User talk:Stor stark7/Archive 1

Churchill's article on Europe partition agreement

Hi stark7, I saw in the Churchill's archived talk page you have commented on the paragraph about Europe partition. It is marked as cited but didnt find any good sources linked.

"On October 9, 1944, he and Eden were in Moscow, and that night they met Stalin in the Kremlin, without the Americans. Bargaining went on throughout the night. Churchill wrote on a scrap of paper that Stalin had a 90 percent "interest" in Romania, Britain a 90 percent "interest" in Greece, both Russia and Britain a 50 percent interest in Yugoslavia. When they got to Italy, Stalin ceded that country to Churchill. The crucial questions arose when the Ministers of Foreign Affairs discussed "percentages" in Eastern Europe. Molotov's proposals were that Russia should have a 75 percent interest in Hungary, 75 percent in Bulgaria, and 60 percent in Yugoslavia. This was Stalin's price for ceding Italy and Greece. Eden tried to haggle: Hungary 75/25, Bulgaria 80/20, but Yugoslavia 50/50. After lengthy bargaining they settled on an 80/20 division of interest between Russia and Britain in Bulgaria and Hungary, and a 50/50 division in Yugoslavia. U.S. Ambassador Harriman was informed only after the bargain was struck. This gentleman's agreement was sealed with a handshake.

I guess it is this paper that is refered to: [4] The problem is that it is listed under the teheran conference, which does not fly with the october 1944 date. Has there been a mixupp somewhere? --Stor stark7 Talk 11:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)"

I couldn't find sth good either. The British papers cited say nothing. ( http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/churchillstalin_58-1.pdf )

I am not a wikipedian and I dont have experience, can you refresh this topic a little bit to the churchill talk page?

Thanks for your time, keep the good work.

Ok, I'm not quite sure what you need, but I had a discussion tangential to the subject here Talk:Romania_during_World_War_II#Yalta, I suppose the source you need is this one, an excerpt from the book "STALIN", by Edvard Radzinsky.

--Stor stark7 ^Talk 18:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsion of Germans after World War II

I did some copyedit of the link description (the itself link was originally invalid). Pavel Vozenilek 04:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slrubenstein's answer

They appear to be primary sources. Since they are verifiable they can be used in articles, but you cannot add your own interpretation or analysis of them. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you ask him what is the difference with secondary sources? His answer would apply in the same way if these sources were secondary sources because we should never add our own analysis or interpretation to any source (primary or secondary), unless we provide a source for this interpretation or analysis. So, his answer is not correct, or else there is no difference between primary and secondary sources. IMO, the correct answer is that you cannot use any analysis, evaluation, judgement, interpretation (of some other work) that is contained in a primary source to build a case, to defend a position or for anything, unless you provide a secondary source that uses this primary source in this way. By definition, primary sources must be used as primary ingredients in secondary sources. A primary source gets interpreted or evaluated in one of many possible ways in a secondary source. Wikipedia reports on these secondary sources, not directly on primary sources. For example, if a primary source reports that a researcher called FlatMan said the earth is flat, you cannot cite this primary source and write "FlatMan said the earth is flat" in a Wikipedia article to support the case that the earth is flat because this is giving a value to the primary source. You cannot use it to discriminate Flatmam either, which is another way to use the very same statement. You see the point: a primary source is a primary ingredient that can be used in different ways, to build different cases, etc. You need a secondary source along with a primary source to use it in one way or another. Note that it is perhaps what Slrubenstein had in mind, but what he wrote mean something else to me. Note that there are exceptions, but it is when the way to use the primary source is not subject to discussions and that every reasonable adult would agree. -Lumière 15:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get back to it when I've had some time to think it through, unfortunately a bit busy right now. Stor stark7 22:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your first question is hidden in Saxifrage's answer to your second question:

No, allowed analysis comes from verifiable secondary (and tertiary) sources. Adding any interpretation that is novel ourselves violates Wikipedia:No original research, a peer policy to this one.

The allowed analysis cannot come from primary sources! Why? Primary sources, such as the transcript of an interview, may contain such analysis. So, why not use it? Because we cannot directly use a primary source for any analysis or interpretation that it may contain. This is the answer to your first question. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means that it must report on secondary sources. Given that an analysis or interpretation is provided by these secondary sources, then we can cite the primary sources that are the object of this analysis or interpretation. -Lumière 02:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to get a user-unfriendly picture

There are two tricks that can work. First is that of print screen - i.e. screen capture. Press print screen button when you see the image, paste it into Paint, cut and paste again to a new picture parts that are useful and save it. I usually save it as bmp and then use ACDSee to convert it to more copyleft png format. This works 100% as long as the image is smaller then your screen. Alternatively, the second trick is sometimes much faster - but doesn't always work. After you open the image you can try to search your browser's cache for the image file (copy all recent files into new folder, change their extensions to graphic files, and look at the directory with ACDSee or similar image browser. Hope this quick tutorial helps :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry, I also reverted some of the edits you made in the "Czech Republic" section. However, I advise you not to use german nationalist materials as sources, even people connected with the "Centre against Expulsions" like de Zayas are not ok, as this information is officially rejected by the governments of the Czech Republic and Poland. The reason is not that noone knows that something terrible happened to ethnic Germans after WWII, but the fact that many of them try to exaggerate the numbers and some already tried to demand back their confiscated property - which is unjust as the Czechs cannot demand that German re-pay them all the damage that happened in WW2, wich destroyed their fairly prosperous state and left them prey to Stalin. Germans paid alot for the war - but to Russians etc, not to Czechs. ackoz 21:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, I reverted back, and finished inserting references. If you want to remove the map again, then do it the normal way by editing, not by reverting.

I have not used de Zayas as reference, "yet". All references come from University sources.

However, if what deZayas is saying could cost Poland and Czechoslovakia lots of monney, then clearly those governments will be biased in the question, and hence unreliable. The German government on the other hand has always been very careful not to offend its neighbours and appear Nazi. If the German government rejects de Zayas, then I'll consider him untrustworthy. Have you any info about that? Stor stark7 21:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it makes sense to include it here - as it seems you have allready found the "truth"... but, why don't give it a try.

Because of this and the instrumentalization of "ethnic cleansing" during the Cold War, many Western publications on this topic are either politically biased or factually incorrect. For example, most West German publications described the expulsion as a martyrdom suffered by Germans only. (example of this is given: Alfred Maurice de Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam: The Expulsion of the Germans from the East) [1] Surprisingly, this assessment of de Zayas isn't by a Czech (that would be certain disqualification - all of them are completely blind defending national pride, especialy history scholars), but by a Harward fellow (you may probably derive more credibility from the fact he was born in Austria).

Even better is this review of A Terrible Revenge (in German). --Wikimol 23:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My german is not good enough to be able to digest the last link. However. Philip Their works at the Freie Universitet Berlin. He spent maybe a year in harward on a fellow-ship, i.e. he was an advanced student, which he was when he wrote the article. Furthermore He does not "reject" deZayas, as your predesessor in this discussion claims that the Czech government does. He just states that

"For example, most West German publications described the expulsion as a martyrdom suffered by Germans only" (See Alfred Maurice de Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam: The Expulsion of the Germans from the East (London: Routledge, 1977), and ibid., A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 1944-1950 (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994), reviewed on HABSBURG, http://h-net2.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=1720863819285)

This reference to deZayas is ambiguous. Either he uses deZayas work to show that there were also expulsions of other nationalities besides Germans, i.e. the 3,000,000 Poles expelled by Russia. Or, he uses deZaya as an example of works that do not mention them. Either way, this does not make deZayas work any less usable for a work on the expulsion of Germans. It could make deZayas unusable for a work on the expulsion of Poles. But the article in question is about expulsion of Germans, not about expulsion of Poles or expulsion of Czecks. Maybe there are other articles about that, which I suggest you focus your efforts on then if you want to mention them. Are authors writing about the expulsion of Polacks biased if they do not devote equal space in their books to the expulsion of germans? Stor stark7 16:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your map

On Ethnic Germans, doesn't correspond with credible maps and estimates of German population in neigbouring countries. It is used for several different periods in history and implies significant German presence in areas that had little German population. It conflicts with maps of distribution of ethnic Poles, and no mention of German settlement during WW2 is made when it is presented as placement of Germans in 1945, in other articles it serves as base for claims of German population in 1937... --Molobo 22:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. not my map.

The map is linked from Wikimedia!!!. I doubt that the author of it will even be aware of what is written here, as he is German. I suggest you ask your questions directly on his talk page, at de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Postmann_Michael

And try to write in short clear sentences when you ask him, as english probably is not his first language... --Stor stark7 22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But It was you who started to put it articles ? I am sorry but this is a problem on English Wiki, not German, and I am not fluent in Germany. This problem must be solved on English Wiki. Right now I am wondering why 530,000 Poles in German Silesia are barely noticable but 100,000 Germans in Pomorze are showed as dominating the region. --Molobo 23:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you at least try asking him in English. Since he seems intrested in languages, maybe he even knows Polish if English doesn't work out for you. Stor stark7 23:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the user is concerned with English wiki I will gladly engage in dialog here. I believe the burden of defence of the image is on the person who tried to include it here. If you believe my arguments against it are incorrect state so with arguments.With all due respect I do not believe defending your actions is my duty here. --Molobo 23:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The author has now added a substantial amount of text describing the origins of the map. Maybe you should read that before you spam the german wikipedia forum with your old comment-list which they were perfectly capable of reading on the polish forum, to which they already had a link in their map-topic. --Stor stark7 16:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of source we have a lengthy speach unconnected in several parts to the map and full of error's combined with attacks on Polish state. Not to mention the absurd usage of votes to indicate presence of German's. It seems author doesn't know for example that hundreds of thousands of Germans were moved to Silesia in order to vote.And of course using data on presence of Germans in 1919 in Poznan when German Army was moved there isn't POV at all...Anyway the author hasn't presented a source of the map. --Molobo 17:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of reference

Hi, I've noticed in series of your edits (ironically, described like Use references, otherwise everything is just allegations [2]) referenced statements about expulsion from Czechoslovakia disappeared, along with reference to Facing the history. Later, some of them were replaced by more vague and less accurate statements from the European University Institute study which you favour. Now, the way the sources are cited, the EUI study is given as much prominence as possible, and Facing ... as little as possible. However, the case of Postoloprty completely lacking in EUI stayed... Also, while you're obviouisly reading the pdf copy of Facing..., and included link to pdf of EUI study, Facing is not linked. Altogether it makes the impression you pick from the sources what seems to be useful for the POV you advance and try to suppress the rest. Please avoid doing that. --Wikimol 08:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikimol. I think you are being careless by using the "diff" you provided. I was still editing at that point, as can be clearly seen from the history. This diff is much better if you want to show what I did. [3]. Based on the very bad english grammar of your edit, and the fact that the "reference" did not lead anywhere when i clicked on it, I thought that it was just the usual vandalism. I then realised that it was just a bad edit on your part, and made sure to also use your reference, including some extra data from it. I se that I made some spelling mistakes in my edit, but it still is much better english than yours, if I may say so myself.

Also, from the begining it was aparently you that had first replaced my previous edits, which were strictly based on * The Expulsion of 'German' Communities from Eastern Europe at the end of the Second World War European University Institute, Florense. EUI Working Paper HEC No. 2004/1, Edited by Steffen Prauser and Arfon Rees, and replaced them with data taken from * Facing History - The evolution of Czech and German relations in the Czech provinces, 1848-1948, Z. Beneš, D. Jančík, J. Kuklík, E. Kubů, V. Kural, R. Kvaček, V. Pavlíček, J. Pešek, R. Petráš, Z. Radvanovský, R. Suchánek, Gallery, Prague, ISBN 80-86010-60-0 online downlown in PDF format from Czech governmental website. Your edits can be seen from [4]

I have not had time to read the reference you provided, more than looking up the pages you got your data from. The reason I gave the EUI paper prominence is that I feel that the European University Institute paper probably is a more reliable source than the Czech paper. The Italians are neutral in this mater, and an Italian publication can be expected to be more objective than a purely Czech publication. I say this in the same sence that I would much more trust a paper on the Armenian genocide published in Czhechoslovakia, than I would trust a paper on the same subject written and published in Turkey. The Turks have just to many emotional attachments and national reputations to defend to be expected to be objective on the subject. The same applies to the Czech. How reliable would you feel a Russian account of the soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia would be? For instance, the Italian paper says that there were 30,000 german civilians in Brno. The Czech paper says that there were just 20,000. I feel this is an example of Czech tendensies to try to downplay the real number of Germans that were expelled. In addition, the author of the Sudeten part of the Italian paper seems to be Czech himself, and has provided a number of references, most of which come from Czech books.Stor stark7 20:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Italians are neutral in this mater, and an Italian publication can be expected to be more objective than a purely Czech publication. If we would use your logic, no Italians couldn't be seen as neutral since Italy was part of Axis during WW2 and it could be argued that they have more sympathy for Germans. --Molobo 17:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The Italians also fought on the side of the Allies during the end of the war, as soon as Mussolini had been thrown out of Rome. They have no stronger ties to Germany in this matter than the fact that at a point in time they were both ruled by Fascist dictatorships with desire for war. Their neutrality in this issue stems from the fact that they were not involved in the issue, they neither committed nor were the victims of large scale ethnic cleansing after the war. --Stor stark7 17:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Italians also fought on the side of the Allies during the end of the war I disagree with your statements against Czechs using the logic you provided since some Czechs fought for Germans also. Unlike Germany in WW2 Wiki doesn't state that nationality determines thinking process and we should stay with such position. Please don't continue to alledge that being of certain ethnic group indicates some views-for people coming from ethnic groups that have been targeted of such policy by Germany in the past such opinions are always sounding dangerous. --Molobo 17:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it was YOU who, alledgedly using "my logic" stated that since the Italians fought on the side of Germany they were unreliable. Besides I state the facts as they are, not as they should be in a perfect world. --Stor stark7 17:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look it is you who started to alledge that Czechs as an ethnic group have certain views. Please stop from such commonts. --Molobo 18:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I said that as perpetrators of ethnic cleansing against germans they can not be relied upon to be fully objective when it comes to research on the topic, especially if it could cost them not only national pride but large sums of monney. I stand by that statement. Look at how the Serbs have refused to believe that their troops did anything wrong in Bosnia and Kroatia. Stor stark7 18:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I said that as perpetrators of ethnic cleansing against germans they can not be relied upon to be fully objective when it comes to research on the topic I urge you again to stop this insulting allegations against other ethnic groups. --Molobo 18:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I would like to urge you to stop stalking me and to stop trying to pick a fight. Do you seriously think that for instance the thinking and what is published in Germany, for example, is not affected by what germany did to the Jews? Everybody carries their past with them as luggage, regardles of nationality --Stor stark7 18:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing your very POVish contributions I am under impression that your edits need a lot of corrections as you push the view that Germany was the main victim of WWII by the aggresive Allies(which is perfectely demonstrated by your edits on Effects of the Second World War). Perhaps I am wrong, I don't know, but certainly articles where you contribute are in need of POV check. As to your comments against other nations on Wiki we have other means of determing validity of sources then looking at the ethnic group of the author. --Molobo 18:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now who is being offensive. You are saying that I'm making POVish contributions. All I did was add to the effects of WW2 on topics I knew about. When I asked why you did not add to the article yourself, in order to reduce the risk of POV, by adding topics you claimed knowledge about, you said you could not because of lack of time. Looking at your large activity on Wikipedia that reply strikes me as very odd. Now as for POV check, what do you propose. You are not intrested in adding material on topics making it more balanced, what else is there to do then, remove material? An empty article would certainly be NPOV! --Stor stark7 18:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you said you could not because of lack of time. Describing in detail the devestation and mass murder Europe experienced in WW2 due to actions of German state will be a very lenghty process. Don't worry though I assure you I will contribute to the article. --Molobo 18:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC) You are not intrested in adding material on topics making it more balanced Oh I already inserted info on how Germany behaviour in Poland and plans to eliminate 50 milion people from Central Europe. --Molobo 18:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you stop rejecting sources based on nationality of the author I don't believe there will be a conflict. However claiming somebody has certain views because he is of certain ethnic group is very provacative. I am surprised you don't understand this. --Molobo 18:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Ackoz

Hello Stor Stark, I understand why you feel using Czech sources for the article could be inappropriate. Especially sources published before 1989 would for sure be biased. But this is a topic that will not be solved by anybody. There is noone who could tell exactly what happened - if it was 10 000 people less or more - the documentation could have been manipulated either by Czechs or Germans. The differences are unimportant today: the future doesn't rely on these questions. There is no court in Europe to judge that Czechs should return the property they gained after the expulsion, as there is no court in Europe to judge that Germans should go back in history and undo all the harm of WWII. Saying that it doesn't count as war damage because it happened after the war is hypocritical and everybody knows that. More to the numbers you mentioned: a friend of mine has a grandfather, who is ethnically German. He was allowed to stay here (lucky him ;-) because they measured his face somehow and said he looked more slavic. Weird eh? There are still around 50 000 ethnic Germans in the Czech Republic. Maybe the numbers you have talked about in Brno don't correspond because someone didn't have to join the march or weren't forced to leave at all after the war. But I have some points though I would like you to understand:

I don't like to hear Germans say "Ja, Prag war auch mal deutsch." It kinda hurts.
See the talk page of Expulsion and search for my discussion with Jadger or some guy like that. It was pain to persuade him that Bohemia in it's current 1000 yrs old borders was established by ethnically Czech Premyslid dynasty with Czech inhabitants. I am not disupting the fact that German-speaking inhabitants were there long enough to call Bohemia their home, which it would still be if WW2 never happened. I just don't want to explain to Germans I meet that Czechs didn't steel their beautiful Prague somehow in 19th century.
The paragraph I found on answers.com is an example of what wikipedia shouldn't be. It's a complete nonsense, it states that there were casualties from 500 000 to 2 milion, then saying that the Czechs were the most brutal beasts of all because they killed "thousands" of people. I already commented the other lies in that article (the czech Czech Mob itself burning German schoolchildren). But if anyone reads it, and, from answers.com, probably believe it, they won't think good of the Czechs.
Think about the map again, please. Brno is shown as a German blue spot on the map. You said that according to the italian paper, Brno had 30 000 German inhabitants. According the article Brno, there were 238,204 inhabitants total in 1940. So the map, which shows Brno as a part of "historisches Deutsches sprachgebiet" is misleading. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Historisches_deutsches_Sprachgebiet.PNG.
Please be more sensitive about any material, that would suggest that Bohemia was originally (I mean pre-20th century) German. Including the map that was used in the article. Any Czech will like to hear that the Bohemian kingdom was BIG in the 14th century, and any German will like to hear that Bohemia was a part of HRE and is therefore rightly German.

The czech article http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyhnání_Němců actually mentions the number of 18 816 victims. We can dispute the number, it seems too "correct" to me. But - the article uses the correct formulation "had signs of genocide", describes the discrimination of Germans who were allowed to stay (not allowed to speak German, property confiscated etc.) and uses "murder" for what is called "killed" or "died" in the english article. It mentions a murder of a 8 months child and 80 yrs old man in Horni Mostenice near Prerau (but no public burning of children on the main squares of Prague). The literature used for this:

Literatura:

Turnwald, W.: Dokumente zur Austreibung der Sudetendeutschen,.München, 1951. Hentschel, E.:. Den Opfern zum Gedenken. In: Heimatbrief Saazerland, Forchheim, 1995. Staněk, T.: Perzekuce 1945. Praha, 1996. Staněk, T.: Tábory v českých zemích 1945-1948. Opava 1996. Borák, M.: Spravedlnost podle dekretu. Ostrava 1998. Hanzlík, F. a Pospíšil J.: Soumrak demokracie. Vizovice 2000. Sborník Vězeňství ve střední Evropě v letech 1945-1955. VS ČR, Praha 2001. Sborník Vězeňské systémy v Československu a ve střední Evropě 1945-1955. SZM Opava, 2001. Brandes D.: Cesta k vyhnání. Praha 2002. Staněk T.: Retribuční vězni v českých zemích 1945-1955. SZM Opava 2002. Hanzlík, F.: Vojenské obranné zpravodajství v zápasu o politickou moc 1945-1950. ÚDV ZK, Praha 2003. Prameny: Archiv ministerstva vnitra Brno-Kanice, fond A 2/1, Porevoluční události 1945 Příslušné fondy státních okresních archivů Děčín, Žatec, Louny a archivu města Ústí n.L. Technické zpracování: Obsah expozice dokumentů bude uveden titulním panelem s uvedením názvu, motta, hlavní realizační teze a autorského kolektivu. Dále bude prezentován na 9 panelech s rozdělením do tří tématických celků dle dílčích realizačních hypotéz.

What I am trying to say, be bold in describing the facts as they are. There were murders, largely unpunished (occasionally punished), still murders. The whole thing had signs of genocide. Then call these thing murders and genocide. But please try to be very sensitive about any hints, that Bohemia or Moravia is somehow a German land. That's what matters the most. ackoz 22:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate my point, here http://www.aligisassu.it/u/un/universitat_wien.html is an old version obviously of a wikipedia article about Universität Wien. It contains the sentence: Prag war zu dieser Zeit deutsch. Its a total Quatsch, and a newer version of the article already explains the facts correctly. ackoz 22:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I consede your point. In addition I believe it has been established now, after addition of source data to the image, that the map used on the expulsions page was an exclusively lingusitic map, i.e. it showed where there were large numbers of German speaker, it says nothing about the percentage of German speakers visavi the rest of the population in the area. The blue spot, with Brno at the edge, indicates that there were many German speakers living there. It does not state that they were the majority of the population, just that they existed. But I can se how the map can be missinterpreted, and therefore be sensitive to use in an expulsion article. Cheers --Stor stark7 06:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please insert correct images. You are confusing Soviet Union with Russia, the two are different entites. I advise you to be more carefull in creating maps and you will avoid such mistakes. While it is possible that somebody refered to it as Russia, you should not spred this incorrect view by creating incorrect maps. --Molobo 20:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you discover perceived errors in the future then I suggest you adopt the policy of trying dialogue first, not go straight to deletion! --Stor stark7 20:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't insult other nationalities

Your comments on German wiki regarding "a number of Polacks and Czechs" are very disturbing[5]. The term Polacks is used as insult in English and German. In view of this I am starting to think your contributions regarding relations between Germans and Poles might be influenced by POV. I hope this was a mistake on your part and you want do it again. --Molobo 22:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Stor stark7 is clearly not a german native speaker, and in his question are so many strange patterns, that somebody must be very sensitive to see an insult in it. MatthiasKabel 13:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC) (Also clearly not a native english speaker)[reply]

It's a well known term. http://kpearson.faculty.tcnj.edu/Dictionary/polack.htm Polack Definition: 1. usually disparaging: a Pole or person of Polish extraction (from 20th Century) 2. (Mainly Jewish) a Jew whose family comes from Poland 3. a Pole, Russian, Czech dealing in Polish Jewesses: white slavers’ cant from 20th century. 4. an immigrant from Poland Other forms used : Pollack or Pollack or Pollock or Pollock or Polak or polak. Perhaps Stork made a mistake. But certainly usage of such term shouldn't be made. --Molobo 13:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting truly fed up with Molobo. He just seeks attention. For your information, my native language is Swedish, hence my sometimes curious frasing. The Swedish term for a person of Polish extraction is "polack". The term conveys neither flattery nor offence in swedish. That Molobo, clearly himself not a native english speaker, seeks to make an issue out of other peoples lapses in, school German of all languages, is what is very disturbing. But rest assured, I will seek to avoid letting Swedish terms leak through when using the Queens English or German in the future! --Stor stark7 19:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry then for disturbing you and I apologise for the mistake. But understand that term in German is an insult and please avoid it in the future. Have a good day. --Molobo 21:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vertreibung 1.jpg

I was going to upload that image to commons, but it's copyright status needs some clarification. While the tag states cc-by-sa2.5 license, the textual desciption from de: contains this note for visitors from other countries: This image is copyrighted and is used in the Wikipedia with permission.. On hu: is some text in hungarian and cc-by-sa1.0 license... I'm a bit worried wether the image wasn't "liberated" during its voyage on several Wikipedias, initialy used with Wikipedia-specific permission, and at the end declared free content. I think it would be reasonable to start backtracing, so, please, as the uploader, how did you come to cc-by-sa2.5.license? --Wikimol 21:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the image in the German Wikipedia [6], and read that the image was used in Wikipedia with permission by the Sudetdeutche Stiftung "Mit Erlaubnis der Sudetendeutschen Stiftung". I therefore felt that it was reasonable to asume that it was also OK to use it in the English wikipedia, since it was already in use in the german (and I presume also in the Hungarian Wikipedia). I tried to copy all copyright source text available in the German page (including the hungarian that I do not understand), and insert it under the same license heading in the english wikipedia. It is probable that I during the upload did not find any cc-by-sa-1.0 in the drop down list for available copyrights and instead selected the closest match available.(cc-by-sa-2.5) on the assumption that it is the same license, only improved. Stor stark7 22:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ode-Neisse Line

I will do a map. Adam 01:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC) A pleasure - I love cartography. Adam 14:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morgenthau plan

Given that the plan was never developed beyond the "sketch map" stage, I think the map that's there is adequate. Adam 14:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill and area bombing

Thank you for adding to the discussion. I have used your reference to the telegram distancing him from these events in the article. It just shows what is in his mind. His extreme language like "wanton distruction" would not be acceptable in Wikipedia, normally, but he wrote it himself! Wallie 15:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map of German expulsions

I will see what I can come up with. Adam 02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, any kind of visualisation would be appreciated, by me at least... --Stor stark7 ^Talk 08:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nubee Question: How to nominate (or grant) award?

I want to nominate (or grant if it takes just one person) for a random-act of kindness award. As a nubee … I do not know the procedure for such a think here in Wiki. Would you know? Nonprof. Frinkus 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well deserved award.

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For assisting in the research of someone priorly unbeknownst to you, purely for the apparent cause of spreading knowledge. You are a great inspiration to others. Merci! Nonprof. Frinkus 03:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Disarmed Enemy Forces

For sources see the footnotes in Geneva Convention (1929)#Capture and in Disarmed Enemy Forces. As good as one can expect as they come from the ICRC Commentaries:

==Capture==

Articles 6 and 7 cover what may and may not be done to a prisoner on capture. If requested, unless too ill to comply, prisoners are bound to give their true name and rank, but they may not be coerced into giving any more information. Prisoners personal possessions, other than arms and horses, may not be taken from them.

The wording of the 1949 Third Geneva Convention was intentionally altered from that of the 1929 convention so that soldiers who "fall into the power" following surrender or mass capitulation of an enemy are now protected as well as those taken prisoner in the course of fighting. (see Disarmed Enemy Forces)

Source 1: ICRC Commentaries on the Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War Article 5 "One category of military personnel which was refused the advantages of the Convention in the course of the Second World War comprised German and Japanese troops who fell into enemy hands on the capitulation of their countries in 1945 (6). The German capitulation was both political, involving the dissolution of the Government, and military, whereas the Japanese capitulation was only military. Moreover, the situation was different since Germany was a party to the 1929 Convention and Japan was not. Nevertheless, the German and Japanese troops were considered as surrendered enemy personnel and were deprived of the protection provided by the 1929 Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War."

Source 2: ICRC Commentaries on the Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War Article 5 "Under the present provision, the Convention applies to persons who "fall into the power" of the enemy. This term is also used in the opening sentence of Article 4, replacing the expression "captured" which was used in the 1929 Convention (Article 1). It indicates clearly that the treatment laid down by the Convention is applicable not only to military personnel taken prisoner in the course of fighting, but also to those who fall into the hands of the adversary following surrender or mass capitulation."

Hope this helps --Philip Baird Shearer 21:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the article is a stub and needs to be expanded. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsions

We were talking for over two months about the sources and content of the article. We've reached some consensus and we are trying to write a NPOV article. If you will insist on biased words and if you will insist that "long march to Austria and Germany" is a source for "died on the roads" and if you will continue in breaking our effort to fulfil consensus and breaks NPOV we will ask for admin actions, even at ARBCOM. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw. why do you mean sentence I edited is not a NPOV and why do you add there biased words like "died on the road"? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the Expulsion of Germans after World War II talk page here!--Stor stark7 ^Talk 23:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Army atrocities (WWII)

Dear Stor stark7, Maybe you should combine the footnotes 28 – 36 into just one (?) as I shall add even more footnotes when editing to the still missing parts of the article. However, regarding the heated discussion on the article Red Army atrocities and some of those Stalinists trying to deny the undeniable about the glorious freedom fighters of the Red Army, almost each and every word should have a footnote quoting references, to avoid senseless arguing in the future. Best regards --Dionysos 12:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guanches

Im glad we have restored cordiality. I'm not much bothered either and I think we are arguing over a rather subtle and inconsequential issue, more related to opinion than to hard fact. In any case, the main reason I intervened in the article was that I was worried over the other fantasy theories about European origins of Guanches being given undue weight on the article.

Cheers. --Burgas00 22:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poles in Wrocław 1945

Norman Davies writes that in 1945 they were 33,297 Poles in Wrocław. You can find this in Microcosm , page 451. In 1918 they were 4-5,000 Poles in Wrocław(page 394), but the population went smaller. However it was large enough to hold rallies and have buildings for Polish organisations. On page 397 he writes that German police plundered "Dom Polski" a cultural institution in 1938. There was also a Polish School led by Helena Adamczewska. In march 1939 Poles held a rally under the title "Faith of the Fathers", its leaders were sent to concentration camps. I hope we will avoid disagreements. If you want to know more about Wrocław's Polish history just ask, I have Davie's book by me, and I enjoy it. Do you know anybody that says Davies is wrong on the subject ? Also page 424-at the end of 1944 30-40 Polish civilians were sent to Wrocław after failure of Warsaw Uprising. (Ethnic) situation was complicated by fact that some Poles were classified as Germans(Volksdeutsche). Later Davies writes that illegal masses in Polish took place in Wrocław church of Saint Roch. On 11 November 1944 Poles took part in mass singing "Boże coś Polskę" risking being arrested by Gestapo. --Granet 22:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Army atrocities (WWII)

It seems to be working now, either there was a typo in it yesterday or my ISP couldn't resolve the hnn.us domain. I see the information you added is indeed included under that link, so unless you have reinstated the reference I will do it later today.--Caranorn 11:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allied war crimes

Please see Talk:Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Historical_context.2F.22US_and_Australian.22. Grant | Talk 11:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:RFC

Thank you for the link, I will gladly look at it. For the record, if anybody criticizes you for informing me, feel free to quote my thanks for informing me about a discussion I am interested in but wouldn't know of otherwise.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Werwolf

Hi, I just saw you added a section. Could you elaborate it? In most cases there are neither dates, nor any references to what triggered these actions. I´m particularly interested in additional information on the destruction of Bruchsal. When did it happen and how? Markus Becker02 12:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Germany: 1945

Not a final version. Suggestions welcome!

Following your request here for a new map for 1945 Germany, I've made this image. If you have any suggestions, I'd be interested to hear them. Regards. - 52 Pickup 12:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've answered on your talk page. Summary: Be careful with how you label the Saarland/defining which dates the map depicts, and perhaps include also the Danzig area. Keep up the good work, ----Stor stark7 ^Talk 23:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Guilt"

Thanks for that; it's clear to me this guy needs watching v. carefully and especially since he came out of a one year ban only a few months ago. I've put all relevant pages on watchlist. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 19:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of editing restrictions

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query/Request made on WikiProject Anthropology talk page

I've replied to your recent query/request here. Hope this assists .. Cheers Bruceanthro (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and another map

Hi there. Thanks for your kind words regarding my recent adminship. I hope I can continue being of help here.

A while ago I started on a translation of de:Deutschland 1945–1949 - [7] - but I haven't actually started any of the translation yet. I was thinking that this page, when it is finished, would be the linking page between Nazi Germany and East/West Germany, instead of Allied Occupation Zones in Germany as is currently the case.

And for your reference: while I still haven't decided on a final version for the post-WW2 map, I came up with this post WW1 map a while ago. I'm pretty happy with this one. So if you have any new thoughts on the post-WW2 map, I'd be happy to hear them. - 52 Pickup (deal) 07:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Why are you calling in further Polish editors?

I know that this user commented on the Polish edition of the article; it is only expected to ask for more input from interested editors.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So few people are interested in topics like this, that every little thing helps. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Neutrality tag

I've just moved my response onto the article's talk page. cheers, --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese war dead

(Hope I've got this in the right place, below your banners instead of above them.) I trust Nick, and we speak pretty freely to each other. However I do value my integrity, and I'll take a close look at the article. Have you requested the JSTOR article through any of the JSTOR-capable editors on the project? Regards 21:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Already got it.Regards --Stor stark7 ^Speak 23:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind sending it to me via the email user facility on my page? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 23:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me first with a oneline email, and then we'll be in contact and you can send it after I reply. Cheers 23:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Google books

I've been removing all the Google book search URLs that you've been using as references. Take a look at WP:CITE and Template:Cite book for tips on how to cite books. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human body parts as war trophies

Start your own article on war crimes or human body parts as war trophies, but this subject has no place in an article about hunting animals.Bugguyak (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H-Net review

Hi Stor, Please note that I have been going through articles which reference the H-net review of the GI War Against Japan and removing statements which are not supported by the book. In particular, Schrijvers did not say that rape was a "general practice" - this seems to be the reviewers' POV and he shouldn't have attributed to Schrijvers - and neither the review nor the book support the claim that the rapes were motivated by the dehumanisation of Japanese people as was being claimed in the Occupation of Japan article (Schrijvers argues that they were motivated by a desire to "sharpen the agressiveness of soldiers" and "establish total dominance" and makes no reference at all to dehumanisation in this context). Nick Dowling (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied here--Stor stark7 ^Speak 11:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've replied on my talk page as well. Nick Dowling (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casablanca directive

Please see Talk:Casablanca directive --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The US State Department 1945 Population map, and related issues

Thank you very much for the extensive analysis that you have presented on my talk page. Actually, I find it a bit too long (cluttering) but I really appreciate your effort. Also, I want to tell you that I agree with the many quantitative reasonings that you have made. There are many assumption (original research if you want) but they appear logic and reasonable. In deed, I was mentally approximating similar figure. Of course, I did so much less precise and not in this breadth. All that does not change the fact that 100% is always wrong for a group of 2.7 mio. people, but I also think that the actual number is close to that.

Only one thing I do not agree with. Most people do not want to leave their home place. If I put myself in the position that you have explain with everything turning foreign, I might have left the place. But I know that most people love the place they grew up so much (one might call it inertia as well) that they can only be displace by force. Also, i do not understand why you have it about Russian in this paragraph, whereas in Breslau everything became Polish.

Thanks also for you interpretation of the German Jew's lot after war. I think this is in big parts what has happend. However, I wonder if there is really no official Polish or Russian document on what should have happened (or rather not happened) with them.

I would like to suggest you to share your research with user: Molobo. I had some words with him about the issue and I feel he likes to ignore that German Jews existed on the questioned territories and that their lot is of interest. Moreover, he might disagree that the German percentage in the Breslau area was above 99%. I tried to avoid to detailed discussion on this end, but you seem to have the energy for that.

A last thanks, for the clarification on the Germany talk page. I hope now it is clear for everyone. Amazing, how many things can go wrong in a discussion :-) Tomeasy_{T C} 21:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Play the ball not the man.

You last two contributions to the section Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II#June 1946 are not in my opinion likely to help in the development of the article. Please do not make any similar comments as they are confrontational and make it more difficult to build a consensus on how to develop the article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice, but how come you chose to give it just now? Those 2 edits were made almost 2 days - and numerous edits by both you and me - ago?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 21:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Discussion about Captain Obvious ongoing. Feel free to contribute Here --FilmFan69 (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren ^(talk) 22:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beevor

The Guardian article is not by a journalist it is by Beevor himself. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Stor stark7. You have new messages at Ioeth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davies

So, we have saying that "some minister", said that Polish troops will be in Berlin. Said minister opinion was in contrast to all plans made by Polish military and Polish government (strangely, all plans were about defense and withdrawal). Not to mention Davies's credibility is nto that great: he for example said once to Churchill that opposing to communism is staying in the same league as Hitler and Goebbels, he thought Stalin is great man. "His arrogance and incompetence drove the embassy personal to the despair" (Gazeta Wyborcza: http://wyborcza.pl/1,75515,2636138.html). Szopen (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsion series

I noticed your comments at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Since you put it in a well sourced and comprehensive way, I urge you to somehow integrate it in the article rather than letting it rot at the talk page. I already to some degree expanded and cleaned up the Expulsion of Germans after World War II, Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland after World War II and Recovered Territories articles, but I am all with you that they are still far from perfect. But you should have seen the shape they were in before - you just might want to check the edit history for your amusement. The information and sources you provided would surely help a lot. Note also that there is another subarticle Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia, which I guess would also profit from your sources (my primary scope of interest (and knowledge) is Pomerania). I would really appreciate having more serious editors on the before mentioned articles who know what they are writing about and add referenced material, and not just - well let's not go into detail about that. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Piotrus 2

Hi Bainer, regarding your recent votes. I'm a bit pussled by them as regards me and as regards Molobo.

I have repeatedly asked that a comment be made on the way the diffs used against me were presented, to no avail. It seems to me as if in some cases the workshop pages are irrelevant to the decision process.

Since you are voting against me, and considering the comment you made, could you please provide me with some advice on how I can improve, especially considering my evidence analysis

Could you please also provide some feedback to these accusations, since in view of your vote on Molobo I would dearly like to know exactly what constitutes an infraction in these proceedings.

Regards --Stor stark7 ^Speak 11:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stor,

Firstly I think it's important to note that just because that particular section of evidence was linked to from the proposed finding of fact, it does not mean that the presenter's point of view was being adopted or agreed with. There has been a very large amount of evidence presented in this case, and referring to a part of the evidence page is simply a matter of shorthand. I did see your comment of 24 November on the workshop talk page, and I did read Skäpperöd's commentary before voting and found it useful; unfortunately I missed seeing yours (even though it was immediately below it!).

What I was mainly concerned about in some of your edits was that you seemed at times to be arguing not about the way an article was written, or the way certain subject matter was presented in the article, but about the subject matter itself. This is probably one of the clearest examples.

It does not appear that a specific remedy concerning you will pass, so the concern is perhaps not a major one. However, the whole matter of 20th century Eastern European history is unfortunately a rather contested content area, and it would be regrettable if an excessive investment in the subject matter of the articles turned into something else. --bainer (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies that have been adopted are as follows;

Should Alden Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) resume editing Wikipedia, he shall be assigned a volunteer mentor, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.
Alden Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
Boodlesthecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
Greg park avenue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) under any circumstances, except for any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution.
Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
Lokyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
Should Lokyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) under any circumstances, except for any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution.
Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to avoid using his administrator powers or status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent.
Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.
Relata_refero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world disputes, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary. Wikipedia cannot solve any of the national, ethnic, historical, or cultural disputes that exists among the nations and peoples of Eastern Europe or any other real-world conflict. What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated.
Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may best devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious. For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Group X and who finds himself or herself caught up in edit-warring on an article about a recent war between Group X and Group Y, may wish to disengage from that article for a time and instead focus on a different aspect of the history, civilization, and cultural heritage of Group X.
Administrators who utilize the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel (or other IRC channels in which Wikipedia-related matters are discussed) are reminded that while the #admins channel has legitimate purposes, they should bear in mind whenever using it:

(A) That discussing an issue on IRC necessarily excludes those editors who do not use IRC from the discussion (and excludes almost all non-administrators from the discussion if it takes place in #wikipedia-en-admins), and therefore, such IRC discussion is never the equivalent of on-wiki discussion or dispute resolution;

(B) That the practice of off-wiki "block-shopping" is strongly deprecated, and that except where there is an urgent situation and no reasonable administrator could disagree with an immediate block (e.g., ongoing blatant or pagemove vandalism or ongoing serious BLP violations), the appropriate response for an administrator asked on IRC to block an editor is to refer the requester to the appropriate on-wiki noticeboard; and

(C) That even though the relationship between the "wikipedia" IRC channels and Wikipedia remains ambiguous, any incidents of personal attacks or crass behavior in #wikipedia-en-admins are unwelcome and reflect adversely on all users of the channel.

Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will open a general request for comments regarding the arbitration enforcement process, particularly where general sanctions are concerned. Having received such comments, the Committee will consider instituting suitable reforms to the enforcement process.
Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will convene a community discussion for the purpose of developing proposed reforms to the content dispute resolution process.
Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will publish guides to presenting evidence and using the workshop page.

Please see the above link to read the full case.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union

I've undone your edit to this article, I checked the source, and your text is not supported by the cite you provided. --Stor stark7 ^Speak 01:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The chart is literally almost word for word what I cited. Simply amazing that you would claim that.

And don't mass revert all edits in one swoop to engage in some kind of WP:Edit War. Discuss and or change the ones you have problems with.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be very charitable and assume that you do not engage in deliberate falsification of sources and instead that you simply engage in very bad editing practices of copy pasting text added by others without checking the references first. I do not know what you mean by "chart", but if it is the one you inserted into "Disarmed Enemy Forces", then let me ask you, have you checked the source yourself? And please stop spanning it over Wikipedia!

As to your hilarious edit war allegation, I gave very good motivations for my revert, while you on the other hand have engaged in massive deletions under misleading edit summaries or no summaries at all. I expect you will desist from such editing practice in the future.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 02:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]