Thorsten1

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
• Read the article describing how to edit a page and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
• When editing pages, use the preview button before submitting and try to fill in the summary box for every edit.
• Eventually, read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!
Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Toynbees

Nice job on fixing up Toynbee; I'm impressed you can keep track on all these guys. -- John Fader (talk · contribs) 23:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't actually, Google does. ;-) --Thorsten1 19:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Polish-Soviet_War

Thanks for your mediation efforts on Talk:Polish-Soviet_War. I'll not respond to your last comment there if you don't mind. I just don't think we want to continue this discussion. Everyone seems to have said most of what they had to... And the discussion seems rather fruitless. I believe you'll agree with me on this and won't feel offended. The article is neither about the pact nor calls it an alliance anyway. However if you feel I should respond, just let me know on my talk page. Lysy 18:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, that's fine, I think the discussion has run its course. For the record, I was actually not taking offence with the word "alliance" in itself, but with the uncompromising claims that this is in fact the best and only correct word, or that it is completely incorrect, respectively. I still feel, though, that "pact" would help to avoid such fruitless discussions in the future. --Thorsten1 20:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD: Nazi or German Occupation?

Check this VfD vote: [1] --Ttyre 19:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism in Poland

You might be interested in this discussion. --Ttyre 14:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Polish Wikipedians' notice board/Black Book

Thank you for your eloquent and incisive defense of me on this VfD discussion. I think your recent comment hits the nail on the head. Nohat 22:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welcome, and thanks for your comment. --Thorsten1 12:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

William I. Thomas

Nice :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 08:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dziękuję ślicznie za komplement. ;-). --Thorsten1 13:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

persona non grata

Are you persona non grata among apparently Polish wikipedians, as Tomer claims on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Anti-Polonism? I most certainly hope not...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

SylwiaS appeared to be somewhat less than happy with my comments in the VFD against the Polish Wikipedias' Black Book. Whether or not the plural form used by Tomer is justified is not up for me to decide. --Thorsten1 10:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Thorsten, yes, I didn’t agree with your comments, but I seriously hope, you don’t think that it has anything to do with my personal attitude to you. I guess we may disagree on many things in the future and also be in complete agreement on many other things. I really hope, we can agree on this one now. --SylwiaS 01:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Sylwia, thanks for your conciliatory statement. Still, I fear the consensus between us is rather fragile and superficial. But you are right anyway - let's keep the hatchet buried for as long as we don't need it... ;) --Thorsten1 17:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism in Poland (again)

Hey, Thorsten. I've reverted the article to a more NPOV version by Piotrus. Someone has been reverting it to a very POV verison so as to increase the number of delete votes. Feel free to take a second look. Thanks. HKT 22:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'll change my vote based on Piotrus's version. --Thorsten1 22:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus has re-phrased his vote Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland to delete unless... could you reconsider your vote? --Ttyre 19:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I just did. Even though it renders the chaotic discussion even more unreadable. --Thorsten1 20:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

A-P

I question validity of a number of statements you have made in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland such as "...żydokomuna is very much a Polish issue" or "...the events of 1968 are quite unparalleled." In the US, during the interwar (see: Father Coughlin, The Dearborn Independent) and post-WWII (especially during the Joseph McCarthy-era) periods, there were persistent accusations of bolshevism and association with communism made against Jews. The expulsions of the Jewish communities from Iran and most Arab countries draw parallels with the anti-Zionist events of 1968 Poland. --Ttyre 10:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I would be tempted to agree if McCarthyism and comparable events had resulted, say, in Jews being removed from their jobs or denied access to universities on grounds of being Jewish, and a subsequent exodus of the majority of American Jews.

Also, Iran and the Arab world are understandably not the standard Poles normally ask to be measured against. When I said "unparalleled", I naturally meant "unparalleled" in the sphere of Western civilisation which Poland vehemently insisted on belonging to. --Thorsten1 10:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

"Let's try to stay civil..." I agree with you wholeheartedly. Consequently, sometimes I do call and challenge editors when the Wikipedia:Civility rules are being violated (see Soapboxing? discussion in Talk:Anti-Semitism). Also, if you are concerned with this issue, you might take a look at the IZAK's recent entries in the Talk:History of the Jews in Poland "History of JEWS and Judaism in Poland" section. --Ttyre 10:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. The article isn't on my watchlist yet, but I am going to have a look as soon as I have the time. If I find any unjustified accusations of anti-whatever-ism, I'm going to leave a comment. --Thorsten1 10:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Quotes from HKT entries in Talk:Anti-Semitism's Soapboxing? section: "...More Poles collaborated in having Jews sent to death camps than were themselves sent to death camps..." and "There are some historians, like Lukas, who deny rampant Polish collaboration with Nazis." IZAK's entries in Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#History_of_JEWS_and_Judaism_in_Poland_vs._History_of_Poland_and_its_impact_on_Jews.3F are too long to quote here - see them for yourself. --Ttyre 17:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I left a comment regarding HKT's statement of fact on collaboration. As for IZAK's reduction of Polish culture to "boar-hunting and beer-drinking", this has little to do with the point under discussion and is so obviously an unqualified POV judgment and provocation that no comment is required. --Thorsten1 10:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC).

Hey Thorsten1, I've decided my wikibreak was an insufferable sham, so I came back. At this point I'm still considering opening an RfC against Witkacy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and possibly against TheUnforgiven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) simultaneously, although TheUnforgiven is so obviously insane that that may be unnecessary. At the same time, I'm thinking maybe I should just stay out of Poland and Polish-related articles, since Troll Witkacy reigns supreme there. The utterly nonsensical "Anti-Polonism" and the unspeakable idiocy brought to the fore during its VfD demonstrate that there are a number of Polish editors whose view of the world is utterly unhinged from reality. I'm not here to snap people out of their fantasies tho. Eventually the rampant insanity will get so out of hand that people with bigger sticks than I will step in to stop it. As it is, I'm thinking perhaps it would just be prudent to warn people not to believe anything about Poland or Poland-related articles on WP and save myself the agony of trying to reason with such obvious incompetence. There are several very good editors involved with those articles, but Troll Witkacy seems to regard any such articles as his personal property, and until he's disabused of that erroneous notion, perhaps I oughtta just stay away. Tomer ^TALK 03:12, July 25, 2005 (UTC) Woohoo! I knew it! [2]. Gawd I hate trolls. Tomer ^TALK 20:39, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note, and sorry for the delay in replying - I was (am) up to my ears in other stuff and took a complete break from Wikipedia.

It's really not much fun to engage in Poland-related topics, as uber-defensive paranoid patriots will likely "correct" any edit to suit their preconceptions about Poland vs. The World - and if you beg to differ, they will try and frame you as anti-Polish. They believe to be protecting Poland's image in the world, or at least on Wikipedia, when in fact, if anything, they are accomplishing the opposite - as our readers certainly detect bias, and will begin to steer clear of Poland-related stuff. At best, uninitiated users might consider Wikipedia's coverage of Poland an isolated POV backwater of some kind; at worst, they will grow disappointed with Wikipedia's overall ability to maintain a NPOV throughout. Worse, they might even identify the POV pushers' spasmodic zeal with the Polish nation as a whole, so that, ironically, they might well fuel the very sentiment they oppose.

The worst single case is obviously Anti-Polonism. This is Western betrayal pushed to the extreme. Unfortunately, I argued "keep" in its VfD - as the word itself is very widespread in Poland, and I was naive enough to believe the article could be improved towards a good explanation of how and by whom the word is actually used. It seems, however, that Anti-Polonism's surviving the VfD only stimulated the "patriots", who apparently feel legitimised to soapbox with a vengeance now. As a result, the article is becoming even less instead of more NPOV.

What surprised me most is that it even proved impossible to quarantine this mess with a neutrality warning... This is really bad for Wikipedia. What disappoints me most, though, is that even the more thoughtful and constructive Polish editors seem to tolerate such POV pushing and blatant disinformation as long as it is coming from their compatriots - be it out of some misunderstood sense of solidarity or even tacit approval.

Unfortunately, Witkacy's edits are not even the worst. Over the last few days I have observed, with increasing concern, the doings of a new editor calling himself Molobo. Apart from being unable to write a single grammatical sentence, he seems to be ridden with every kind of "Ciemnogród" xenophobia you can think of; even worse, he frequently inserts information that is either plain wrong - such as the US giving Adenauer's West Germany "nuclear capable" weapons and Germany trying to produce nuclear weapons; or deliberately makes the reader jump to wrong conclusions - such as German courts banning Polish parents from talking Polish to their children - the latter example is from Anti-Polonism. In Polish internal affairs, he argues from a far-out right-wing position; he even went as far as saying that Wisława Szymborska helped "implement Stalinist rule" because she wrote some politically correct (at the time) stuff in her youth. If you're interested, take a look at my discussion with him at Talk:Roman Giertych and in the edit history of that article... That will give you a good idea of his type of "arguments".

Anyway, thanks for exchanging your thoughts with another Polonophobe... ;)

--Thorsten1 20:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Note: I moved the fragment below to Talk:Konrad Adenauer, because this is where it belongs and where it may be needed to understand an ongoing edit skirmish. Please do not edit below this note. --Thorsten1 20:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)'

" he frequently inserts information that is either plain wrong such as the US giving Adenauer's West Germany "nuclear capable" weapons and Germany trying to produce nuclear weapons;"

Wrong info ? Not really:

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,357281,00.html

"The United States brought its first nuclear weapons into the former West Germany in March 1955. The first weapons were aerial bombs, followed by artillery grenades, cruise missiles, rockets and mines. In 1957, then Chancellor Konrad Adenauer demanded that the German military also receive these modern weapons. German forces were then equipped with nuclear-compatible heavy artillery guns with a maximum range of 30 kilometers and missiles with ranges of more than 700 kilometers."

http://www.bits.de/public/policynote/pn05-3.htm

"A couple of days later he went one step further by stating, that in the event of war the USA were willing to hand over nuclear weapons to the allies, for example Germany, for use by their delivery systems. Shortly afterwards Chancellor Konrad Adenauer publicly voiced interest in equipping the Bundeswehr with nuclear capable delivery systems.[13]"

In future try to research something before attacking somebody--Molobo 20:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, Molobo, I do not feel the need to be lectured on German history by someone who so obviously lacks any historical training and knowledge. I'm afraid I must back down on my former speculation that you were studying at Rydzyk University. It's even worse than that: Apparently you are studying at Google University... Rest assured that West Germany has never been in control of any nuclear weapons and there was never any chance of the USA making any such weapons available to Adenauer. The nuclear weapons stored on West German territory were strictly under Allied control. --Thorsten1 20:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"Lacks any any historical training and knowledge"

It is not me that claimed information about Adenauer pursuing nuclear capable weapons was wrong :)

"Rest assured that West Germany has never been in control of any nuclear weapons"

I see that you have problems with reading."Pursuit" isn't "control"

I advise you to read the report :

http://www.georgetown.edu/sfs/cges/docs/Docs_Working_Papers_Page/Working_Paper_Carson_8-04.pdf

Going Nuclear: Science, Politics, and Risk in the Federal Republic of Germany in the 1950'1 Cathryn Carson Department of History University of California, Berkeley

"During the first part of the 1950s, it is worth saying, Adenauer remained committed to a conventional defense, and in the sovereignty negotiations in 1954 he formally renounced the production of nuclear weapons on German territory. However, certain maneuvers by the government and some industrialists in siting the reactor station generated concern. Adenauer’s commitment to a conventional defense in Central Europe began to waver, we now know, around 1954 or 1955.43 With the Federal Republic then joining NATO, military and political leaders began to talk about providing nuclear-capable equipment to Bundeswehr units. Even more, after a 1956 crisis in GermanAmerican trust, Adenauer confidentially raised the idea that the Federal Republic might need to produce its own nuclear weapons. That winter, the new defense minister Franz-Josef Strauß, who had up until then been the atomic minister, negotiated a secret agreement with France on military (potentially including nuclear) cooperation.44 If military use had not been on the agenda when the nuclear venture was started, it became more problematic once it was a going concern. As much as Adenauer’s ill-famed allusions to “small” NATO nuclear weapons for the Bundeswehr, rumors of these other developments were the occasion for the nuclear scientists’ famous public intervention."

It seems you need to lecture this person about being wrong.He is part of University of California.Did Rydzyk open a branch there ? :)

--Molobo 12:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, I spent much of yesterday evening combatting your POV-stricken edits, something I have no intention of repeating today. I am going to comment on your shadow-boxing show later, however on Talk:Konrad Adenauer - as we should not scatter the discussion over too many different places. In order to enable other users to follow the argument behind conflicting edits without having to peruse the talk pages of the involved editors, any such discussions should take place strictly on that article's talk page. --Thorsten1 20:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

End of the part moved to Talk:Konrad Adenauer

---

Wiktacy's deletions at Anti-Polonism

Would you mind taking a look at Wiktacy's deletions of content at Anti-Polonism, and my comments regarding that in Talk: there? Your opinion would be welcome. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. However, I think that the article is completely beyond repair as a whole - clearing it of Witkacy's POV edits wouldn't be more than a drop in the ocean... For the time being, let's insert a neutrality warning - I think nobody can seriously object to that. --Thorsten1 10:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Note to self: "I think nobody can seriously object to that." Seems like I was wrong. Heated controversies on talk and VfD do not count - the article is officially neutral. Oh, and the earth is flat. --Thorsten1 09:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Davies

who are the other western colleagues? - Could you provide names and quotes?--Witkacy 10:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd say roughly at least 50% of all lecturers. Ever been to a class on East European history in the UK, US or Germany, or overheard discussions at conferences? Feel free to read my longish dispute with User:Jehudit on Talk:Norman Davies including extensive quotes from a review of Rising '44. Note that I do not claim this criticism is ultimately justified. I just think that sweeping it under the carpet is not a good idea at all. To insinuate, as you do, that criticism of Davies is strictly the domain of a few individuals who just happen to be Jewish is either naive or a deliberate attempt at creating a false impression. Against the backdrop of your recent "patriotic" comments in connection with anti-Polonism and anti-Semitism I fear that the latter possibility is closer to the truth. --Thorsten1 10:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Rasizm

Nie prosze Pana Thorstena, Polacy nie sa odmienna rasa (nawiazuje do wypowiedzi na stronie Malobo), ale kazda anty-wypowiedz wobec rasy LUB narodowosci jest rasizmem - i chyba glebiej tego nie musze tlumaczyc? A tak na marginesie, nadal czekam na dokladne wypowiedzi i nazwiska wyzej wymienionych "western colleagues" pozdrawiam--Witkacy 20:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

As for the unfortunate usage of "racism", I already commented on that on Molobo's talk page. As for Norman Davies, I take it you did not read my reply above? Please do so. And do read my dispute with Jehudith from a few months ago - you will find extensive quotes from an author who is, to the best of my knowledge, not Jewish - although I am afraid if you require any Ariernachweis (certificate of Aryan descent) you would have to contact him yourself. --Thorsten1 20:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Ostatni raz prosze o nazwy tych rzekomych "western colleagues" - lubisz krecic i atakowac a nie potrafisz odpowiedziec na proste pytanie. A co do Ariernachweis, "Twoi" byli kiedys w tym mistrzami, wiec mi z takim czyms nie podjezdzaj--Witkacy 21:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

A ty chyba nie potrafisz czytać?! --Thorsten1 21:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Sluchaj, nic wiecej nie chce wiedziec - dodales do artykulu krytyki, teraz przedstaw nazwiska, jesli tego nie zrobisz, skasuje w artykule ten watek (tylko wymien jakies bardziej znane, nieznani szczekacze mnie nie interesuja)--Witkacy 21:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Rób czego chcesz. Potem zobaczymy dalej! --80.145.23.131 21:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

To Twoja odpowiedz?--Witkacy 21:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Mmmm... właśnie nie, ale przypadkowo zgadzam się całkowicie z anoninem!

On another note, do you mind if I translate your comment above? "A co do Ariernachweis, "Twoi" byli kiedys w tym mistrzami, wiec mi z takim czyms nie podjezdzaj" -> "As for the Ariernachweis [certificate of Aryan descent], it is "your" folks who used to be experts in this, so don't accost me with something like this". You see, Witkacy, on Norman Davies I mentioned the criticism of Davies by "Western" historians, which you changed to "Jewish colleagues" [3], implying that such criticism is exclusively coming from Jews. When I changed this back, you implicitly challenged me to provide sources by non-Jewish authors (see above). In the face of this, the remark about the Ariernachweis, although admittedly cynical, is supported by facts and fully justified - whereas your statement about "my folks" is purely ad hominem (and wide off the mark). --Thorsten1 20:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

To nie byles Ty? Poprzedni anon pochodzil z Aalen (sprawdzalem IP) - ale moze rzeczywiscie to tylko zbieg okolicznosci... Wracajac do sprawy, drogi Thorstenie, poprosilem o nazwiska i wypowiedzi, o niczym wiecej nie chce rozmawiac. Poprostu chce poczytac te krytyki o ktorych napisales w artykule, czy bylo by mozliwe otrzymanie od Ciebie linkow do nich? (czy nie jest mozliwe? mozesz napisac ze nie jest, jesli nie posiadasz - ale juz nie krec)--Witkacy 20:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Przepraszam jesli by Cie urazil jezyk w ktorym Ci odpowiadam (wyzej pisales po angielsku, nie wiem czy na pokaz, czy jako sugestie ze polski jezyk Ci nie odpowiada, a ze poznalem troche Volksdeutschow ktorzy nie przepadali za polska mowa, wole z gory przeprosic)--Witkacy 21:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"ale moze rzeczywiscie to tylko zbieg okolicznosci... " Dziwny zbieg okoliczności, skoro w Aalen nigdy w życiu nie byłem i nic o tym miejscu nie wiem - nie mam więc zielonego pojęcia dlaczego myślisz że akurat stamtąd pochodzę. Jest tam jakieś gniazdo antypolonistów? ;) Mniejsza z tym. "Poprostu chce poczytac te krytyki o ktorych napisales w artykule, czy bylo by mozliwe otrzymanie od Ciebie linkow do nich". Jak już napisałem powyżej, nie wszystko co mówi się w kręgach akademickich na zachodzie można znaleźć w internecie. Jeśli myślisz, że dlatego nie ma znaczenia, jesteś, jak również napisałem powyżej, w najlepszym razie naiwny. Ale po co w ogóle chcesz ze mną dyskutować? W końcu i tak jestem tylko anty-polskim rasistą...

"wyzej pisales po angielsku, nie wiem czy na pokaz" - chyba dość wyraźnie wytłumaczyłem dlaczego. I tak na marginesie, skoro jesteśmy na anglojęzycznej Wikipedii zastrzegam sobie prawo do pisania po angielsku. Życzę dobrej nocy! --Thorsten1 22:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"nigdy w życiu nie byłem i nic o tym miejscu nie wiem - nie mam więc zielonego pojęcia dlaczego myślisz że akurat stamtąd pochodzę." nawiazywalem do tego anona, ktory wyskoczyl, jak z kosmosu.

"Jak już napisałem powyżej, nie wszystko co mówi się w kręgach akademickich na zachodzie można znaleźć w internecie."

Czyli rozumiem ze nie mamy nic (dowodu) by potwierdzic Twoj wpis w artykule Daviesa o rzekomych "zachodnich krytykach" tak? (pytam sie dla pewnosci, bo gdybys mial to bys przedstawil) Kolorowych snow zycze --Witkacy 22:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Nie jestem ani kosmosmu, ani z tego Aalen. Folksdojczem zresztą też nie jestem... ;) Co do "dowodów" z internetu - nie, nie dysponuje żadnymi dowodami z internetu. Ale jak pisałem, to wcale nie znaczy, że tych opinii nie ma. Po prostu nie mam ochoty szukać "dowodów" na to, co jest oczywistością dla każdego, kto trochę zna realia na zachodnich uniwersytetach. --Thorsten1 22:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Za Twoje klamstwa na stronie glosowania BB, jednak nie zycze Ci kolorowych snow. Co do Volksdeutschow (u Ciebie jest to obrazliwe slowo?) to bardzo fajni ludzie, troche przebiegli i klamliwi, ale ogolnie sa bardzo mili. P.S. na jutro przygotuj material co do Daviesa.--Witkacy 23:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

How is any of this relevant to anything?! Tomer ^TALK 23:59, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Szymborska

Skoro ma byc "renounced her former work" to czy możesz mi podać żródło lub cytat gdzie przeprasza za wiersze chwalące Stalina, rolę partii komunistycznej, walkę o socjalizm ? Z góry dziękuję.--Molobo 20:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Proszę przeczytaj co napisałem na Talk:Wisława Szymborska. Z góry dziękuję. --Thorsten1 20:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

PS: Zresztą wcale nie jestem wielkim fanem Szymborskiej. Ale NPOV i NOR obowiązuje również dla nie-fanów.

Co jest POV w podaniu linków do jej twórczości ? Nie widzę też nic złego w podaniu informacji o uczestnictwie w petycji przeciw księżom.Nie ma tam nic osobistego poza suchymi faktami.Jak chcesz możesz umieścić że takie petycje były często podpisywane przez osoby pracujące na rzecz komunistycznego reżimu.--Molobo 20:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Chyba dobrze wiesz, że nie chodzi o te linki. Co do reszty Twojej wypowiedzi - po prostu przeczytaj co napisałem na talk. --Thorsten1 21:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Chodzi ci o petycje w Krakowie ? Przecież to znany i krytykowany aspekt Szymborskiej. Czyżby ci coś w nim przeszkadzało ? :)

--Molobo 22:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"Przecież to znany i krytykowany aspekt Szymborskiej" - przez kogo? Anyhow, I suggest to conduct this discussion exclusively on Talk:Wisława Szymborska, and to keep it in English, in order to keep it transparent for all interested users and to make it available as a resource for any future procedure against you. --Thorsten1 00:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"przez kogo"

No ładnie.A przecież podałem żródło.Nawet nie czytasz tego co kasujesz.--Molobo 11:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Coś takiego! No, takie jest chyba ryzyko kiedy ktoś pisze kupę bzdur... --Thorsten1 20:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Try

...to concentrate on facts not on attacks on people.--Molobo 22:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD you may be interested in

Check out the VfD going on over User:Witkacy/Black Book. Tomer ^TALK 23:04, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Tomer. Much to own surprise, I voted keep, only half in jest... ;) --Thorsten1 00:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Car theft

No offence taken, we're all but researchers here, my friend. As to the car thefts: the problem is that the only research I could find a trace to was related to a question on "how many of the thiefs to steal German cars do you think are related to Poland". As such, the answer hardly was any evidence to prove that there were more Polish car thieves in Germany than there were German thieves in Poland... Halibutt 01:41, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, another report I have read (can't be bothered to look it up now) states that up to one third of all cars reported stolen in Poland by their German owners were in fact secretly sold there. However, there certainly must be some reason why people came up with this kind of insurance fraud in the first place. --Thorsten1 21:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Ein Satz mit 10 Woertern und 4 Luegen? Ein ehrlicher Pole faehrt nuechtern mit seinem Wagen zur Arbeit--Witkacy 22:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

anti-Polonism and Turks

You mention under the section NPOV tag by User:Thorsten1 at Talk:anti-Polonism that Turks are treated similarly and equally as Poles. Can you cite an example of such handling by German officials? I know there is certain (south) Italian minority in Germany. Can you find similar cases for Italians? I agree with your opinion that German courts do not handle Polishmen differently than other nationalities wrt. the rights. My German is simply to weak to effectively find something relevant in the German Internet.

I contributed something in the section Anti-Polonism#Germans-Polish friendship. Can you help and find examples of other actions and activities that promote positive attitude of Germans to Poles? Alx-pl 13:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your level-headed input at Talk:anti-Polonism. "Can you cite an example of such handling by German officials" - well, I certainly can't provide any instructions like "Treat Turks and Poles equally". Apart from that, I think the burden of proof should be on those who claim that Poles are treated worse than other nationals - and by that I obviously do not mean any hyped-up cases of obvious bureaucratic narrow-mindedness.

Regarding the comparison with the Turkish community: Until recently, Poles and Turks without German citizenship had the same legal status; from 2004, Poles are, of course, privileged over Turks and put on the same footing as Austrians as EU citizens. (Even though certain obstacles remain for a transitional period, which are outcomes of mutual bargaining and work both ways).

A substantial portion of persons with a Polish background in Germany are also privileged by the fact that the German authorities, caught in the inconsistencies of patchworked immigration rules, have to be quite lax about their usual no-dual-citizenship approach.

Needless to say, there is a much greater religious, cultural - and physical - affinity between Poles and Germans, so it is much easier for Poles to assimilate and avoid the problems resulting from both real and perceived deficient assimilation that Turks face.

In short, both the privileges and disadvantages that Turks enjoy or suffer, respectively, in comparison with Poles result from their greater number, greater in-group homogeneity, and greater cultural distance from German society at large.

Another factor that comes into play here: Poles, or persons with some Polish background, permanently residing in Germany show a remarkable indifference towards the "Polonia" organisations that wish to represent them politically, which are smallish and constantly at odds with each other. This makes it easy for the German authorities to ignore demands made by the few active Polonia groups; a situation which must be frustrating for the activists, but which has at least as much to do with their own clientele's political indifference and contentment with the status quo as with any German anti-Polonism. Of course, it is much easier for them to blame the Germans than the very people they want to represent...

Another favourite argument to "prove" German anti-Polonism (and supposed Polish Germanophilia) is the different legal status of the autochthonous "German" minority in Poland and the allochthonous "Polish" minority in Germany; this however, is based on a linguistic fallacy that ascribes an identical or similar quality to both groups, even though they are structurally and historically entirely different. The argument is further invalidated by the fact that those who call for a maximum of political rights for Poles outside Poland, more often than not, tend to be the same people who voice concerns about the influence of minorities (such as Germans or Jews) within Poland itself.

All that being said, I think nobody is seriously disputing that the image of Poland in Germany contains more negative than positive elements - although it is arguably much better than many Poles are inclined to believe; and certainly much better than the image of Germany in Poland (but that is quite another story).

The fact remains though, that the term anty-polonizm is generally used in a very different way than the article anti-Polonism suggests, namely in the context of Polish-Jewish conflict - as has been thoroughly pointed out during the VfD. (By the way, an instructive example of the word's real usage is an open letter co-signed by no other than Wojciech Pomorski -- yes, that Wojciech Pomorski, interesting, isn't it?, who also set up another Polonia splinter group in Germany. The letter attacks Kazimierz Wójcicki, who just happens to "wywodzi się ze środowiska KOR-owskiego i jest związany z UW", as "anti-Polish" for mentioning the existence of anti-Semitism in Poland...) At best, the article can be called a piece of original research, and a rather lousy one at that. --Thorsten1 21:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I certainly can't provide any instructions like "Treat Turks and Poles equally". - I didn't mean that. Maybe there is a court case of a Turk who was separated from his wife and we could have a clear evidence that Mr. Pomorski case can be attributed to the slowness of the bureaucracy. An yes, the article requires a huge amount of work. I'd like to ask you what you think about this rearrangement of anti-Polonism (note, that I don't think it is going to be the final version).

As anyone who knows a bit about the situation of immigrants in Germany will agree, the proposed reversal of the burden of proof is pretty absurd. If anyone wishes to cite the Pomorski case as evidence of "anti-Polonism", they should be able demonstrate that discrimination of this kind concerns predominantly Poles. So far, we have exactly one such case involving a Polish person, and that seems a bit little to build a case on. (I'm inclined to believe that English or French-speaking parents are less likely to encounter such problems, but that's about it.) As for the different or similar treatment of Turks - suffice it to say that no Polish houses have ever been set on fire in Germany. Most Poles are simply not physically and culturally different enough to be of any interest to overzealous bureaucrats or skinhead arsonists... As for the article, that it "requires a huge amount of work" is a bit of an understatement. It needs to be re-written from scratch to become a serious source of information. If it were nominated for deletion again, I would certainly not vote keep another time. --Thorsten1 23:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt

I am pretty sure you would be interested in this discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I just cast my vote. --Thorsten1 23:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. WikiThanks.

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Molobo

Perhaps you noticed my little sentence about brewing a pot of coffee before talking with Molobo. Discussion with him is largely useless and often frustrating to the point where you want to scream and run away from the article. Don't run away. Make your good faith edits and keep talk to a minimum. He'll do his business--removing talk contributions, accusing you of attacks, reverting edits as "vandalism" when they quite clearly are not. But that's just what he does. Marskell 21:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Slowly but surely I'm running out of coffee... ;) Seriously, if anyone can get away with this behaviour for months, I predict a grim future for WP. --Thorsten1 22:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Molobo again

Hi Thorsten, why don't you comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Molobo? --Ghirlandajo 14:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I assume that his RFA is obsolete now that he decided to leave. In case I'm wrong, or in case Molobo decided to return, I'll be glad to comment there. --Thorsten1 14:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh, do you believe that Molobo will leave Wikipedia? I don't. In my experience, the trolls, when pressed by the arbitration committee or wikicommunity, leave editing for a month or two but then return to trolling. --Ghirlandajo 14:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I just saw that there is indeed something going on there, just forgot to add it to my watchlist. I'll leave a comment soon. --Thorsten1 14:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Sorry, I removed this as it's just a flame. :-) Alx-pl D 19:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. I know for a fact that the reputation of Polish editors on en.wikipedia isn't the best because several of them (though not all of them, as your example shows) tend to defend their compatriots instinctively, no matter whether their positions are defensible or not. Sylwia's attempt to dislegitimise an overdue RfC based on tons of evidence (thanks for your work and courage, by the way) on grounds of a sheer formality is another typical example of this kind of "my country right or wrong" behaviour. The reputation of Poland is clearly a matter very close to Sylwia's heart. This we have in common, and my question was not at all intended as a flame, but to show her that her comment might well achieve the very opposite of what she intended.

Generally, I am very critical of "refactoring" other people's statements, but I do not have the time to discuss this now. For the time being, instead of restoring my original post, I will indicate that you refactored it. I hope you can accept this as a compromise. --Thorsten1 20:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I know it's touchy. That's why I gave you the clear signal of what I did in order to give you a chance to react as you would. Alx-pl D 08:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't really convince me, but never mind that now... --Thorsten1 21:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Molobo's work

I have no idea whether Molobo is still troublesome elsewhere. The edit summaries from Anti-Polonism haven't looked incredibly stable but I hit the page less frequently because it is so wearisome.

I will say this, however: despite very sharp criticism from myself in his RfC (and behaviour patterns I still think unaddressed) Molobo is willing to pass along things of mutual interest in good faith. This is to his credit. Marskell 18:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"I have no idea whether Molobo is still troublesome elsewhere." Well I do have an idea, although I haven't had much time to look after him recently. "[...] but I hit the page less frequently because it is so wearisome." Tell me about it. It has become exactly the rambling POV backwater that I warned it would become during its VfD. "Molobo is willing to pass along things of mutual interest in good faith." I must say that I haven't come across any ever, although I won't rule out that I may have overlooked something - I can't follow everything he does, and I'm not really inclined to sacrifice even more of my time arguing with him. So he has the benefit of the doubt. Plus, of course, edits need not be in good faith in order to be of interest, even though most bad-faith edits tend to be of little interest. I have no idea how knowledgeable Molobo is about astronomy, but I don't think he will be any less knowledgeable about it than he is about history and international relations. I assume that there are some disputes among astronomers, too, but generally the topic is probably a bit less bias-prone than Molobo's usual areas of interest. So OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb is quite a good place for him I guess. --Thorsten1 19:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. I have to agree, working around Molobo is indeed "wearisome"...which is why I've generally avoided the Poland section of WP ever since the VfD on Anti-Polonism. I actually came back to your talk page this evening to ask you, since the Molobo RfC has been idle for a month now, whether or not anything had been resolved as a result of it.  ? Tomer^talk 02:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"which is why I've generally avoided the Poland section of WP ever since the VfD on Anti-Polonism". This is exactly the effect I predicted: Three editors (Molobo, Witkacy, Space Cadet) aggressively push a Polish POV (or what they believe a Polish POV should look like) on each and every topic even remotely connected with Poland. Most other Polish editors turn a blind eye or even actively support them, out of tacit agreement or out of some misguided sense of national loyalty. As a result, Poland-related topics are becoming a POV blackwater that experienced and constructive editors steer clear of, and that unexperienced users may see as a proof that the Wikipedia principle is faulty. The Molobo RfC apparently ended inconclusively. I wondered about this, too, as I believed that a RfC always closes with some "official" summarizing statement or advice from an admin, like a VfD does. No such thing happened, as you can see. Probably Molobo managed to bore everyone into apathy. --Thorsten1 19:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

re: denial

Hullo. The Hebrew entry is basically just a translation of the simple:Denial entry. The German entry, which is actually at de:Leugnung, is a generic dicdef (along with a rather lengthy and unsourced etymology) that really has nothing specifically to do with denial from a psychological standpunkt as discussed in greatest detail in Denial. If you look at de:Diskussion:Leugnung you'll see that ppl there have expressed some concern about the Article. My recommendation would be to unlink the Hebrew article in the German WP, and the German article in the Hebrew WP. Tomer^talk 01:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I already suspected this. " The German entry, which is actually at de:Leugnung, is a generic dicdef (along with a rather lengthy and unsourced etymology)". Precisely. I wanted to move it to the dictionary, but met with staunch opposition. Contrary to their reputation as bureaucrats in the real world (and maybe because of it), the Germans are very laisser-faire about Wikpedia articles... ;) --Thorsten1 19:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Care to change this highly insulting edit on German wiki?

[4] Die zuvor sehr geschlossene polnische Opposition spaltete sich nach 1989 in zwei Flügel: Einen liberalen/intellektuellen pro-westlichen, für den Michnik, Tadeusz Mazowiecki oder auch Bronisław Geremek Symbolfiguren sind, und einen rechtspopulistischen, klerikalen, nationalistischen und tendenziell antisemitischen.

It was made by You if I am not mistaken. --Molobo 01:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So in your view Rokita(who rather isn't fascinated by Michnik) is a rightwing, nationalist antisemite ? --Molobo 01:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

At the point in time the sentence refers to Rokita would have to be placed clearly in the liberal pro-Western wing. Since then, he has moved continuously towards the right, though. I do not believe he would dispute being a part of the prawica, would he? His "Nizza or death" campaign is indeed bordering on nationalism, by the standards applying in German-speaking areas (with the possible exclusion of Switzerland). As for anti-Semitism - in fact I see no evidence for this. But then saying that certain politicians of the very broad and varied Polish prawica have anti-Semitic tendencies (which is what I said and won't back down from) does not mean that all of them do, which I never said nor implied.

So, I do not see what you might consider insulting about this sentence - it is describing a well established fact disputed by no one. (Of course, populists tend to call themselves "democrats", clericalists tend to call themselves "Christians", as do Christian anti-Semites - but we should not adopt their own labels, of course.) Anyway, if you feel insulted by anything on de.wikipedia, the best place might be to change or discuss it there. --Thorsten1 01:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not see what you might consider insulting about this sentence - it is describing a well established fact disputed by no one.

Oh so there are only liberal supporters of Mazowiecki and Michnik and nationalist antisemites ? This is the impression you make with the sentence.

--Molobo 01:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it is what you are reading into the sentence, which is also taken out of context. Whether this is due to assuming bad faith, a flawed command of German, both, or whatever, does not matter. Again, if you want to contribute to de.wikipedia, do so. This is not the right place to discuss any changes to be made there. --Thorsten1 02:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact is you put a sentence that states clearly that they are only supporters of liberalism and Michnik and nationalists antisemites.

This is highly insulting to Polish politicians and completely unfair.

--Molobo 02:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, no, it does not. I have explained why. Of course, you have the right to disagree. But please do so at de:Talk:Adam_Michnik in order to keep this discussion transparent for the German users. --Thorsten1 02:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As to Catholic party

Its distancing from Poles was the reason for the changes in voting preferences:

http://www.24hourscholar.com/p/articles/mi_qa3686/is_200308/ai_n9252213/pg_6?pi=scl Viewing the Polish deputies as a political threat and fearing that a more pro-Polish attitude would lose the very nationallyminded German Catholics of Upper Silesia to the National Liberals or Conservatives following the 1893 elections, the Silesian leadership of the Center Party embarked on an aggressive campaign against the Polish challengers. Labeling the Polish candidates explicitly as "Poles" and - playing on fears of Social Democracy - as social revolutionaries and anti-clericalists, Porsch proclaimed that the position of the Center in Upper Silesia was "endangered." As Huene's defeat had shown, the Center was engaged in a power struggle with an "anti-Center current" whose "special danger lies in that in Upper Silesian . . . the linguistic opposition or, as one now says, national opposition covers itself with the opposition of possessing and not possessing."81 By contrast, Porsch offered his vision of a united Center party at an 1895 party meeting in Breslau:

We in the Center have not, up to this point, recognized a distinction between Germans and Poles, no distinction of language, of class, of occupation. The instant that you introduce such distinctions, in that instant the foundation on which the Center stands and on which alone the Center can be great collapses.82

Porsch did not recognize national principles where Polish demands were concerned; however, to maintain support among German Catholics he actively sought to counter the claims of opponents in the national parties that "by standing up for the native languages [we] are standing up for the nationalities." Like Windthorst a decade earlier, Forsch emphasized the confessional nature of this support.83 But Forsch went well beyond Windthorst's judicious support for German nationalist goals. Indeed, Forsch made special efforts to illustrate that, although he opposed the anti-Polish measures, he was not blind to the danger that Polish nationalists posed to Deutschtum. Commenting on the issue of colonization in an 1898 article in the Schlesische Volkszeitung he noted that the Center did not disapprove of Germans' self-defense "against the advances of Polentum" nor did they deny "that Polish encroachments and outrages should be turned back." Rather, he wrote, "we disapprove of the means by which one proceeds against the Poles," and thus the "national conviction" of German Catholics should not be questioned.84 Porsch's disdain for Polish nationalists and the Polish interests within the Center, as well as the rhetorical tightrope he walked by denying the legitimacy of Polish national feeling while defending that of German Catholics, did little to bridge the growing gap between Polish and German interests in Upper Silesia. --Molobo 01:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Molobo, I told you this several times before: If you want to make a point using third-party material, kindly do summarize what point it is that you want to make, provide a proper reference, and quote a few key statements that both refer to and support the point you wish to make. Do not bloat user and article talk pages with endless unstructured paragraphs copied and pasted from other websites that one might just as well read there - and leave it to the reader to infer a) what it is that you are saying, and b) if your quote even supports it (more often than not it does not). Or do you also submit a bunch of chaotic photocopies from other people's works instead of term papers?

Also, if anywhere, your post above belongs at Talk:Wojciech Korfanty. Let's not scatter the discussion over several places.

Finally, as so often, your quote is proving the opposite of what you are probably trying to convey. My point on Talk:Wojciech Korfanty was that the Centre Party did not withdraw its support from the nationally minded Polish Catholics - because it never supported them as such in the first place. "We in the Center have not, up to this point, recognized a distinction between Germans and Poles, no distinction of language, of class, of occupation. The instant that you introduce such distinctions, in that instant the foundation on which the Center stands and on which alone the Center can be great collapses". That is exactly what I was referring to - thanks for providing me with a good quote ;-). As a whole, this quote just describes how the party responded to the emergence of Polish nationalism - it reinforced its own German character, which had been less important earlier. After all, as I pointed out on Talk:Wojciech Korfanty, it was a nationwide political party and the vast majority of its potential voters were non-Poles. Also, it was in competition not only with the Polish national groups, but also with other conservative groups in Germany. The fact remains that it was the Poles who began to drift away from the Centre Party (not vice versa), a trend that Korfanty gave his best to accelerate. Get it now? --Thorsten1 01:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was referring to - thanks for providing me with a good quote ;-)

Reminds me Thorsten when I pointed you to definition of racism, to which you responded that the definition must be changed...

--Molobo 02:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

e fact remains that it was the Poles who began to drift away from the Centre Party (not vice versa), a trend that Korfanty gave his best to accelerate. Get it now?

The fact is that Centre Party refused to protect Polish rights and thus distanced itself from them.

Simple.Of course you can always argue like certain editor who claimed they weren't persecuted because they could become Germans at any time ;)

--Molobo 02:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not a representative of the Centre party in 1895, so I do not have to answer for their policies. The Centre Party's POV was that there were no "Polish" rights or "German" rights, but merely "Catholic" or "Protestant" rights. It did not care if the Poles remained Poles or became Germans. It would have cared if they had decided to become Lutherans or Social Democrats... ;) It did not "distance" itself from the Poles by not protecting them as Poles, because it never promised to protect them as Poles to begin with. It was the Poles who began to look for someone to protect them as Poles - and they did not find that protector in the Centre Party. So some began to look elsewhere. Others chose to remain Catholics first and Poles second, and kept voting for the Centre Party. Korfanty campaigned to change their minds. That is what happened, nothing more and nothing less. --Thorsten1 02:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

so I do not have to answer for their policies.

You don't have to-they are known from the text.

The Centre Party's POV was that there were no "Polish" rights or "German" rights, but merely "Catholic" or "Protestant" rights. It did not care if the Poles remained Poles or became Germans

Thank you for confirming that the Party didn't care about protecting rights of Poles.

--Molobo 02:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it cared about protecting the rights of Catholics. I am glad to confirm it. --Thorsten1 02:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank for confirming that it didn't care at all about rights of Poles in respect to their language, identity and culture.

--Molobo 02:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, not quite. It did indeed care about their identity and culture insofar as Catholicism formed a part of that culture. The Poles did not block-vote for them for no reason. It did not protect them as soon as language became a more defining issue than faith. But then they had never really done that before, so it is incorrect to say that the party changed its attitudes towards its Polish voters. Rather, the Polish voters changed their expectations towards the their representatives. When the Centre Party would not fulfil these new expectations, the Poles began to look elsewhere. How many times do you want me to repeat that still? --Thorsten1 02:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said-Polish rights weren't protected by Catholic party, therefore Poles weren't interested anymore in political group that wouldn't help them defend against discrimination of their group by German state.Its rather obvious and seems quite strange of you to lay blame on the breakedown of support on Poles rather then on a party unwilling to address the issue of German nationalism(btw didn't they later supported Hitler ? Just asking).

--Molobo 02:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So, we finally agree. The Poles were not interested any more - that is what I was saying all the time. As for the rest: You are assuming that I would have preferred Korfanty's voters to go on voting for the Centre Party. I don't know what is giving you this idea when I never said anything even remotely like this. So "blame" is not an issue. I merely stated, in accordance with the historical facts, and now also in accordance with you, that the Poles moved away from the party because they began to expect policies from them that they were unfit to provide. That said, a significant proportion continued to vote Centre anyhow, which is where Korfanty comes in. Agreed?

As for supporting Hitler - the Centre never actively supported Hitler until the decisive session of the Reichstag that effectively granted him dictatorial powers. In this session, only one present party dared to refuse, another one had already been excluded from parliament and confined to prison. The Centre Party was neither of them. I hope this answers your questions - even though it has nothing at all to do with Korfanty. --Thorsten1 02:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I was just interested how much this Germany party was supportive of German nationalism looking at its refusal to protect fellow catholics just because they were Poles. --Molobo 03:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Poles were not interested any more'

Since the Party wouldn't protect them. Thank you for agreeing with me. --Molobo 03:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This party was not particularly supportive of German nationalism, as any history book will tell you. That is why it had to face the Kulturkampf. Later the powers that be discovered that the Centre was less of a threat to them than socialism, so there was a kind of reconciliation between the Kaiser regime and political Catholicism - like that ancient Christian compromise "give unto Cesar what is Cesar's". As for the Poles, the party did not want to represent them as Poles, but as Catholics, just like they did not represent Germans just because they were Germans, but only if they were Catholics. If the Poles needed someone to protect them specifically as Poles, they had to look elsewhere - which many of them did. --Thorsten1 03:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If you feel

Offended by some of my commnets I apologize. Could you point out where did I claim you are antipolish , if you find that offending and I indeed branded you as such then I will delete it. Please however limit your sarcasm and personal remarks as they not serve the good communication. --Molobo 23:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I just replied to this on Talk:Wojciech Korfanty. And I do not feel I need to be lectured about "good communication" from someone of your ilk. Finally, if you want to discuss with me, please keep the focus on one talk page instead of jumping back and forth between articles and user talk. This isn't helping communication, either. --Thorsten1 23:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: Oh, and why would I want you to delete it? Things that have been said can't be unsaid, even if the nature of Wikipedia creates the temptation to try and unsay things. --Thorsten1 23:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And I do not feel I need to be lectured about "good communication" from someone of your ilk

Please Thorsten I appeal to you to communicate in civili manner, such comments really don't improve the quality of discussion.From my said I assure you, that you can expect civility, but please also respect my right to be addressed in civil way.

Oh, and why would I want you to delete it?

I just wanted to make a good gesture If you believed that some of my comments were too much personal.

Have a good night.

--Molobo 23:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no reason to consider your "good gesture" as anything but sheer hypocrisy. I have every reason to be skeptical about your lectures about "good communication". Your idea of good communication is thoroughly documented in your recent Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Molobo, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. For the sake of "good communication", I suggest to restrict our interaction to article talk pages were all those interested in the given article can form their own opinion of your arguments and mine. --Thorsten1 23:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Just an example why I believe your division is flawed-would you call Bronisław Wildstein( a person I much respect btw) a nationalist clerical antisemite ?

--Molobo 23:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not see why I should further engage in pointless discussions. I do not care if you respect Wildstein. If you feel I said anything wrong about Wildstein at any place, be more specific about it and take it to the appropriate talk page. --Thorsten1 23:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wildstein is a political activists that hardly supports Mazowiecki, and according to your edit he would have to be considered nationalist clerical antisemite, because you presented Polish politics as two camps: liberal and nationalist clerical antisemite.He is a good example that your divide isn't proper.They are many currents, faction and ideas in Polish politics.

--Molobo 23:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"according to your edit he would have to be considered nationalist clerical antisemite". That is strictly your interpretation. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with Korfanty vs Piłsudski, no matter how hard you try to show me otherwise. --Thorsten1 23:42 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And once again, if you have tangible objections to my edits in specific articles, simply voice them on those articles' talk pages. By posting nebulous interpretations to my talk page you are wasting my time as well as yours. I will not respond to any further edits of the above type to this page. Life is just too short. --Thorsten1 23:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Trouble?

Then look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:German_Wikipedians%27_notice_board Ksenon 00:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of this page. However, I'm skeptical about such places, both in general and in this particular case. If the Polish notice board is anything to go by, such places breathe a somewhat parochial atmosphere and tend to simplify complex issues into "us vs. them" conflicts. People like Molobo tend to do this all time, and I don't think that copycatting their behaviour is a good idea. NPOV is not just the sum of all in-group biases, of which such forums can easily become a hotbed, rather, it is the absence of any such biases. I'm not sure if the advantages of national watering holes in Wikipedia outweigh their disadvantages. --Thorsten1 16:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ksenon in case you haven't read your talk page-why do you use Nazi propaganda poster as your presentation on talk page of yours ?

--Molobo 01:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, I am not as over-sensitive about my talk page as you are. However, if you have a question about Ksenon's user page, I would appreciate it if you could discuss such issues on his talk page instead of mine. New messages to one's talk page are indicated by a flashy orange bar on top of any visited page, which can hardly be overlooked. So if you assume that Ksenon doesn't read his own talk page, what makes you think he will read mine? This is either completely absurd, or an attempt to make me guilty by association. --Thorsten1 16:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo II

I am watching (with quite a big disgust) the forever wars involving Molobo (I have few such pages on my watchlist). I do not know why Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Molobo died out but his behaviour is clear case for WP:RfAr. I suggest to submit a case there. Pavel Vozenilek 21:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Pavel, thanks for your encouragement. The only reason I can think of is that Molobo managed to bore everyone into apathy with his stereotypical arguments. Another factor might be that other Polish wikipedians, unaware of the damage Molobo is doing to the Polish image, seem to support him out of a misguided sense of loyalty or worse. (The one notable exception to this rule is Alx-pl, of course.) The prime example, on the other hand, is SylwiaS, who campaigned to have Molobo's RfC cancelled on a technicality. I suppose that this kind of tribal solidarity, involving one or two very few productive and respected users, is currently deterring other users from taking appropriate steps against Molobo.

Molobo is constantly confusing Wikipedia with discussion forums - incidentally, he has already been banned from a few of these before coming to Wikipedia. A wiki is really a much better place for him than a regular forum - for only on a wiki he simply can delete and replace each anything he disagrees with, rather than having to labour with rational arguments. I believe that a few people have been banned from Wikipedia (as Molobo has been banned from elsewhere) for lesser offences - but somehow he manages to get away with his behaviour here... --Thorsten1 23:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The only thing which suprises me is that you are still here. I, in such situation, would be long left. The WP:RfAr is rather clumsy institution but I remember that they once actually banned a troll. With the current problem I guesstimate it has 50:50 chance that an effective decision will be reached (read: the people on ArbCom have no clue and they judge by what is presented to them, the loud ones receiving most of the attention). Pavel Vozenilek 00:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"The only thing which suprises me is that you are still here." Sometimes I'm surprised myself. I guess I'm just enough of a stoic to bear this. ;). "I, in such situation, would be long left." That's perfectly understandable. However, it is also exactly what these guys are trying so hard to achieve. By alienating virtually everyone who is seriously trying to pursue the NPOV principle, they are turning articles that they consider their "own" (i.e., articles relating to Poland, and, more importantly, Poland's neighbours) into a POV backwater that reasonable editors steer clear of. This is not good for Poland's image among Wikipedians - but I suppose they don't mind that at all: The worse the Polish reputation, the easier it is to lament about the "anti-Polonism" of non-Poles. But it's not only the Polish image that suffers; Wikipedia's image is suffering, too. These guys see Wikipedia as a kind of strategy game. After a period of enthusiastic press, the media are becoming increasingly skeptical about Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. Of course, Wikipedia has always been prone to biases, but somehow people tended not to see that and preferred to believe in the miracle of self-organizing neutrality. That was until very recently. Now, after Seigenthaler (a kind of 9/11 equivalent for Wikipedia) and similar cases, the tide is turning. Once people discover how easy it really is for a handful of individuals to contaminate large clusters of articles with a systematic bias, I daresay it will be over for Wikipedia - it will enter a downward spiral, and in the end, it may still be a fun project for enthusiasts, but not the respected source of knowledge that it was about to become for a brief period.

"The WP:RfAr is rather clumsy institution but I remember that they once actually banned a troll." Did they, really? So there is a silver lining on the horizon... ;) --Thorsten1 20:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

IMO the wars are unwinnable (modulo the slow arbitration) with current structure of Wikipedia. When (if) a stable versions will available on WP a more reliable core could grow up from the current mess and even controversial topics may get resolved. (Btw, if you watch politics of Wikipedia, you would find that the most pressing problem right now seem to be user boxes. :-o )

I would wrote Wikipedia off long ago but I always get suprised that a lot of qualified and knowledgeable people do add coherent and valid articles here. The WP image is not yet that tarnished. Pavel Vozenilek 14:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

for only on a wiki he simply can delete and replace each anything he disagrees with, rather than having to labour with rational arguments.

I am always willing to present my sources and engage in discussion and I also avoid using personal remarks. If you require sources or enquire about the reason of my changes I will be happy to provide neccessary information. I hope you are able to overcome your emotional responces and engage in fruitfull cooperation improving the quality of Wikipedia articles. And I once again urge you to behave in less personal manner. I realise that you have highly opinionated views on Poland but try to to achieve a neutral POV. Have a good day.

--Molobo 00:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, as always, remember to properly indent your posts to keep the flow of the discussion transparent.

I know you think you are a great, neutral, and constructive editor. The problem is, an awful lot of people think otherwise, including yours truly. The good thing is, everyone can follow your edits and decide if they live up to the sublime ideals you are proclaiming here. You permantly boast about how knowledgeable, neutral, and unemotional you are. However, that is a poor substitute for actually being knowledgeable, neutral, and unemotional. I'd like to see more of the latter and less of the former. You are easily the most emotional and least neutral editor I have come across; and as for knowledge, I trust that enough people understand the inequality opinion + Google < knowledge.

You do not respect anybody's opinion but your own. Whoever dares to disagree with you is denounced as "insulting Poland", "whitewashing Germany", "racist", having "idolised views of Germany", being driven by "nationalism", making "personal attacks", or even (most ridiculously) "sexually harassing" you. (These are examples from the top of my head, I can't be bothered to track down diffs now). A favourite game of yours is to manipulate your opponents' posts saying they are "personal attacks"; at one point you even removed the question "Do you know the proverb 'One swallow doesn't make a summer'" as a "personal attack". Even worse, if you ask someone a direct question and do not like their reply, you simply remove [5] [6] it as a "personal attack", making it look as if your question had never been answered in the first place. People who use such methods are obviously impossible to debate with, so your self-praise as a debater is insulting people's intelligence.

More recent and rather typical cases of your handling of sources and style of discussion are open for inspection at Wehrmacht or Korfanty. "I realise that you have highly opinionated views on Poland but try to to achieve a neutral POV." I do not see how our disagreement on subjects like Erika Steinbach's (German backbencher) birthplace, the connection between the Wehrmacht (German army) and German society at large, and the attitude of the German Catholic Centre Party towards the German minority in Poland in the 19th century, should be affected by my "highly opinionated views on Poland". I think you are utterly confused here. --Thorsten1 20:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Bundestag reference

Hi, I think the reference to the Bundestag biography in the Steinbach article should be kept. It is more neutral to state that according to the official biography, she was born there and there, rather than writing that she actually was. The article has a problem with nationalists who insists on adding lots of unreferenced material. The article need more sources, not less (see Wikipedia:Cite sources). There is an authoritative official source for her birthplace being "Rahmel, West Prussia". If we use sources, unreferenced claims like she was born in "German occupied Poland in the Polish village renamed by Nazi administration to German name of Rahmel (the name before Nazi occupation was Rumia)" can be reverted as simple vandalism. Maria Stella 17:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Maria. Citing sources is fine - if a statement is disputed or at least not self-evident. But when was the last time you saw a sourced birthplace? Where Steinbach was born is not under dispute, if I recall correctly. The dispute is strictly about the name - is "Rahmel" or "Rumia" the "correct" name for the place at the time of her birth; and, if it is not, is "Rahmel" a Nazi invention like "Litzmannstadt" or "Gotenhafen"?

On both issues, however, the Bundestag website is not really an "authoritative official source". The administration of the Bundestag does not interfere into the biographies that members provide for the members' handbook and the website. The fact that the name "Rahmel, Westpreußen" occurs in this source shows that Steinbach herself stated her birthplace as "Rahmel, Westpreußen" - and that is hardly surprising, is it? If she had stated "Hobbiton, Middle Earth" instead, they would probably have printed that as well. It does not mean that the German parliament considers the name "Rahmel" as historically correct, which the reference may mislead readers to assume. --Thorsten1 20:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wen das Polen

This would help to overcome the impression that this is a kind of trench warfare between German and Polish editors I assure you there is no such war, there are many respectable German editors, disregarding a couple of childish editors with nationalistic tendencies, who concentrate on adding German names to Polish cities, erasing information about every ethnic discrimination made by German state, name murdered hosptial patients "rebels" or try to erase war crimes of Wehrmacht. Nationalists are in every country, and as Germany is host to large population its no wonder that we have a bit of German nationalists here on Wiki. --Molobo 21:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know what you're on about and why you are posting this to my talk page. I don't understand the section title, either. Welcome back when you have something sensible to say. --Thorsten1 21:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok Thorsten, btw my next edit will be about German concentration camp for Polish children, where they were murdered. You will be invited to contribute to this article, since like said before I am certain German contributors will know much more about past actions of their country then I can hope to know, and we Poles and Germans should cooperate on detailing our past joint history on Wiki historical articles(and you seem keen on cooperating with Polish users). Perhaps you know more details about cooperation of German minority in pre-war Poland towards Nazi invasion against Poland ? Or mass murder made by German minority organisation Selbstschutz ? I am hoping German contributors will help me with expanding those articles.

Have a good day and I hope we will engage in good cooperation.

--Molobo 21:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"you seem keen on cooperating with Polish users". So I'm not an anti-Polish racist anymore? It's nice to see you changed your mind about me. However, I'll have to disappoint you: I am not "keen on cooperating with Polish users". I am "keen on cooperating" with knowledgeable, intelligent, civil, and unbiased users, no matter where they are from. Do you think that this description matches you? Maybe you do - I don't. --Thorsten1 20:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo

[Note: Halibutt's message below refers to a message I left on his talk page [7], --Thorsten1 21:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC).]

Dear Thorsten, you are entirely and utterly wrong. Neither did I have a particularly cordial relationship with Molobo nor with anyone else here. It's only internet, after all. At times I agree with people, at times I don't. The fact that I didn't engage in a revert war against you so far does not mean that I have a "strangely cordial relationship" with such an editor like you either. That's why I'm not reconsidering anything, I'm merely chatting with one of Wikipedians I disagree with. Full stop.

As to having "the guts to make these points where Molobo made his", take note that I took part in that discussion as well. So it's not the problem with my courage but with your sight, apparently ;) Finally, if you had such "suspicion that my loyalty is to fellow Polish editors first, and to Wikipedia's overall objectivity second", then I hope you've opened your eyes now and your doubts were cleared. I never heard of anyone (except for Ghirlandajo, perhaps, but he's incorrigible anyway) having doubts such as yours and I don't see a reason to dissipate such doubts should they ever appear. If someone assumes my bad will or some conspiracy, it's entirely his problem, not mine. Or is it. Halibutt 00:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As for your relationship with Molobo: It may not be "particularly" cordial, but it is a lot more cordial than one would normally expect the relationship between a constructive and respectable editor and a notorious POV-pusher (to put it mildly) to be. (I am also told that you and Molobo go back quite a long way, but never mind that now.)

"It's only internet, after all. At times I agree with people, at times I don't. [...]I'm merely chatting with one of Wikipedians I disagree with." The thing is, Molobo is not just an editor like any other. He is one of the few who come to Wikipedia armed with a very specific POV which pervades every single of his edits, and which he defends in a particularly uncompromising manner. Thus, agreement or disagreement with Molobo is hardly possible on an on-and-off basis, contrary to what you are so innocently implying: Either you basically agree with his underlying POV, or he attacks you fundamentally as "anti-Polish" or "pushing a German POV". (Of course, he hasn't yet tried that trick on you, for obvious reasons.)

"The fact that I didn't engage in a revert war against you so far does not mean that I have a "strangely cordial relationship" with such an editor like you either." No, but then I am not Molobo. No one has to like me, really, but I daresay my input isn't quite as disruptive and confrontational as Molobo's.

"As to having "the guts to make these points where Molobo made his", take note that I took part in that discussion as well. So it's not the problem with my courage but with your sight, apparently ;)". You did take part in the discussion - but I then never said you didn't. However, I was referring to a specific statement by Molobo in that discussion, which you didn't reply to in the same place and language, but on Molobo's talk page and in Polish instead. For those not familiar with it, the bottom line of Molobo's point was that the Germans who had to leave their homes in what is now Poland after 1945 were not "victims" of anything, because some of them had earlier actively participated in the war against Poland.

Contrary to what you are saying, you had not replied to Molobo's statement on the talk page by the time I posted the message you are referring to. In fact, you did not post a comment to the article talk page in English until about ten minutes after your above reply on my talk page; and when you finally did, it turned out to be much more conciliatory towards Molobo than your original, well-worded Polish rebuttal of his rant. Your comment begins with the concession "you have a point here in that the "victims" might not be the best word here" - which clearly means that you were backing down from your earlier Polish comment to Molobo: "Ktokolwiek był wysiedlony, był ofiarą wysiedleń. To wynika ze słownikowej definicji słowa victim." ("Anybody who was resettled was a victim of resettlements. This results from the dictionary definition of the word 'victim'").

So, it's clearly not my eyes that are the problem. Of course, one can only speculate if that means something is wrong with your guts instead. I'm not saying there must be something wrong with them. On the other hand, anybody who compares the timing, contents, and language of your respective posts to Molobo's and the article's talk pages might well get the impression that you did not wish to oppose Molobo "in public", but preferred to settle this "among friends" first.

"if you had such "suspicion that my loyalty is to fellow Polish editors first, and to Wikipedia's overall objectivity second", then I hope you've opened your eyes now and your doubts were cleared." If I had such a suspicion, then your above statements confirmed them rather than anything else.

"I never heard of anyone (except for Ghirlandajo, perhaps, but he's incorrigible anyway) having doubts such as yours". Really? I did, though. You may not remember it, but not everyone in your recent run for adminship voted in your favour, for precisely this reason. Not all of the nays or neutrals were Ghirlandajo's sock-puppets, and I suppose not all of them even were of Russian, German, or of any other ethnicity Pavlovianly suspected of having some incorrigible anti-Polish bias. You may not remember this, either - but in spite of the fact that you were still hosting the notorious Polish Black Book with me in it at that time, I did vote in your favour, asking the opposers to consider any problematic actions of yours against the background of your productive editing. Apparently, however, this did not convince quite enough people for you to achieve the required majority. "If someone assumes my bad will or some conspiracy, it's entirely his problem, not mine." Indeed, unless you consider not being an admin a "problem". You obviously don't, which is fair enough. (I wouldn't want to be one, either.)

I hope the above made my concern about your attitude towards Molobo a bit clearer than it apparently was before. Of course, I do not expect you to publicly back down on this case, as admitting a mistake seems to be as difficult for you as for anyone. However, I would really appreciate it if you decided to think again in private and maybe act differently next time it's called for. Your personal reputation for neutrality, as well as the Polish community's reputation for self-criticism could only benefit from this. --Thorsten1 21:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

He is one of the few who come to Wikipedia armed with a very specific POV

Expanding Wiki's information on German atrocities during World War 2 for example. Which it seems gets a lot of attention.

--Molobo 20:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

the bottom line of Molobo's point was that the Germans who had to leave their homes in what is now Poland after 1945 were not "victims" of anything, because some of them had earlier actively participated in the war against Poland.

The bottom line was we don't know how many of them were victims and it isn't objective to call of them victims since a large portition of those people cooperated with Nazi regime as the case of Selbstschutz. But I should have guessed you will misinform as to towards my words.

As to your concerns, you weren't concerned much with your own behaviour when I insterted sourced infomration on Konrad Adenauer and his refusal to accept Polish border or desire to get nuclear capable weapons was met with your personal attack against me instead of discussion:

[8]

With all due respect, Molobo, I do not feel the need to be lectured on German history by someone who so obviously lacks any historical training and knowledge. I'm afraid I must back down on my former speculation that you were studying at Rydzyk University. It's even worse than that: Apparently you are studying at Google University..

--Molobo 20:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, your post is totally incoherent even by your standards, and completely ignores what I said about the correct use of the term "victim". I'm not going to waste my time trying to make sense of this drivel. As for your historical expertise, I have really nothing to add or detract from my statement you quoted.

And as always, please indent your posts with colons to make clear what you are replying to. Your persistent refusal to observe even the most basic Wikipedia formating rules (let alone English orthography and grammar) signals a lack of respect for your opponents. --Thorsten1 21:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No reason for continuing in such manner, the discussion doesn't involve any article-unless you want to discuss any particular change to an article or article I see no reason to engage in such discussions.

--Molobo 21:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)       Note: Fake timestamp. The correct time for the above edit is 21:56, 7 March 2006. The original, overwritten edit made at this place at 21:06, which my post below refers to, can still be found here. --Thorsten1 22:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is obvious enough from the above who is answering to the point and who is making attacks instead. --Thorsten1 21:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, it is bad form to write something, wait until it is replied to, and then completely modify what you wrote in an attempt to make the reply look off the point.

"No reason for continuing in such manner, the discussion doesn't involve any article-unless you want to discuss any particular change to an article or article I see no reason to engage in such discussions". I could hardly agree more. But to be perfectly clear about it, this is my talk page. You keep posting to it without any tangible things to say - I did not invite you here to discuss with me. I'm polite enough to reply - which does not mean I enjoy it and would be very disappointed if you left my talk page for good. --Thorsten1 22:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC) [diff corrected, --Thorsten1 09:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)].

Molobo, I do not appreciate it when people change their contributions in a discussion ex post to manipulate the reader's perception of follow-up posts. Fortunately, I have never seen anybody actually do that - except you, of course. What I appreciate even less is when someone manipulates not just their own, but other people's posts, even on their very own talk page - as you did here.

On 8 February 2006 I already wrote "if you have tangible objections to my edits in specific articles, simply voice them on those articles' talk pages. By posting nebulous interpretations to my talk page you are wasting my time as well as yours." You said quite the same yesterday, namely: "No reason for continuing in such manner, the discussion doesn't involve any article-unless you want to discuss any particular change to an article or article I see no reason to engage in such discussions". Aside from your ridiculous insinuation that it was me obtruding myself on you here, instead of vice versa, I absolutely agree. So I suggest that from now on we limit our interaction to the talk pages of articles on which we disagree. Should your impertinent falsifications on my talk page continue, I reserve the right to revert them without further comment. --Thorsten1 09:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board

Hello! I'd like to inform you of the relatively new Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board, in case you weren't aware of it before. Feel free to participate with the project! Olessi 21:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks much better now than it did the last time I had a look. --Thorsten1 21:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Template-problem.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Template-problem.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 14:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record: The image is a partial screenshot of a Wikipedia page, so it is about as copyright-free as it gets. However, it is no longer needed and should really be deleted. --Thorsten1 20:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support and clarifications ([9]). I greatly appreciate it. (Unfortunately, I am also pretty sure Molobo is going to ignore it and slander some more whenever he has the opportunity.) Best wishes and happy editing -- Chris 73 | Talk 16:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Kusma's RfA

Hello, Thorsten1! Thank you for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. If you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 02:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

afraid of true? or Anti-Semit? Or Pole? Same thing. Nietecza 12:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Afraid of wrong. That' all. ;) Now go back wherever you came from, please. --Thorsten1 12:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

have u read what I wrote

accusations may be wrong, witch doesnt change the fact, that they exists

Nietecza 13:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Eye think ur time iz bedder spent workin on ur speling. ;) --Thorsten1 13:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool, your argumentation kills me. Nothing more to say? then roll back the changes in Poland, or use your imagination, cause abbreviation without grounds is vandalism. Nietecza 13:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You're getting better! --Thorsten1 13:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice, but u still have not answered my question Nietecza 16:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Who the hell are those "u" guys you keep talking about? --Thorsten1 16:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, u=you. Now, anwser my question!!!

Thanks for explaining your highly ideosyncratic orthography. Please remember to sign your comments. As for the rest, since you ask so politely: I don't intend to waste my time "discussing" with people who make statements like "every single pole is anti-Semitic, nazi and homophobic" [10], "Poles were as responsible as Germans (or even more)! It should be [...] Nazi Poland and Germany" [11], "poles and Nazis were working together [...] everyone knows that every single pole is anti-Semitic and most of anti-Semitis are poles. They were murdering Jews with pleasure [...] if you defend them, then u r nazi just like poles" [12], "You [Poles] are liars and u call me a vandal, couse I said loud that you have blood on your hands. [...] you were Adolf's pets, killing Jews as he said. I no wonder he overruned poland so easly - because he gave you oportunity to make polish dream come true - killing Jews" [13]. I hope this answers your question. --Thorsten1 19:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

these are my personal opinions, and they nothing to do with fact, that these accusations (even if they are, yeah - right, false) they exists. And since they exists, they should be on wikipedia. And fact that you people makes me sick has nothing to do with that.

and I don't want your discussion. I want you to explain your vandalistic actions!

"I want you to explain your vandalistic actions". I could ask the same of you. But then you have already thoroughly explained that your vandalism reflects your "personal opinions, and they nothing to do with fact". Which is why I believe you have come to the wrong place. Do us all - including yourself - a favour, and move on to a random hate site where contributions of this intellectual quality are more welcome. --Thorsten1 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

hypocrite, liar & polnisch schwein

Poor you, you must really be having an awful time in Poland, whence your IP no. 83.21.75.252 reveals you are writing. I will not respond to further posts from you. --Thorsten1 12:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies

Thank you for informing me of the mistake, as I believe one can only get better through making mistakes. I was using the "live spell" feature and assumed all the text was in English. Unfortunately I forgot that references can sometimes be in different languages. I'm sorry for rushing throught the edit, I will take more care next time. Happy Editing! PerfectStorm 03:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I fact, I immediately assumed that some bot caused this, but then dismissed the idea when I saw that you are still a very new user to Wikipedia... Sorry for "misunderestimating you big time". ;) --Thorsten1 08:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Arrested in Shanghai

Please note that the edit history of merged content needs to be retained per the GFDL. Therefore, merge and delete is not a valid combination. (This can be found in Wikipedia:Merge and the guide to deletion). Also, if you redirect to the band, people will find the info we have which discourages recreation. - 11:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I replied here. Apart from that, I'm skeptical about redirects discouraging recreation. --Thorsten1 12:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

We missed you!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I was missing you, too. ;) --Thorsten1 09:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Drang nach Osten

Hey Thorsten! I tried to clean up the text of Drang nach Osten a bit. Feel free to correct/expand/source as you see fit. Olessi 22:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I very much agree with your edits. This article has been on my to-do list for a very long time; however, at the moment I'm a bit a bit weary to get involved due to the potential for (time and attention consuming) conflict with certain editors who tend to have a very "essentialist" approach to this topic... :) --Thorsten1 18:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Hello Thorsten1! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with us.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate this. --Thorsten1 11:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Polityka.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Polityka.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Zygmunt_Bauman_Adorno-Prize.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Zygmunt_Bauman_Adorno-Prize.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Butseriouslyfolks 09:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Andrzej_Stasiuk.jpg

I have tagged Image:Andrzej_Stasiuk.jpg as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. MER-C 12:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Jerzy Pilch.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Jerzy Pilch.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. High on a tree (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Molobo

Despite popular opinion, there has not been a single DR that has found that user to be problematic. I operate on 'innocent until proven guilty' rule, and he is an expert on those subjects. Do let me know if his actual edits violate any wiki policies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe we're ever going to agree on this. I have no idea what a DR is, but I consider Molobo a textbook example of extreme POV-pushing. He wasn't blocked for a whole year for no reason at all, and I can't see that he mended his ways since then. I don't have the time to observe his edits, but I'm sure I'd find plenty of examples for continuing violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of Wikipedia's policies. However, I'm equally sure that he is not exactly short of compatriots willing to go to great lengths to defend him. --Thorsten1 (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:JerzySzacki-SzewachWeiss.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:JerzySzacki-SzewachWeiss.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NIKE_Polish_literature_award.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:NIKE_Polish_literature_award.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Curiosity

What made you create an article on Gregor Thum? I ask, because he teaches at the same university I attend :) Do you know him? I believe I met him once, briefly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a small world: Turns out there's just one degree of separation between us. I had no idea what university you're attending. Drang nach Westen? ;) Although I did meet Thum (twice), I started the article because I liked his book about the transition from Breslau to Wrocław. --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC) PS: I'm going to leave a comment at Talk:Gregor Thum later.

Orphaned non-free image (File:Rzeczpospolita logo.gif)

You've uploaded File:Rzeczpospolita logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

SPI

Since the Sciurinae's evidence was just moved back to the project page, it is now only your evidence still hidden within the discussion. Maybe you can copypaste the paragraph into a section "Evidence presented by Thorsten1" below Sciurinae's section, so all the evidence will be lined up in one place. Thank you Skäpperöd (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint! However, my evidence was a single misspelling that was on the project page to begin with and Sciurinae has already inserted in the relevant section. The rest was just interpretation. --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

New Swabia

Thanks. You were seeing some artifacts left over from when one or two editors tried to push an "Esoteric Nazi" PoV on the topic (and which I had tamped down) a few years ago. As I recall, the original (codswallop) assertion was that through some "legal loophole," New Swabia was still under the civil jurisdiction of Hitler's Third Reich (which is to say, the TR still existed there judicially). The terms of the 8 May 1945 surrender at Reims indeed gave the Allies the legal means to wipe out all civil jurisdiction of the TR in one fell swoop, which they did in June. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"It was posted on evidence page Thorsten1"

At this point, with comments moved around and removed who knows. But one of the clerks did say that CU showed that Gwinn was operating from a mobile service provider. There's no inside knowledge here - it is/was all public, unlike this secret evidence. Once again, you're jumping to your preset conclusions based on a very flimsy basis.radek (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, Radek. I know (and actually quoted it) that the CU showed that Gwinn was operating from a mobile service provider. But that it was a mobile service provider does not mean that its client does not have a permament residence in Poland. Besides, my intuition (not quite a conclusion) that Molobo is Gwinndeith is no more and no more less "preset" than your conclusion that he is not Gwinndeith. --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, here: "they geolocate to the same region in the country and one provider seems to be exclusively a mobile provider and the other seems to be a regular provider", [14].radek (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the bit I quoted. Where is there anything about anyone's "permanent residence"? --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I wrote indicates not proves Thorsten1. My belief is that this is a person not from Poland, forced to use a non-permenent connection.This is based on previous discussions of Scinurae regarding attempts to end my edits on Wiki and how to do it with other users. This behaviour would fit the template. Especially bringing into Scinurae level of obsession manifested throughout the years about me and his instant 'revealation' that IP won't be the same combined with showing supposed similitarites instantly from years of edits.

As to my "dangerous edits"-for your talk you failed to give a single one example of such. I really think you are unable to provide one. Prove me wrong if you can, I would be eager to know what to correct in my writing and edits--Molobo (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"I wrote indicates not proves Thorsten1" - I see you're trying to weasel back. The vast majority of mobile internet connections in Poland will be used by Polish residents. The notion that the fact that someone is using a mobile access alone "indicates" that this person has no "permanent residence" is absurd. The notion that Sciurinae, who for all I know doesn't even speak Polish, would travel to Poland and get a mobile connection there (roaming with non-Polish providers is prohibitively expensive), set up a sock-puppet and imitate your writing style, is even more absurd. The "secret" evidence must be really very plausible (or you must have a reason to expect it's plausible) if you have to go to such lengths to dispute it. And you're talking about the "level of obsession" of other people? Give me a break. "As to my "dangerous edits"-for your talk you failed to give a single one example of such." Of course, because that's not the purpose of the page, which is strictly about the SPI. Even so, some admin got fed up with our discussion and collapsed the whole thing... and I can't blame him. If you survive this procedure without getting blocked (as I'm afraid you will), and we'll meet again in some content-related dispute, there'll be no shortage of examples for your POV edits. Besides, I already said goodnight and sleep well on your SPI page. --Thorsten1 (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said Scinurae traveled to Poland. Did you just reveal something ? Alhough perhaps by coincident Skapperod mentioned traveling from somewhere to Berlin to greet Scinurae...roaming with non-Polish providers is prohibitively expensive Interesting-so you know prices of using internet in Poland for people outside of Poland Thorsten1 ?

"set up a sock-puppet and imitate your writing style, is even more absurd" I encountered people on several boards writing that I must be stoped. I was issued a death threat by person who later tried to locate my real world identity.-trying to imitate a sockuppet is least of my worries when dealing with people opposing my work on detailing Nazi crimes. Have ever heard about Redwatch ?

"there'll be no shortage of examples for your POV edits" If there are so many examples I am sure you would be able to give one out of hand. Since you can't I can only let others judge if there is anything behind your words or just the usual hot air allegations.--Molobo (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

To preface this, it's a strange sort of honor that your last edit before being blocked for another year should be on my page. :-| Of course, I'm going to answer your post.

"I never said Scinurae traveled to Poland." You said that "this is a person not from Poland, forced to use a non-permenent connection.This is based on previous discussions of Scinurae regarding attempts to end my edits". The only thing I can infer from this is that you suspect that either Sciurinae - or perhaps an unknown person in contact with him - is traveling to Poland to impersonate a sock of yours.

"Interesting-so you know prices of using internet in Poland for people outside of Poland Thorsten1 ?" Here we go again, the notorious space-before-the-question-mark... As for your question, yes, I do. And why shouldn't I? Internet roaming is awfully expensive everywhere in Europe, not just in Poland. That's why I always use a dial-up connection when I'm in Poland.

"I was issued a death threat by person who later tried to locate my real world identity." Even if this were true, it's unclear how this is supposed to relate to your present SPI. The only reason why I might ever try and "locate" you would be in order to know which places to avoid. "Have ever heard about Redwatch ?" Not until now. But if you're implying they're after you, I can only say they've got the wrong guy: Our exchanges regarding articles like Zygmunt Bauman, Roman Giertych, Adam Michnik or Wisława Szymborska show that "red" is really the last thing you are. They rather suggest that you're a member of Redwatch Poland, rather than that they are watching you.

"I am sure you would be able to give one out of hand. Since you can't... " - the fact that I don't doesn't mean I can't. Why would I want to waste my time stating the obvious? Just because you're challenging me? ... I can only let others judge if there is anything behind your words". Good idea, let others judge. Do następnego razu - ale mam nadzieję, że nie będzie to aż tak prędko... ;) --Thorsten1 (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point, Molobo has been blocked. Will you stand by your earlier comments and request that the evidence is made public now? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"Will you stand by your earlier comments and request that the evidence is made public now?" Piotruś, I had already revised my comment one week ago. In case you missed it - after all, the procedure was a hell of a mess, so it's plausible that you did - here is my statement once again: "I have to back down from my earlier statement regarding the publication of evidence if and after any actions have been taken against Molobo: I didn't think about the fact that even if Molobo gets blocked permanently, he may go on creating sockpuppets whose identification will be made more difficult, as he'll be careful not to repeat any mistakes that have identified him. So yes, there is a case for publishing the evidence, but there is an even better case for not publishing it - you just have to pick the lesser of two evils." [15] Also, in the meantime I've had a closer look at the published evidence and came to the conclusion that it's enough to conclude that Gwinndeith and Molobo are the same person. I haven't seen any unpublished evidence myself, so my understanding of the published evidence is not influenced by it. --Thorsten1 (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Molobo's SPI case

Dear Thorsten1,

You wrote here that I was ousted from the Molobo SPI case due to lack of experience. I wasn't ousted at any point during the case. For the past 20 days, I discussed with Sciurinæ regarding the case off-wiki. He collected solid evidence and sent it to me. We discussed about the nature of the evidence, which evidence to post on-wiki, and so on. I also analyzed the editing pattern of both Gwinndeith and Molobo. The evidence collected by Sciurinæ was very strong, and I was almost sure that the two accounts were owned by one and only one individual even before Avraham published the CU result. On 31 May, after Molobo realized that I was not on his side, he launched an attack on me (See my talkpage). I've not mentioned anything about me, so it was not appropriate for me to close the case (I could be a German, who know?). I contacted Avraham and asked him to act fast. Avraham determined that the published evidence and CU result were enough to conclude that Gwinndeith is a sockpuppet of Molobo. He didn't require the secret evidence to conclude that the two accounts were owned by one person. The secret evidence is very strong, and they could be useful to catch future socks of Molobo. After Avraham took the decision, some editors make needless comments here and there. I decided to use strong words and close the needless discussion at AN. You also helped with your input, but I wasn't ousted from this case due to lack of experience. The case went off-track for a while, but at the end of the day, the case was closed appropriately.

Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry if my choice of words gave you a wrong impression. Again, I find no fault whatsoever with your handling of this case, and I would like to thank you for your efforts. The somewhat unfortunate statement that you seemed to be have been "ousted" (note that I put this in quotes) from the case actually came about in an attempt to defend you against criticism I feel is undue. I already tried to set this straight on the SPI talk, but you must have missed my post there as it got reverted by Synergy, who (correctly) pointed out that that discussion was already over and archived. Please read the diff to better understand what I was trying to get across. Again, I'm grateful for your work and hope there are no hard feelings. --Thorsten1 (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I talked with several editors about this case off-wiki. I also analyzed two ArbCom cases: Piotrus-Ghirla and Eastern European disputes. It was a tough and thankless job. As an admin, I did my best for the case. AdjustShift (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What for did you analyse the two ArbCom cases Piotrus-Ghirla and Eastern European dispute? Was that suggested to you by Sciurinæ during your off-wiki discussions for 20 days? Loosmark (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, you have made it unmistakably clear that you "don't care about what [I] think about this case" [16], haven't you? Therefore, if you have any reason at all to doubt AdjustShift's work, or the outcome of the SPI, I suggest you discuss this over on AdjustShift's talk page instead or, more appropriate still, forward a formal complaint to ArbCom. --Thorsten1 (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I read the diff.[17] Thanks for your work; throughout the case, your input was useful. It was not a Polish vs. German case. Molobo was guilty. If a German were to engage in disruptive activities such as sockpuppetry, he will be blocked. We have certain social rules; nobody can cross them. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this was a case of Bahamas vs Mongolia. That's why you needed to analyse the Piotrus-Ghirla and Eastern European disputes ArbComs ;) Anyway i've no bad feelings towards you and i wish you good luck in your future work on wikipedia. Loosmark (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"Indeed, this was a case of Bahamas vs Mongolia." To be absolutely correct, it was a case of Wikipedia vs. Sockpuppets. That the sockpuppet in this case happened to be Polish was irrelevant. But I forgot, you don't want to hear my opinion anyway. --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I don't want to hear your opinion but you were starting to exaggerate by repeating your opinion again and again everywhere. Anyway in an ideal world what you say would be true, Wikipedia vs. Sockpuppets, which would mean they would need to analyse the edits made by those two suspect editors, then make that CheckUser thing and all that and would be that. However as you can see the admins also had to analyse the Eastern European Disputes ArbCom which probably gave them additional background info about the main players involved. But anyway since it seems that wikipedia policies strictly don't allow discussions about cases unless under formal request for review I propose we stop discussing it. Loosmark (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"you were starting to exaggerate by repeating your opinion again and again everywhere." Actually, so were you, I was just responding to it. Why would I want to repeat my opinion again and again when the result of the SPI was okay with me? "Anyway in an ideal world what you say would be true, Wikipedia vs. Sockpuppets..." In a perfect world, there wouldn't be any sockpuppets in the first place (and no nationalist POVs, either). "the admins also had to analyse the Eastern European Disputes ArbCom" I don't know if anybody had to do that. But isn't it perfectly normal, if you are trying to recognize patterns, to look at places where you're likely to find them? One could just as easily reverse your complaint: "What, you only looked at the evidence presented by one person and didn't even try to look outside the box? How unfair!" "wikipedia policies strictly don't allow discussions about cases unless under formal request for review" They do allow them alright, although if you want to have cases reviewed, the way to go is to formally request it. Everything else is ok, but people do get fed up at some point when accusations or suspicions are repeated in various places ad nauseam (like "there was secret evidence", "off-wiki communication", "it took too long", "are you German" etc.). This can get to the point of being downright disruptive, and wikilawyering - i.e., exploiting the rules' letter to the max while ignoring their spirit - is always considered disruptive. So if you can reasonably argue that Molobo was treated unfairly, please take it to a venue that can actually do something about it, but not to userpages. This looks as if you're just trying to create trouble so you can go and argue that the result was "controversial" or "dubious" or whatever, when it really wasn't. BTW I'm wondering why is none of you guys is spilling any tears over Gwinndeith, when (s)he has the same POV and you're so very much convinced that he is an actual person and not a sock? All I hear about is Molobo, while Gwinndeith never seems to be mentioned at all... "I propose we stop discussing it". Yes, we really should now. --Thorsten1 (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well Perry Mason always exploited the rules to the maximum. The spirit of the rules can sometimes be a bit of a problematic term because there can always be more than one interpretation. Btw one last thing, why did you have such a strong interest in this case? Loosmark (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Mmm. I would rather say the spirit is usually clear, although imperfectly captured by words allowing for diverging interpretations. But this is getting too philosophical. As for your other question, you're more than welcome to scroll up this page to read-up about Molobo and myself. We go back a long way, really. How about you then? From my angle, you seemed to jump into this dispute straight out of nowhere... :D --Thorsten1 (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh i was unware of that.. so you had past conflicts with Molobo... interesting. For my part i had no previous interactions with either Molobo or any of his accusers that i remember of, therefore for all practical purposes, in this case, i could be considered an external, neutral observer whos only interests lies in improving the project and asure maximum possible objectivity :) Loosmark (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"i could be considered an external, neutral observer whos only interests lies in improving the project and asure maximum possible objectivity" And you stumbled upon this SPI purely by chance, of course. Considering this, your style in this discussion has been characterized by a strange sort of frenzy. Was it all just an act then? ;) --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

And you stumbled upon this SPI purely by chance, of course. Of course. Considering this, your style in this discussion has been characterized by a strange sort of frenzy. Almost as strange as the fact that every discussion got a bit derailed as soon as you've joined it ;) Loosmark (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid we're not going to find any common ground here. You say I "kept repeating your opinion again and again everywhere" - when I was just responding to opinions you put there first. You say ""every discussion got a bit derailed as soon as you've joined it" - when I was just trying to get them back on track after you tried to derail them with off-topic conspiracy theories... Let's just agree to disagree. :) --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well if i remember correctly in the last discussion on the socketpuppet investigation page i didn't even mention the spefic case or anybody conntected to it, i was just trying to understand more about the secret evidence. But you jumped in and accused me of trying to launch hidden accusations or suspicions (!?!??) Anyway i agree lets agree to disagree, have a nice day and good luck. Loosmark (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"Well if i remember correctly in the last discussion on the socketpuppet investigation page i didn't even mention the spefic case" - you do remember correctly, but we both know your question was in direct reference to the case, don't we? Further, your questions conveyed the messages that (1) "secret evidence" had been a factor for the outcome of a recent SPI, (2) no evidence that was ever so much as mentioned in a SPI case, whether relevant to the decision or not, should be allowed to remain unpublished unless there was a "protocol" allowing to do so. You even went as far as saying that such a "protocol" might override the privacy of correspondence and even regulate what editors are allowed to keep on their computers. OK, but let's simply agree to agree to disagree. We may continue this as soon as Molobo returns, although I assume you won't be there then, seeing that you got involved in this case purely by chance. ;) I wish you a nice day, too! :) --Thorsten1 (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Thorsten1! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 272 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Scott Litt - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Jerzy Szacki - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Mennan Yapo - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Fakt cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Fakt cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Courcelles 01:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Dziennik cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Dziennik cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Nowy dzien.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Nowy dzien.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guenther Roth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frederick Pollock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Helena Flam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Migration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Polityka.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Polityka.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)