User talk:Toolsbadly

Welcome!

Hello, Toolsbadly, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

I was trying to convert all the blue unamed "where the hell will this link take me" on the Copernicus page to template:cite web format, but came unstuck on this one as the machine I am using disables any url with a .doc extension, if you're still about could you look at it tell me what the page is called and what it's from? Thanks.--Alf ^melmac 13:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even better thanks :) --Alf ^melmac 18:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny H. from Gdansig

First of all - you reverted a wrong version, knucklehead, pay attention! Second - the Gdańsk citizens revolted not against Poland, which the city was a part of, but against the choice of the new king - their candidate being a Habsburg. Unfortunately they ~~lost~~ surrendered and lost a lot of privileges. Gdańsk was not independent, you're mistaken. Space Cadet 00:29, 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 15:47, 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]

And you are out of line quoting nationalistic sites. Try this government site:http://www.poland.gov.pl/Stefan,Batory,(1533,%E2%80%93,1586),1959.html Space Cadet 00:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you are citing the Polish neo-Nazi death sentence antisemitic homophobic nationalist revionist government?? LOL. Polish propaganda is notoriously unreliable. Btw. there never was a person named "Jan Haweliusz from Gdańsk" - his name was Johannes Hevelius and he was from Danzig. Greetings Basedview22 04:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Space Cadet: 1) Exactly what is nationalistic about the site? 2) What statements contradict between your poland.gov.pl page and the one I used? 3) Are you aware that your poland.gov.pl page is not about GDanzig?

@Basedview22: Did you want to copy the extremeness of the judgement of Space Cadet about the site I used? Or do you think this about their government really?--Toolsbadly 09:14, 5 May 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 11:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The site uses Gdansk until 1309, it uses Danzig from 1309 to 1946, it uses Gdasnk 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 are! Space Cadet 15:30, 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 09:53, 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]

The book wrote that Gdanzigs fight against Batory was to avoid reduction in its liberty too.--Toolsbadly 19:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically asked you to read the entire book, "cover to cover" not a little excerpt here: [1].

If you did as asked by your more educated and read colleague, you would realize that the author meant what she said only in the cultural aspect, not political. Now stop beiing superficial, do a research and come back. Space Cadet 16:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My more educated and read colleague should read the conclusion of the book, on page 217 it explicitly writes that Prussians were neither German or Polish.--Toolsbadly 19:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a conclusion, but a fragment out of context, which talks not about the cultural not political aspect. Space Cadet 20:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. You're lying again.--Toolsbadly 20:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you are lying from day one! Space Cadet 20:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? When? Give me one!--Toolsbadly 20:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I give you one, how long are you gonna hold it, liar? Space Cadet 20:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In English?--Toolsbadly 20:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you want. Space Cadet 20:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean, 'When I give you one, how long are you gonna hold it, liar?' ?--Toolsbadly 20:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you somewhat intelligent? Tell me about your intelligence. Space Cadet 20:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useful maps

Map of Europe in 1547 and 1648. Note which country Danzig is in. Balcer 13:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open your book The Other Prussia and look at the two maps. It doesn't call it Poland: Royal Prussia.--Toolsbadly 19:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the whole book clearly states that it was. Space Cadet 20:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It doesnt't.--Toolsbadly 20:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it does. Space Cadet 20:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. But I'm glad you read the book. Now we just have to work (a lot!) on your conclusion forming skills. Lesson number one: Arrive at conclusions AFTER exploring the source, not BEFORE! Space Cadet 20:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who should teach lesson number one to whom is the question.--Toolsbadly 20:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. It's pretty clear. Space Cadet 20:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didnt't read the book, even. If you did you would know why Gdanzig put up arms against the king.--Toolsbadly 20:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody knows about this one. But I'll gladly listen to your opinion on it. Space Cadet 20:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOu mean: everybody who read 100 books on the period knows about this one. You didn't. Why?--Toolsbadly 20:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, everyone even somewhat educated. Space Cadet 20:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you somewhat educated? Tell me about your education.--Toolsbadly 20:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am, and then some. Space Cadet 20:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Please read carefully Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, as you are on the point of breaking it. Making 4 reverts in 24 hours is likely to result with being blocked from editing. Balcer 16:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC) I've done that now. Thank you for showing me. It's very interesting.--Toolsbadly 21:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold that thought.

I have to go do something right now, but I'll be back. Space Cadet 21:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy

This would be a good time to learn about another important policy: WP:Point. In short, if you think one article is bad and incorrect, don't make another one bad and incorrect in retaliation. Try to change the article you have a problem with.Balcer 14:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont't think one of them is bad and incorrect, with or without Copernicus and Johnny H.. The lists should be treated in equal manner however and not independendly. You delete Copernicus and Johnny H. from the German list and don't do the same with the Polish list? "WP:Point" is no license to inequality.--Toolsbadly 14:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to delete them from the Polish list. I will not stop you. Balcer 14:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, no modern reference I have come across calls Copernicus a German. At most they may say his nationality is disputed. Hence he cannot be included on the List of Germans, as all claims in Wikipedia must be backed up by up to date scholarly work. That is the end of that story. Balcer 14:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't stop me, but your companion Nihil Novi. Your edit changed the scales between the two lists so it is your duty restoring the balance again.--Toolsbadly 15:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have realised, I have no control over what any other user may do. And no Wikipedia user has a duty to do anything. Personally, I think the List of Poles article is pretty useless and I have no interest in it. Still, there are some people who are attached to it and insist that it contain certain names. I don't have the time or energy to argue with them.

Nevertheless, at least some modern references call Copernicus a Pole (Britannica for one), so having him in the List of Poles has at least some backing. However, there are no modern, reliable and unbiased sources that unambiguously call Copernicus a German. See the difference here? Balcer 15:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Britannica article also says "died May 24, 1543, Frauenburg, East Prussia [now Frombork, Pol.]". Balcer, have you ever tried to change the articles of Copernicus and the city accordingly? If so, please show me. If not please, stop picking only the content that suits you. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 18:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you have the time and energy and interest to oppose Copernicus and Johnny H. to be added to the German list? I find that pretty dishonest! Why did you oppose Copernicus and Johnny H. in the List of Germans? You wrote that 'our Copernicus article does not call him a German. Make your case there!' and deleted Copernicus and Johnny H. with this text, and because having them in the list of Germans (you wrote:) 'violates concensus' of no nationality for Copernicus. Presently Copernicus is in the List of Poles and immediately you don't have interest and time and energy to support your 'vote for neither list' and restore the balance.--Toolsbadly 16:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking the two articles is a bit childish. You want to make modifications to one or the other, then argue your case on the talk pages. Provide the necessary references, convince other editors etc. If you try to put him on the list of Germans solely on the basis that he is also on the list of Poles, I will revert you per violating WP:POINT.

The reason I approach the two pages with different emphasis is because having Copernicus on the list of Poles is consistent with many sources, but having him on the list of Germans is generally not supported by modern sources. Balcer 18:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balcer, see above for modern sources stating "Frauenburg, East Prussia". Please act accordingly wherever that applies. Also, I'm looking forward to you thinning the list of Poles on your own without having me point out obvious cases first. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 18:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has 1.8 million articles. I have no obligation to work on any particular one of them. As I said before, I think the article List of Poles is quite useless (we have categories for these things) which is why I will not waste any of my time trying to improve it. Balcer 20:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gdańsk or Danzig or Prussia or Poland

I suggest to refer to the city in biographies as "Danzig (Gdańsk)", as recommended by the vote, without any claim for Prussia or Poland as the addition of one or the country has proven time and again that it only fuels edit wars. After all, the biographies are about persons, not the history of cities or countries. This is a proposal for a compromise that could bring consensus and allow many biographies to be stable. Please consider it. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 18:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, a biography without a mention of a country where the events are taking place is lacking something, don't you think? Space Cadet 19:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frombork (Frauenburg) was in Royal Prussia

(You wrote)

Frauenburg (Frombork), Warmia was in Royal Prussia. Please undo yourself.--Toolsbadly 18:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Prussia was a province of the Kingdom of Poland however, Warmia is a region between Pomerania and Masuria in northeastern Poland and together with Masuria, it forms the Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship. I cannot be both, Warmia and Royal Prussia at the same time, it's either one or the other. Look at the map and try to find Warmia if you can. What I did was to correct that mistake. --Poeticbent talk 20:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]