need to be clear, and also how you should stop editwarring. revert is one word, you never see it spelled ReVert, not everyone holds to the same l33t speak as you do. and you can see how easily things can be misinterpreted on wikipedia, you need to be more clear. and I am not here to discuss Hrodberaht's actions, sure he may be a little offensive by instead of saying "removed POV" says "removed fascist propoganda" but I seem to recall you have done that an aweful lot as well.

--Jadger 16:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding your current dispute on Danzig/Gdansk [[1]] with Herr R9, I think you are correct, and if I catch his revert before you, I will remove it, so that you don't get caught in a 3RR.

However, I do not think your reversions on Arthur Schopenhauer are correct, if you read the Stutthof article, it was annexed before 1788 (when he was born) so it was not actually in Poland, but in Prussia at the time.

--Jadger 07:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

on the Schopenhauer article it gets pretty befuddling, I added a few words in order to try and clear it up. Do we know exactly where the border was at this time? because I know Hitler was born in a border town (not to equate schopenhauer with hitler) but we could put something like "born in Stutthof, a Prussian border town near Danzig/Gdansk in Poland."

--Jadger 07:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, it has been great working with you rather than editwarring with you. we should do this mor often :) oh ya, and you can post that Canadian Palitanate thing on my talk page, and I will decide wether or not I will add it to my userpage, danke schöne

--Jadger 18:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S could that map that you found the old border on be added to the Sztutowo article? as it currently is lacking a map.

--Jadger 18:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk

Hi, I think you would be interested in this [2]. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 16:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copernicus

Sources are on our side, Copernicus was Polish, there is no doubt [3]. If necessary we should start consensus dispution. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troubles

Much more troubles with that man [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Silesia

Cześć. Chciałem poinformować, że jakiś czas temu został uruchomiony Wikipedia:WikiProject Silesia. Serdecznie zapraszam. LUCPOL 14:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:what do you mean no it isnt

What I meant is the half of Frankfurt an der Oder now in Poland was not polish in the 17th century, the Holy Roman Empire borders where farther east for a long time, see [[Image:HRR_14Jh.jpg]]

--Jadger 23:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the current version that Richard created. it does not mention time as we can certainly both agree they all didnt come under Polish or German influences at the same time.

And just in case you see recovered territory on the AfD pages, don't worry. I just noticed it was a random stub generated by someone in June of last year, so don't think I'm trying to have this recovered territories article deleted.

--Jadger 16:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki way

Can you please explain why you think it's perfectly ok for you to revert with an edit summary of "you wish"? Please see Jagiellon dynasty and Casimir IV who relate to the area of land that is now called Poland at the time of Copernicus' birth. "Poland" is a gross oversimplification of the Kingdom of Poland of the Jagiellons. Next you'll be telling me Alexander the Great is a Greek. A better (referenced) phrase would be:

Gingerich, Owen (14). John L. Heilbron (ed.). "Copernicus, Nicholas", The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science. USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195112296. Copernicus was born 19 February 1473 in Torun, a Hanseatic town that had shortly before transferred its allegiance to the Polish monarchy. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |origmonth=, |accessmonth=, |chapterurl=, |origdate=, and |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

As long as you refrain from putting in your edits crap like "Poland did not exist at that time", I don't care. Space Cadet 15:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You manage to misquote me - the edit summary was "...Poland did not exist at this point in time". That aside, it is obvious you make no difference between the periods of it being a State, a Kingdom, and a Republic, amongst other less easily titled things. I however do not accept coffeebook-history which ignores things like Leonardo being a Tuscan but effectively a Florentine - God help us, here he's an Italian, I'm not wasting anymore time pushing elephants uphill, though I still feel the same should apply to the article in question. I don't care two hoots if it's a difficult and complex relationship that needs to be shown, this thing is not paper, there is plenty of room. Thank you for your time in reading this rant - rant out.

Anyway Poland DID exist (in whatever form - Kingdom, Commonwealth, People's Republic, Drakes' Republic etc.) at that point in time, so there! All this Leonardo crap is just blowing smoke! What is he called in Britannica, for God's sake? Space Cadet 18:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why cite Britannica at me, I said I don't appreciate coffee-book history. If they wish to perpetuate gross oversimplifications fine, that's their loss. Here, if the bloody revert warriors give you a chance, justice can be done. My example of Leonardo is totally aposite - search the page for "tusc" - the only mention of him being a Tuscan is in a category - that's worse than cofeee-book - it's pathetic. It could be so much better. So could the article you're working on.

I rest my case. Space Cadet 12:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gdansk was a completely Polish City?

That you call me knucklehead on the page for my discussion does not change the history. I would be a knucklehead to trust you without looking at sources, however. I have done that now. The people of Gdansk revolted against the choice of the king, you told me. Didn't they like the moustach of the King Bathory? You better not say just why they revolted. They wanted to keep autonomy and refused to pay homage to the new Polish king until their autonomy was guarranteed. You littered texts with nationalistic simplifications. Gdansk is a Polish city. It was not wholly in the past.--Toolsbadly 10:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take back the knuckle head and I apologize. But the new king did not yet issue any decrees limiting the "autonomy" as you call it, nor did he show any signs of intending to do so. Gdańsk citizens revolted only because they liked Habsburg's moustache better. And they wanted him to be not the king of Gdańsk, but the whole Poland of which they still wanted to be a part of. Gets? Space Cadet 15:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are off the mark! Fast lesson: http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/eceurope/danzig15571660.html --Toolsbadly 17:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this site! It's so biased, it's hard to believe! Try harder, OK? Space Cadet 19:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't know the site. Since Wikipedia is not Avis, why should Toolsbadly, "Try Harder". After I read the article, I'm curious (as I'm sure others might be), what part of that specific article is false, let alone biased? Dr. Dan 19:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, try this: http://www.poland.gov.pl/Stefan,Batory,(1533,%E2%80%93,1586),1959.html and compare. Space Cadet 00:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After trying your poland.gov.pl page, I still can't understand what makes it biased. 1) From where do you know the zum.de site? 2) What makes it biased? 3) What makes your poland.gov.pl site better?--Toolsbadly 09:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it from surfing and it's ironically on my favorites list. It uses German names for most Polish cities and other geographical features even during periods of time when the territorry in question belonged to Poland. It pushes the XIX century Prussian historiography POV. The Polish site captures both sides of the argument and it does not try to hide or misinterpret historical facts. It's so objective that even I find some shocking at first information in it. Space Cadet 11:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The site uses Gdansk until 1309, it uses Danzig from 1309 to 1946, it uses Gdansk since 1946. Wikipedia uses Gdańsk until 1307, it uses Danzig from 1308 to 1945, it uses Gdańsk after 1945. So: The site is just fine! It doesnt push XIX century Prussian historiography POV, okay? The Polish site captures no sides of the argument, has as subject not Gdansig, just the king, and is objective or is not. You were careless with your accusation of nationalism.--Toolsbadly 12:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, both sites are wrong and inconsistent. From 1466 (1454) to 1793 Gdańsk was Polish, "okay"?. You mean to tell me you did not read any other article on the site? How superficial! No, I was not careless but you! Space Cadet 15:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? No one said it wasn't Polish, and no one said it was. You argue German name for a city => city was German => city was then in Germany; use of German name for city not in Germany => revisionism & nationalistic & biased & inconsistent & wrong, etc., and zum.de makes this => zum.de is all of this before => zum.de and all their info shall not be used => zum.de is wrong => Gdansig was not autonomous. Both site are wrong and inconsistent? You meant zum.de and wikipedia.org, didnt you? Wikipedia held its own decision making conference and vote for the nameing of Gdansig, coming to the conclusion both sites now use, described above:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gdansk/Vote --Toolsbadly 20:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over the years I read about 100 books about the period, so my knowledge is not based on one or two sites and your little cause and effect chain maybe applies more to you: Space Cadet is a Polish nationalist ==> etc. I would like to recommend a great book by Karin Friedrich "The Other Prussia - Royal Prussia, Poland and Liberty, 1569 - 1772". Autonomous - yes, but an autonomous part of Poland. Space Cadet 21:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could teach someone who read a hundred books (or were you using binary numerals??) about the period that the fight of Gdansig against the king was to avoid reduction in autonomy? I feel very honored. Earlier you wrote: it was "against the choice of the new king - their candidate being a Habsburg. Unfortunately they ~~lost~~ surrendered and lost a lot of privileges." "But the new king did not yet issue any decrees limiting the "autonomy" as you call it, nor did he show any signs of intending to do so. Gdańsk citizens revolted only because they liked Habsburg's moustache better." "And you are out of line quoting nationalistic sites." Looking back, don't you feel embarassed? You're now using autonomy without quotes, even. That you call my recording of your past logic my "little cause and effect chain" doesn't make it incorrect.--Toolsbadly 09:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't feel embarassed. It is you who will feel embarassed after you read (from cover to cover) the book I recommended. In the meantime please teach me stuff, but try to use scientific arguments, rather then "funny" binary system one, or "you forgot the quotation marrks". Space Cadet 14:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter: Political identity in the cities of Royal Prussia and the meaning of liberty

Please explain what exactly in the chapter "Political identity in the cities of Royal Prussia and the meaning of liberty" pp 96 - 120 supports your rv?--Toolsbadly 09:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read it? Space Cadet 10:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already said: I've read the book from cover to cover. What's with the explanation?--Toolsbadly 14:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't get it, try chapter 6 (AGAIN!): "Loyalty in times of war". And not just the introduction, the whole thing! Then let me know what you've learned. Space Cadet 15:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the chapter, therefore I want to hear your explaination what it has to do with your rv. You can't go round and revert version of users ordering them to read chapter X of the book of Karin Friedrich and when they read it again and don't find your rv is well grounded in the chapter, you tell them read chapter Y. You can fool me once, but you cannot fool me twice. I don't get it? Then give it to me, explain it to me.--Toolsbadly 15:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get sucked into your little game: I explain and you don't get it, I explain my explanation, you still don't get it and want me to explain ad infinitum. I'm not an English to English traslator. Many provinces or towns in Poland-Lithuania had special privileges differentiating them from the rest. Warsaw had most of them, obviously, as the capital. But look up Zamość, you'll be surprised. My point is: separate privileges don't make a separate country. Space Cadet 19:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It's not "explaination" but "explanation". Ask someone to help you with your English before when you edit Wikipedia.

Basedview22

Hi spacecadet, this user [19] continues in the manner of recently blocked another user, if you don't mind please check his edits. I reverted most of his edits but I am afraid of he will came back very soon and will continue with changing for example Charles University to Karlsuniversitat Prag etc. etc. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Hevelius

Page is now fully protected in the form as you edited it. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Lechu.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Lechu.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you wanting fight? I see many peoples have picked one bone with the? Please you discuss instead of reverting to your personal versions past neutralness. :) Please? No desire for the continual insualts and unciviliness from the?

I no wanting fight. I wanting neutralness peoples who have picked bone speak English. No insualts meant. Space Cadet 00:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gdańsk

Hi there; as I see from your userpage that you speak Polish, and as you and user:172.195.112.109, who clearly is Polish, are following each other around all over the encyclopedia reverting each other, may I respectfully suggest that you talk to each other on your or his talk pages, or by e-mail if you wish, and come to some agreement about, for instance, the importance and significance of the name of Gdansk. I can otherwise see the possibility of you both getting WP:3RR blocks, which I really do not want to do.--Anthony.bradbury 22:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do you figure he's Polish? Is this supposed to be a joke? Pretty stupid one then. Space Cadet 23:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, it was not meant to be a joke, and I had no intention of denigrating either you or him. He appears to edit only Poland related articles, and, given that i know a lot of Poles, his use of the English language indicates an Eastern European origin. I had no intention of taking sides, and sent you both similar 3RR warnings. May I suggest that, as you speak Polish, you address him in that language. If he understands, then you can perhaps come to agreement. If he does not, then let me know, and this will be taken into account in any future blocking request. I'm just trying to preserve the encyclopedia. aren't we all?--Anthony.bradbury 00:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does bad English indicate that someone is from Eastern Europe? Are you chauvinistic or retarded? Anyway, he is a German revisionist and I don't understand why you only picked us two out of all the parties involved. Space Cadet 00:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all. let me say that offensive edits do not advance the discussion. I picked the two of you because you are the two who have interacted the most. Poor English does not necessarily imply Polish origin, although his use of English is typical of people from Eastern Europe. And I was suggesting conversation, rather than confrontation. If indeed he is a German revisionist then that is clearly not going to work.--Anthony.bradbury 00:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second of all you were offensive first! Watch who you're calling "Polish" next time! If Germany is Eastern Europe for you then I guess France is too. Not a lot of geography in medical school, I gather. I am from Central Europe and I must say that your expert professional opinion about "his use of English is typical of people from Eastern Europe" is way off. You associated with some low class Poles and came to some weird conclusions. But guess what: his use of English is typical of people from low class, who are the same all over the world. Happy editing, your friend Space Cadet 00:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I have not said you were Polish; I said that I believed that User:172.195.112.109 was. You say that I am wrong, and that he is German. OK, I have not argued that. And I have not said that Germany is in Eastern Europe, although I did say that Poland was, which most people would agree with. If you feel that Poland is in Central Europe then hey, OK. The argument was really not about that; it was about the name of Danzig/Gdansk. And even there I was trying to mediate, not dogmatise, OK?--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 01:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you really are NOT playing dumb on me now, then let me explain: I got offended by your "matter of fact" assumptions about User:172.195.112.109 and your aristocrat wannabe tone telling me to go and take care of it. Space Cadet 01:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I am Polish-American.

I am really sorry if that is the impression which I created. I knew, of course, that you spoke both English and Polish because your user-page says so. My assumption that User:172.195.112.109 was Polish we have exhaustively examined. Asking you to go and take care of it is not, perhaps, how I intended to come across to you. When we have an edit conflict within wikipedia then we always try, where possible to get the two main protagonists to talk and agree with each other; it does not always work, but is always worth trying. That is what i was doing, and I guess failing in. And now I am going to bed - nothing personal, but it's 2.15 a.m. here.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 01:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop accusing of the lies! information true you know. but secretly yourself revert both Giese pages saying "LIES"? Why you so uncivil and scare people away because not beleiving like you do? Please consider truth. Nothing baddest than corrputnss.

Did you upload Image:Ionicbond.JPG?

Hi. I was trying to figure out who the original uploader of Image:Ionicbond.JPG was. Since you added the image to the Ionic bond article back in 2002, I would guess that you drew and uploaded it too, but I can't say for sure since the upload history for such old images was lost at some point. If you did create it, could you please add a note saying so to the image page and tag it with whatever license tag you'd consider appropriate? As you can see, the image is currently tagged for deletion as lacking a source. Thanks. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"nonsensical chauvinistic claims"

Wow! I understand that you treat polish and german victims of the World War the Second at the same. BTW congratulations of "neutrality" view.

RE

Sorry, I'm new here.

Nicolaus Copernicus

Page is now fully protected to avoid an edit-war. There is a dispution about this article, please add your opinion here consensus dispution. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie

Hej, dzieki za chrzaszcza, nie mam polskiej klawiatury :-) --Targeman 22:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Derision, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tiddly Tom 17:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is the reason I have nomonated your article for speedy deletion. Thanks for your message. Tiddly Tom 19:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been deleted by an Administrator, for the reason given above. Please do not re create it, unless you can drastically change the article as not to be dictionary like.

Images listed for deletion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.

Thank you. M0RD00R 12:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainians

Ukrainians were deported to SU, or exchanged in 1945. Only a small number remained in Poland and was deported during Wisła operation.Xx236 07:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Five years of disruption

You have been embroiled in a consistently disruptive naming war for five years now with no end in sight. Certainly the naming is just a small part of your reverts, but it can be described well.

The following are just the edits that are directly related to whether it should be Gdansk or Danzig on the article Gdansk, not your similar edits like this. Nor does it include all the naming disruption on similar articles ([20] [21] etc).

[22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]

These diffs above don't include the following, either. The Gdansk revert war went on. In fact, it was your ([39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]) and Emax's revert war against the administrators John Kenney, Chris 73 and Jpgordon that was followed by the creation of the Gdansk vote (mid-February 2005) to finally end this. The vote was also welcomed by a Polish user like I've never seen approval of a vote before.[46]

In this vote, you committed double voting by casting with both Space Cadet and your proven and confessed abusive sockpuppet Tirid Tirid.[47] [48] Tirid Tirid was also used for further revert warring.[49]

Understandably, you did not like the outcome at all, so you continued in contrast to the vote's decision: (limited to just one diff per month) [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]

There's only one month in which you didn't violate the voting. After April 2006, you took a break. You started editing again in late August with ... a Gdansk vote violation.[63] Thus continues your record (limited to just one diff per month): [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]

Yup, there's no month in which you didn't breach the Gdansk vote this time. It's amazing that your conduct has never received the due amount of attention. And the last diff listed is this month, early September 2007. Again, it is noteworthy that the naming is just part of your revert warring. I guess the following war should also be mentioned because it's also directly related to the Gdansk vote ([78] [79] [80] [81] [82]).

Now, the following is the total number of your edits and reverts that are not in line with the Gdansk vote in the last two weeks: [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100]

It's hard to believe that still, in all those years, no one has taken your editing privilege for good. Sciurinæ 01:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already five years? Wow! Space Cadet 03:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copernicus

¿Why does Copernicus was not a Polish and Dürer and Beethoven were Germans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nationalism Patrol (talk • contribs) 13:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space Cadet, you do realise that you are supporting man actively violating wikipedia policy? WP:POINT.

PS: Are you PiS supporter or something? Thinking that if we will rattle the saber everyone will respect us and the words "compromise" and "going with agreed policy" is something totally alien to you? Szopen 07:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:HerbGołdapi.PNG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:HerbGołdapi.PNG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Shell ^babelfish 00:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to ban User:Space Cadet from German-Polish-related topics

I've put forward this proposal at the community sanction noticeboard. Sciurinæ 12:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Prussia Controversy

The borders changed indeed in the (Catholic) Ermland region, so what? In the ex post perspective, it became finally East Prussia when West Prussia disappeared (first) from the map. (Sorry, with Prussia you mean only what was called "West and East Prussia"?) So you may eliminate some people from there from the East Prussia category, great thing. A hobby like yours is perfectly O.K., but it is always difficult if the clear view is hindered by too strong emotions. Your Province of Prussia argument looks a bit childish, to say it very politlely (ja, ja, the good old Provincial Prussians!). By the way, being fixated on Categories, is a dangerous sign... Studying history always means trying to take different angles, but this not what you are up to, right? Seen from 20th century, the German-Polish history is a mess. But going deeper into this, it is far more complex (a German pope, 'designed' by a Polish Pope, still unbelievable!). Thanks to the Polish editors especially here and in the German wikipedia I have learned about a different perspective on Polish history. So you won for tonight, Polish-American Edit-War King! --DaQuirin 22:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love history of all Prussia: Brandenburg, Hannover, Hessen-Nassau, Pommern, Posen, Rheinland, Sachsen, Schlesien, Schleswig-Holstein, Westfalen, Westpreußen and my personal favorite: Ostpreußen. Since when is logic childish? I'm not fixated about anything except good sex. It's not about winning or losing, but about Truth, Logic and Common Sense. Even seen from the 2nd millenium the German-Polish history is a mess. But let's hope for change. Space Cadet 12:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to be moved here, under the colours of... ? See it like this: For many reasons, some people or, if I am correct, many Poles, do not accept the view that there was something like East Prussia for centuries. It ended abruptly in 1945, that's for sure. The names changed, Poles and Germans use different names, but they know exactly what they are talking about. Like we do. The German East Prussians had a mixed ancestry, their own local (both Low and High) German dialects - you like maps, so you may like this (showing the 'Polish speakers' in Southern East Prussia before 1900! [101]), habits, and cultural achievements. Without leaving his home region, Immanuel Kant became one of our greatest European philosophers. Even seen from the 2nd millenium the German-Polish history is a mess. I cannot follow this claim, but it is your opinion. Germans under Polish rule, Poles under German rule, there are many success stories. In some cases, like Nicolaus Copernicus, discussions never end... (no East Prussian, don't get me wrong). Before the Partitions of Poland (which followed power politics of the time, not nationalistic ideologies in Germany - yes, there was something like Teutschland in Goethe's and Schiller's age) - Poles and Germans would have come to a different conclusion. Living abroad, far from your Heimat, current political differences (about what exactly?) in good old Central Europe seem bigger than they actually are. --DaQuirin 13:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the elchschaufel. It originated from a heated discussion with one of your homegirls. The discussion ended 3 years ago, it's about time it got removed. I know about everything you mention above, but why don't we call all those people (except Copernicus, of course, don't get me wrong) Prussians? Prussia is a vague enough term unlike East Prussia. All your Germans who had "mixed ancestry" (I know this map and I don't like it, I prefer post 2000 maps) and those never "leaving their home region" will fit there perfectly. Or, as I already suggested to our currently blocked collegue Matthead, create two more categories: German natives of Ducal Prussia and German natives of Province of Prussia. German natives of the Monastic state of the Teutonic Knights would also be a good one, although currently empty, but I'll gladly add a couple of names (Arnold Hecht and Conrad Letzkau), even to the Ducal Prussia ones (Roth and Kalkstein). Why do you keep mixing in the current political or economical situation of Poland? (I'm completely indifferent.) What does it have to do with our subject here? Space Cadet 14:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way: for some Germans East Prussia still exists and will always exist! That's why I always welcome nostalgic German tourists in Elbing, Allenstein, Heilsberg and Goldap: Herzlich wilkommen in Ostpreußen! Did I spell that right? Probably not, sorry. But they understand, smile at me and, if they speak English, begin a long talk with me about Prussia, which I love. Space Cadet 14:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Prussia has become a historical region. And so much about the millennium perspective (we entered a new one, Space Cadet). You prefer to talk about good sex... As for the categories: "Southern Prussian Poles", "Congress Poland Poles", and "Grand Duchy / Provincial Posen Poles" and the like... Nonsense, right? With time, the term and notion "Prussians" spread over the map (not too different from "Saxons" for example). In the end, West Prussia was situated in the far eastern periphery of Prussia (only to be topped by ... East Prussia!). Confusing for everybody but you. East Prussians is the conventional term for the inhabitants from the region we are talking about. You want to have a combined group, for some reason. You are used to it, not interested in finding nuances outside your beliefs. O.K. Maybe for a break, the current standard 'post 2000' academic work on (1701-) "Prussian" history: [102]. And I will not convince the emigrant amateur historian's mind. Good bye, American friend! --DaQuirin 15:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Something odd: Germany's sport teams, especially the soccer Nationalmannschaft, still playing in the colours of Prussia and the Teutonic Knights... More than 90 percent of the Germans are not aware of this, I can assure you. --DaQuirin 15:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you finally begin to start considering a thought of attempting to produce some kind of modern proof that it was more than an administrative unit originated in 1772, abolished in 1829, restored in 1878 and finally abolished again in 1945? I mean I know that it is a popular stereotype to use the name for this (kind of unspecified as far as borders) land when referring to historical periods since 13th century, just like it is a popular stereotype to use the name "worms" for most arthropods (Nonsense, right?). Silesia was always Silesia but not East Prussia. How about just sticking to city names like: People born in Königsberg, Allenstein, Heilsberg, Tilsit etc.? With colors and all? I love Black and White. And I love black crosses on white background. My favorite figurine is that of a Teutonic Knight. What does my being an immigrant in America have to do with anything?Space Cadet 16:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that, no offense here. I was referring to the Auslands-perspective, the Polish way, you like to choose. Far from the homeland, you may sleep in your flag(s), discussing historical place-names on the wikipedia site, it's O.K. Again for the history buff: Provinces were joint by Personal- and Realunion (not abolished, nice difference) and separated again, historical regions can survive this quite well. The Poles were the real champions in this discipline, clinging to their traditions under the most difficult conditions. The political continuity, even including borders, in the the case of East Prussia is very high in comparison with so many other regions in Europe. You are not willing to take the primary step of dealing seriously with history: Studying and, for a certain extent, taking notice of an existing different perspective on a special subject (especially in the history of a another nation than yours). Until 1945, East Prussia was in fact part of German history. There is not a serious discussion in both international or German academic research about the existence of this distinct, extraordinary historical-cultural Lebenswelt. West Prussia, as a territory, region and so on, is not present in the German historical mind anymore (and for reasons you probably know). The idea, that the region in question here, commonly called East Prussia in a wider historical context, has been abolished because of the administrative restructuring of the Prussian state - making it a joint province for some decades - is, to say it again, childish. You could discuss it on the relevant Talk page, but you are restricting yourself to this here instead. PS: Welcoming the German tourist with your fine knowledge of German historical names, fits in the 'Deep in your heart'-theory... --DaQuirin 16:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again I don't sleep in any flag and I'm not interested in the current situation of my homeland so stop endlessly bringing it up. Just treat me as a neutral Wikipedian, like I'm treating you. Sheesh! If Lesser Poland and Greater Poland were joint into Middle Poland for a period of time some time in history, it wouldn't make sense to call people born in that new province Natives of Greater Poland. I really hope you got it this time because I have to do some actual work now, before I get caught chatting on the net. Space Cadet 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. A P.S. comes after the signature not before.

P.S.: (sorry for the cultural difference) Die-hard nationalists like you, restricting your editing to inserting historical place-names from a one-sided Polish (German or whatever) perspective, makes the English-speaking wikipedia history articles look like a playground for wanna-be amateur historians. You are not giving a single quote yourself, you are not discussing it on the relevant Talk page - engaging yourself instead in trollism. Again: You are not willing to take the primary step of dealing seriously with history: Studying and, for a certain extent, taking notice of an existing different perspective on a special subject, especially in the history of a foreign nation, or in the history of two neighboring nations. Greetings to New York, DaQuirin 20:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You meant "Sorry for lack of culture" of course. No problem. Not everybody took Latin in high school. It is probably an "elective" in Germany (together with Logic), and you could've chosen a different subject instead. Did you dodge History the same way? You didn't provide one single convincing argument that would suggest I was a nationalist, yet you keep calling me that. You are being rude after I was trying to be friendly with you. I hope not to see you again on my Talk page. This space is reserved for people with standards. Space Cadet 21:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin (?) Flagging again your favourite colours (interesting message indeed), I certainly have to stay away. --DaQuirin 21:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Latin: Post Scriptum. If you don't apologize for calling me a nationalist, the colors will stay and any further comments from you will be deleted. Stay out! Space Cadet 21:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought the Elchschaufel symbol is too old, I need something better. Space Cadet 21:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taunting

Please do not taunt a blocked user. Sam Blacketer 15:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility warning

Despite being warned about about not taunting blocked users, you did so again. Please be aware that persistent incivility - including taunting, which is regarded as a highly uncivil behavior - is grounds for blocking. Please see WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:BLOCK for the corresponding policies. 84.145.195.64 22:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to se you back, Matthead. Space Cadet 01:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must disappoint you in that regard, as I am not User:Matthead. I found you repeated taunting while looking at his talkpage as he had left me a message on my IP's talkpage and I do not mind a checkuser to proof that I am not related. Please assume good faith 84.145.195.64 01:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing, right? Space Cadet 02:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing what? I'm not certain what you mean. 84.145.195.64 02:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Figure it out. I offered Matthead friendship [103] and he spat in my face. So I just told him off. That's all. Space Cadet 02:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not aware of that, but I must agree that his response was quite incivil. Truely, I must apologize. I try to keep things civil and objective (though unfortunately I got into a scrap with User:Rex Germanus today, which made me a bit edgy *sigh*) One thing I just cannot abide is incivility. In that sense, I wish you a cool head and happy editing 84.145.195.64 02:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool, dude. Don't worry about it. Space Cadet 02:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. In another matter, I saw that you also contributed to that article East Prussia, so I think I should notify you that I added a bias tag to the article (and of course noted that on the talkpage and informed the related wikiprojects that I did so) as I feel parts of the article are worded in a biased way. Things like "descendants of German conquerors and colonists were forced back to Germany" sound quite one-sided to me (though I also must admit I currently can't think of a good and neutral way to phrase things; this is something I think I'll rather attempt after a good night's sleep) And now I bed you a good night. 84.145.195.64 02:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maps of the Ordensstaat

Hallo Space Cadet, I have just recoloured your maps in order to make them more suggestive. That means, I've tried to demonstrate connections with similar colours and antagonisms with different colours. Normally I also rename any image if I overwork it. In these three cases I deliberately did not, because they are used by a bundle of articles an I wanted to im prove them for all those articles. In one of these aticles I have to change the descripition at once. If you want to answer or reply, I ask you to answer on my German page de:Benutzer:Ulamm. Yours' sincerely Ulamm 00:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition a question: why has the Prussian territory (of the Ordensstaat) in your maps such a southeastern appendix? As I know, such appendices existed only for very short times (when the Orden was on top of its power, between the 2nd Polish division and Napoleon, during the Worldwars. Yours' sincerely Ulamm 01:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore: Your choice of names is quite inconsequent: Hrodna for Grodno is very actual, Helsingfors since almost 100 years is only the second name behind Helsinki. Windau and Rewel are out of official use since 1918. Szczecin is in official use since 1945. Dyneburg is English. Yours' sincerely Ulamm 13:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Stop vandalizing the Schopenhauer page by continually changing his city of birth. This issue has been voted on and settled a long time age. See: Talk:Gdansk/Vote & also Talk:Arthur_Schopenhauer. Your cooperation would be appreciated. Alcmaeonid 01:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never, never insert comments on the top of the user's talk page. It's rude, disrespectful and against the WIKI etiquette. Your comment was deleted as will be others inserted in the same manner.
Don't run around calling people vandals without proper evidence.
Always read other people's edit summaries. Usually a simple explanation will be provided there, even for what you might find as a shocking edit.
There was conflicting information in the infobox (Stutthof) and in the text (Danzig) and I had to correct it.
Don't use the Danzig (Gdańsk) vote as an excuse for petty edit wars, especially if you don't understand the outcomings of the vote..
Answer on my talk page (on the bottom, where it won't be deleted), how, in your opinion, did I violate the vote consensus.
Avoid pointless edit wars by discussions on Talk pages and reaching consensus there.
Don't push your POV by issuing warnings to other users.
Since this is (hopefully) your first time and I have not heard any complaints about you, I'm going to go easy on you. In the future, however, behavior like that will be immediately reported and sanctions against you will be taken.
Your cooperation will be appreciated by the whole community.

Space Cadet 02:05, 16 October

Space Cadet has the same agenda for many years: adding Poland and claiming everything as Polish, removing anything he does not like, which equals to all things German and Prussian. No cooperation whatsoever can be expected from him, and no involvement with actual encyclopedic content other than national POV.-- Matthead ^discuß! O 02:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right! That's why I replaced "Danzig, Poland" with "Stutthof, Kingdom of Prussia". Because I like everything Polish. You don't even know what you're talking about and your "agenda" is to bash Poles and deny anything Polish. Space Cadet 17:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the only thing you "contribute" to a biography is squeezing in ", Poland". [104] -- Matthead ^discuß! O 18:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would contribute more but everything else checked out. Space Cadet 22:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please beware of personal attacks and assume good faith Matthead! ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Meetup

The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there!--Pharos 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments were removed

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Operation Wilno.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Tribunal of Toruń vs Blood-bath of Thorn

Please comment at talk if you move the article. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was only a countermove and I DID state the reason. Space Cadet 17:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suppose that we shall begin move discussion (with vote). To legitimate current version, I want also to say that this is definitely controversial move and the first mover (not Space Cadet nor Piotrus or me) didn't respect it. He should start mvoe discussion before the move but he didn't. This is just revert to previous version of the name. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your knowledge about German crimes and atrocities is needed

I would welcome your contribution to article about Germans kidnapping Polish children which i partially translated and partially expanded from Polish wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Polish_children_by_Germany --Molobo 22:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-polish POV

(in Polish) Czy jesteś wandalem? Mam na myśli twoje parę edycji z dzisiaj (17.11.2007) od około 13:00 do 18:00. Rewertujesz artykuły, przywracasz masowo wersje Molobo, usuwasz prawdę z artykułów itp. Co z tobą? Zanim zaczniesz rewertować to przedyskutuj - od tego jest przecież dyskusja. Możesz mi pisać po polsku w czym dokładnie jest problem. LUCPOL (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SC-just to let you know, LUCPOL threatened me with firearms and physical violence several times before, he also stalked me outside Wikipedia. He is now banned in Polish Wikipedia for highly aggressive behaviour and POV edits untill December with the possibility of extension of the ban. He also was trying to recruit editors on forum of RAŚ(Silesian Autonomy Movement). Cheers.--Molobo (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo threatened me with firearms several times before. He was banned in Polish Wikipedia for highly aggressive behaviour, trollings, manipulations and POV edits. Possibility of extension of the ban (annuity). He also was trying to recruit editors on forum of ROPŚ and other. Administrator of pl.wikipedia wrote "Dotychczasowy wkład obu panów (red. Molobo and Bobik111) wskazuje dość jednoznacznie, że przyszli tu raczej spierać się czy wręcz kłócić niż pracować nad projektem. Ponadto obaj niepotrzebnie podgrzewają temperaturę dyskusji, często wchodząc na zupełnie pozamerytoryczne wątki. Mam również wrażenie, że poprzednie blokady nie skłoniły ich do poprawy" + 1 year (and other) banned in en.wikipedia = hmmmm ;) PS. W tej chwili oboje (ja i molobo) napisaliśmy coś o sobie i powinno się zakończyć tę gatkę ale założę się że Molobo będzie kontynuował tę niemerytoryczną dyskusję. Jeśli się mylę i nie będzie tu już nic pisał to stawiam ci piwko ;) ;p LUCPOL (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the difference is LUCPOL that I did kept record on those threats and your RAS post is quite visible although you did modified it. Since I never did anything described above you will have hard time proving this if anything emerges.I can present record of your threats at any time if they would be required. Since I never threatened you, you can't present anything. --Molobo (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A nie mówiłem. Wiedziałem na 101% że Molobo będzie kontynuował tę niemerytoryczną dyskusję, tak jak zawsze. Fajnie że już nie muszę stawiać ci piwka ;p bo już wygrałem ewentualny zakład ;) PS. Nasze "groźby" na IRC po pijaku miały miejsce chyba rok temu, ale Molob będzie o nich pisać przez następne 10 lat i to na każdej Wikipedii jakiej się da. Jak ja uwielbiam troli ;) LUCPOL (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please write in English on Enwiki. I don't need to remember them since I saved screenshots from them. As to your threats, if you were drunk as you claim here then it further erodes your credibility as an editor and it certainly isn't an excuse. Lastly your insult about me being troll is of course violating Wiki Civility guidelines, which IIRC were one of the reasons for your current ban in Plwiki.--Molobo (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also LUCPOL, keep your tRAŚh off my Talk page. Space Cadet (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(in Polish) Rozumiem, że dalej wolisz się zajmować pro-polskim POV. OK, ale oczekuj długich sporów i wojen bo ja nie zamierzam tolerować polskiego POV w artykułach dotyczących Śląska. A twój powyższy komentarz sobie zapamiętam. LUCPOL (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zapamiętaj dobrze, bo ani ja ani inni nie będziemy tolerować twojego durnego separatyzmu. Space Cadet (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ja nie stosuję separatyzmu w artykułach, dokonałem chyba tylko jednego wpisu o RAŚ w artykule o Śląsku i to wszystko. Dlaczego tak drastycznie zmieniłeś postawę wobec mojej osoby? Proszę również abyś popatrzył na siebie gdyż widocznie (wyraźnie) tuszujesz fakty które są polakom nie na rękę. To jest właśnie POV (nacjonalistyczny) i wandalizm - łamanie zasad Wikipedii. My możemy się dogadać, ale potrzeba dobrych chęci z obu stron. Bez sensu jest abyś sztucznie ze mnie robił swojego wroga. To że się z czymś nie zgadzamy lub mamy inne poglądy to nie znaczy że musimy się kłócić. Ja jestem gotów merytorycznie i pokojowo za pomocą dyskusji zakańczać spory, ale jestem przygotowany na długie wojny i rewerty, więc sam wybierz rozwiązanie. Dogadujemy się czy wolisz sztucznie robić ze mnie swojego wroga? LUCPOL (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dogadujemy się, tylko nie stosuj wstępów typu: "Czy jesteś wandalem?". Działa mi to na nerwy. Space Cadet (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to remain

Calm, I am sure proper admins will deal with the situation if hostility from LUCPOL continues as well as POV edits without support in facts or reason. It's best not to engage in dispute with him in a way that is not needed.--Molobo (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"per Gdańsk vote"

Hi. I wonder which Gdańsk vote you're referring to in your edit summary moving Tumult of Thorn to Tumult of Thorn (Toruń). Thanks in advance for clarifying. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've already replied, and apologized, at the talk page there, but I just re-read my earlier post and realized how bitchy I sounded. I shouldn't have been online at all in that mood, and it had nothing to do with you. I'm sorry, and I hope my comments today have been more constructive. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image:Teutonic_takeover.PNG

The above image has been challenged by another user. Matthead (talk · contribs) believes it violates the terms of the vote result, and does not provide sources for the information presented. Can you explain your sources, and also the reason for using polish names for all places (even those that are in the same region as Konigsberg, which itself you named in 'German (Polish)' style)?—Random832 18:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To my eye it also has another problem: It does not explain what the other colors mean. You seem to have said it is cropped from a larger map, can you provide a link to that map?—Random832 18:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here is the link Image:Teutonic state 1308-1455.png Space Cadet (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still somewhat troubling that exclusively Polish names are used on the map. Some history - this was a rather bitter dispute in the somewhat early days of Wikipedia, and there was a vote that led to clearly delineated rules on naming conventions of places that have both Polish and German names Nevermind the history lesson - I see you were actually around then - and I wasn't, so I'm sure you know the story better than I do anyway. I will also discuss this with the other editor, maybe it would make sense to get together on the talkpage of one of the images?—Random832 20:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: you give me some time and I insert the German names where appropriate. I need about two weeks. Space Cadet (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Space Cadet,

after my recolouring Eastern Pomorania was pink, but a paler pink than Prussia, as it had been conquered later. The pink of Bydgoszcz and Dobrzyn was more pale, because there the control by the Teutonic Order was even shorter. As Eastern Pomerania now is marked green, the pink colour of Bydgoszcz and Dobrzyn is quite illogical. My suggestion: You can mark them in the same colour as Poland.
Once more my question about the localization of borders: In all your maps the territory of the Order's Prussia has a southeastern angle that I haven't seen in other maps. This is also a problem of those of youre maps, that I have recoloured.

Yours' sincerely --Ulamm (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete the original research image Image:Teutonic_takeover.PNG is used in edit wars at Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk), History of Gdańsk (Danzig), Pomerelia in order to supersede the proper sourced map Image:Pommerellen.png. It is part of a compaingn by some Poles to deny the 600y years of history of Danzig. They also make an attempt to rally a posse to overthrow the results of the Gdansk/Danzig vote, see also Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_30#Template:Gdansk-Vote-Results. -- Matthead DisOuß 14:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your whining. I just fixed the map. Took me fifteen minutes. Maybe you could've done it in ten. "Campaign to deny history" - poor Matthead, poor history, so brutally denied. You're such a drama king. Cheers, your homie Space Cadet 22:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote

Would you mind casting your vote again here, with regards to this template, which I created? Much obliged. --Poeticbent talk 06:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Teutonic takeover 1308.PNG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Teutonic takeover 1308.PNG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 22:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Teutonic takeover 1308 license.PNG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Teutonic takeover 1308.PNG. The copy called Image:Teutonic takeover 1308.PNG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 23:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please archive your page

Dzięki. How-to na WP:ARCHIVE, po prostu cut and paste do podstrony.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tumult of Thorn has nothing to do with the Gdansk vote

I don't see anywhere on that Gdansk vote page an indication that it was intended to apply to other cities besides Gdansk, and indeed the wording both on the page and in the "this page is affected by the Gdansk (Danzig) vote" template pretty clearly says otherwise. The talk page of Tumult of Thorn indicates no such consensus for that particular article, and the overriding policy is WP:COMMONNAME. Since "Tumult of Thorn" is used in English language texts, whereas "Tumult of Toruń" is not, clearly the former is the one we should use on the English Wikipedia. Therefore I plan to move it back. --Delirium (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote mentions only that the first reference should mention both, and gives as an example "(now foo)". I have no objection to the first mention in Tumult of Thorn using a construction such as "the city of Thorn (now Toruń, Poland)". Indeed the article already does something similar: "...in the city Thorn (Toruń), Royal Prussia". What I object to is using the bizarre double-named title, which the Gdansk vote does not sanction for any cities other than Gdansk. --Delirium (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying "the outcome of the Gdansk/Danzig vote", but if you read the actual vote page, it has absolutely nothing to do with this article. The title should be at the English common name of Tumult of Thorn, and the Gdansk vote is completely irrelevant, because this city is not Gdansk/Danzig, and that vote only specifies a special-case process for titles for articles about the city of Gdansk/Danzig, not for articles about Thorn/Toruń, which are to be named with he standard "most common name in English" policy. You cannot simply assert the vote sanctions your individual preferences when it clearly says nothing at all about them. --Delirium (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"First reference" clearly is separate from "title of the page", since both were discussed in the Gdansk vote, and considered separately. The outcome specifies that "first references" should include both names (which this article does, as I pointed out above), but does not specify that all page titles for cities other than Gdansk/Danzig must be double-named. Hence, this page is as the common English name, Tumult of Thorn, but the first reference to the city uses the construction "in the city Thorn (Toruń)", in keeping with that requirement. --Delirium (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that Thorn/Toruń shares a history between Germany and Poland. However the only thing the Gdansk/Danzig vote says in general about such cities is that the "first mention" should include both names, not that the article title must include both names. The vote did say specifically for Gdansk/Danzig, but not for other cities that the title should include both names. Therefore, Gdansk/Danzig have special rules there that don't apply to other cities. In general a case-by-case approach with the most common English name is standard Wikipedia policy. As for what you should do, I would personally suggest that you let more neutral users (i.e. people with neither Polish nor German ancestry) decide the matter and recuse yourself for having a conflict of interest. Since I'm Greek, I generally avoid engaging in edit-warring over the titles of Greece-related articles, which is a policy I find to work pretty well. --Delirium (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I know you

As a person with great knowledge about German-Polish history perhaps you would like to comment and expand in article about Kidnapping of Polish children by Germany, they are some issues debated on talk, and I would like the article to be expanded if possible. Comments and expansions are welcomed as usual.--Molobo (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wesołych!

Merry Christmas

An interesting claim

Is Auschwitz the English accepted name for Oświęcim ? I know you are always interested in such issues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Duchy_of_O%C5%9Bwi%C4%99cim#Requested_move --Molobo (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important clarification: This is about the duchy, not Auschwitz in general (the camp, city, etc all in one, that is). The duchy is a historical entity that has an English name. Charles 05:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK Auschwitz is even accepted in Poland, but only as a name of the camp. Duchy in English should be Oświęcim. Who claims what now? Space Cadet (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited!

...to the next New York City Meetup!

In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Józef Piłsudski

Since you commented in the last round, please note that the nomination has been restarted. Thanks for the comments and edits so far! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

Już ci kiedyś pisałem, abyś nie stosował ataków osobistych pod moim adresem. Znów to robisz i w dodatku zakładasz złą wolę innej osoby bądź nie starasz się nazwet zrozumieć co druga osoba ma do przekazania. Wiem, że mój angielski jest słaby, dlatego piszę po "moim" angielskim oraz po polsku. Jeszcze raz powtarzam odnośnie artykułu Duchy of Pless: kilkadziesiąt procent historii (chyba nawet większość historii) tego księstwa nie ma związku z Polską. Nie można zatem pisać "...was a duchy of Silesia, with its capital at Pless (Pszczyna, Poland)" bo tylko pewien okres Pszczyna jako stolica księstwa była w Polsce. LUCPOL (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered this ridiculous point on Duchy of Pless, Talk. Space Cadet (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]