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

Hello, MyMoloboaccount. You have new messages at Virago250's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Glad too see that you are back, your contributions are appreciated--Woogie10w (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we keep this to Talk:Max Weber, where I suggest you repost your comment from my talk page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the link! Regarding your remark about the work of Polish historians, I'll would like to bring in some work by Polish historians (which are unfortunately not always available in English as much as one might like), so given my linguistic limitations, if you know of any work that has been translated into English that you can recommend, I'll be very interested. Changing the topic, I'll like to discuss with you in confidence for reasons that I will make clear some concerns on my part about some sinister going-ons around here. I'll e-mail you in the next couple of days, if that is Ok. Thank you again, and please have a wonderful day!--A.S. Brown (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Well, it's you who moved the page without a prior discussion, knowing about the different views about it. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Do you actually understand the different definitions of Pomerania in Poland and Germany? The scholary books on the subject (e.g. Meier) don't use your "original name", but who cares, it's just another hoax on wikipedia. Have a nice day. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of your recent edits violates the established policy of doublenaming places sharing a German-Polish history as defined in the well known Gdansk vote.

For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig).

Contrary to these principles you removed the alternative names mentioned in brackets. Please restore the proper names in accordance with the Gdansk vote as

Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism.

Thanks. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No shared history in the section mentioned. Hence no double naming just like in other articles about these locations where we only use Polish names-see 1988 Polish strikes for example where only Polish names are used, since no shared history exists. Or Euro 2012 where no Germanized names are used either. Or Adoptation of Christianity by Mieszko were we also don't use Germanizied versions of Polish names.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the lead section of Pomerania during the High Middle Ages describes it:

Starting in the High Middle Ages, a large influx of German settlers and the introduction of German law, custom, and Low German language gradually turned most of the area into a German one.

Thus the article obviously covers a period of shared history. Unfortunately you preferred to remove further names in violation of the Gdansk vote [1]. Please don’t continue this behaviour as violations of this policy might be treated as vandalism. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you are going to remove "Szczecin" from AG Vulcan Stettin, Stoewer etc. as there was nothing Polish about these companies. Your misinterpretation of the Gd. vote is remarkable. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"They had Polish workers", Oh I see. I know someone working for a Polish company in Warsaw, didn't know that's enough to Germanize the respective articles. Seriously, that's absurd. HerkusMonte (talk)

As already explained above the Gdansk vote is absolutely clear about the usage of alternate names in brackets, you might take it to WP:3O. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading Talk:Szczecin and noticed your (in my opinion, correct) suggestion that Polish sources be used in an article about a Polish city. However, you mentioned something about "XX century" history. You might not realize that this is not how centuries are described in English. Centuries are always numbered in Arabic numerals or words - "20th century" or "twentieth century", but never "XX century". I've been told by other Polish editors that this quirk isn't mentioned in English courses taught at Polish schools or universities, so it can trip up even the most careful editor.

Roman numerals have very limited uses in the anglosphere. You can't be confident that the average anglophone will even understand a Roman numeral, let alone use one. (These days the only place you see them outside the US is on very old clocks and buildings and in monarchs' names, such as Queen Elizabeth II. In the US you see them in the Super Bowl title and, sometimes, in proper names - but in the latter case they rarely get past III.) Good luck! --NellieBly (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; English is sometimes very strange. --NellieBly (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete/refactor other editor's threads on the Administrator's noticeboard. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you were trying to do with your edit at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but you deleted large portions of several discussions. I've reverted this edit and restored about 160k of text in the process. —C.Fred (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this edit by you wiped a lot of other contributors edits from the page - so I have reverted you. You may wish to re-introduce your edit again. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I may make a suggestion, when posting to ANI or similar high trafficked pages; when you have composed your comment instead of pressing "Save page" instead highlight your text, save it to your clipboard and press "cancel". Then again hit the edit function and paste your comment into the correct place and then hit "Save page". Hopefully the less elapsed time will mean that you will not create a situation where other editors comments are lost. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brier is an expert on Polish-German relations and currently working at the German Historical Institute in Warsaw. The source is published by the University of Munich and very detailed. I don't see a reason not to use it. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brier finished his studies in 2001 and worked at the Center for International Realtions in Warsaw in 2002-2003.[2] I don't have more detailed informations about him. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sure you know how to deal with sources you consider unreliable, a simple deletion is not the right way. However, WP:RS gives just examples of reliable sources. WP:SOURCES explains it more detailed:

"Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources (...). But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, (...) Other reliable sources include university-level (...) books published by respected publishing houses. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria."

I don’t know about Brier’s academic background at the time when he completed this study and whether it might be considered "scholary" per WP:RS. It is for sure on a university-level and it is published at the Bavarian State Library's and University of Munich’s digital library[3], a highly respected institution. If you disagree you might use the appropriate way to solve the problem. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class
		On behalf of WikiProject Poland, for your your Poland-related contributions, I, Piotrus, award you this Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class. Czołem! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
		this WikiAward was given to MyMoloboaccount by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk on 01:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Maji Maji Rebellion could be a project for you. The loss of life was at least 200k, far more than in Namibia. Don't blame me, my fathers parents were US citizens by then, they had renounced allegiance to the Kaiser.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will look on that. The article on German colonial empire also needs expansion in the future.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your 1RR restriction is a necessary condition of your permaban being vacated. Today, you violated your 1RR restriction at Oder-Neisse line:

• quote added [4]
• your 1st revert [5]
• quote restored with explanation [6]
• your 2nd revert [7]

Skäpperöd (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that is only one revert[8]. This was a major edit [9] not revert to a previous state before Herkus edit here[10]- I kept the parts about the speech by James F. Byrnes and information but without excessive quoting. Anyway I self-reverted here for safety[11] but missed the cut and past part. It is now restored. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:1RR, which applies in your case, it is considered a violation if you revert "actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word."
• Your so-called self-revert [12] did not undo your 2nd revert [13], instead, the material was restored later by someone else [14].
• Another necessary condition of your permaban being vacated is that you address any reverts you may perform on the article's talk page. You have failed to do so with either of the abovementioned reverts. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to correct your claims. I wasn't permabanned Skapperod, but subject to indefinite ban. These two are quite different-something I believe you know as experienced Wiki user. Also Moreschi stated that my condition is that you discuss all reverts you do make on the relevant talk page, not that I have to start discussions on relevant talk page but participate in discussions. Which I do-and for your comfort I started one even. But do AGF-I self reverted to avoid accusations of edit warring, but missed that the copy and paste section didn't click on my lousy mouse(In hindsight I shouldn't correct some minor changes at the same edit), also I think that my extensive explanations of edits are sufficient. But I will ask Moreschi for clarification. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What "permaban"? The blocking of the previous account because it might have been hacked? Slandering users and insinuating things which are blatantly false only contributes to the battleground atmosphere in this area, not to mention that it's just not nice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please stop your baseless accusations of "manipulating" sources as you did here. As I already suggested at Talk:Zygmunt Wojciechowski#Manipulating sources?, we might discuss whether a summary is complete or needs further details. Your repeated accusations show a battleground mentality and are neither reasonable nor acceptable.

You are currently under editing restrictions as outlined here ("..if you make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, you may be blocked for any time limit up to a week")

If you continue to accuse editors of a manipulative usage of sources I will take that as a repeated assumption of bad faith and incivility. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Masuria violates the well known Gdańsk vote (For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig)) as Masuria and the towns within for sure share a Polish-German history.

The Gdansk vote further continues:

Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism.

Please respect this established community consensus. Thanks. HerkusMonte (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, in this case MMA's change is correct. G/D vote applies to historical naming and to ledes. Those names don't belong in that section of the Masuria article anymore than they belong here in List of cities and towns in Poland (and please don't try to make any WP:POINTY edits to that article). Quite simply, we use modern names. You can of course use historical German names in the history section. I'm going to revert that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't HK. For instance the articles about województwa in Poland don't have German names inserted, even if Warsaw was part of Germany under Nazis.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I ask you to stop using the term "Manipualtion" whenever you might think a user has left out information you regard as important. The repeated usage of such a term is offensive and violates WP:AGF. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recall you wrote once that Polish photos were allowed for free use up to a certain year. We all know German WWII photos taken by German photographers can be used. The query here is as to a photo-see:Talk:Reinhard Heydrich (File:The place where Reinhard Heydrich was killed.jpg Nominated for Deletion) taken after the assassination attempt. The photo is up for deletion. Do you know anything about Czech photos and whether they are up for free use, too? I think it should be kept, if it can be done. Kierzek (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tip, I got many sources - Motyka, Kulińska, Poliszczuk, but not much time to do it;( Could you help with translation article pl:Grody Czerwieńskie, first of all section: membership. Cherven Towns is diffrent from Red Ruthenia. Redgards--Paweł5586 (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Collegium Hosianum violates the well known Gdańsk vote (For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig)) as Masuria and the towns within for sure share a Polish-German history.

The Gdansk vote further continues:

Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism.

Please respect this established community consensus. Thanks. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Georg_von_Vincke. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You might read the page you are posting to:. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. If you would come here first and discussed it friendly matter, I would gladly correct what were some mistakes on my part, that is wrongly given page numbers in couple of cases. Also the page is not for content disputes.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could offer some insights at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Ost (East). It is closer to your area of expertise than to mine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Thank you. I expressed my opinion. The author before made very good contributions in other aspects of Wiki, and this seems another one, although requiring a better name.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Nowogard, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Grod (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. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 13:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Molobo, thank you again for all your kind words and interesting ideas. It is nice to see that someone else out there who knows and cares about history. I see no problems at all with the clean war myth template, other the need for some references, and maybe a few stylistic changes here or there. Now, that I seeing the end of working the graveyard shift, and getting back to getting days again, that's a huge backload of things that I need to get caught up with around here. So, there a few other things that I wanted to get caught up, and then I'll make some changes There's all sorts of good sources one one can use for this subject, especially that book The Myth of The Eastern Front, which was the subject of such dispute on the Manstein talk page. The only limitation of that book is that it limited to the image of the Wehrmacht and its supposed "clean war" in the United States. But still it reveals much about how history was re-written and repackaged. Two great book on the subject of the "clean war" myth is Wehrmacht Myth, History Reality by Wolfram Wette and War Of Extermination: The German Military in World War II. In English, Christian Streit, Jürgen Förster, Omer Bartov, Richard J. Evans, Michael Burleigh, Lord Russell of Liverpool, Raul Hilberg, Ian Kershwa and Mark Mazower all strong on the subject. Mazower's book Inside Hitler's Greece has an entire chapter on the subject of Wehrmact crimes in Greece. Evans's book In Hitler's Shadow has an entire chapter devoted to blasting the "clean war" myth, which is somewhat depressing if one remembers that book was published in 1989, and still most people out there still believe in the "clean war". Rarely, has the discount between historians and popular memory been so large. Because of the Cold War, most historians in the West believed in the "clean war" in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, but nobody has believed in it since the 1980s, except at Wikipedia, where it still gets repeated ad nauseum.

The only suggestion that I might want to make is, and this something that I talked to you about in more detail later is to look at the reason why people are receptive to the "clean war" myth. You already hit the hammer upon the nail by noting two very good reasons for it. In Germany, there was and still is the nationalist need for a history that makes us feel good. Beyond that, there was the Cold War, which led and still leads some people to see the Wehrmacht as a "bulwark against Bolshevism" holding back the "Asiatic hordes". I might suggest one more reason for the "clean war" myth, and that is sex. The image of the Wehrmact as super-soldiers appeals to men who for whatever reason feel sexually inadequate and so they live out vivacious fantasies of masculinity and power by embracing the Wehrmact as a symbol of power. Having turned the Wehrmacht into manly heroes to allow them to live out a vivacious fantasy, these guys have no interest in hearing about genocide and war crimes by the Wehrmacht. But that is just a minor point. Thanks again for the kind words and keep up the good work!--A.S. Brown (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MyMoloboaccount regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trolling, I already answered your questions at the talk page[15]. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Here is a project you may want to include on your "to do list" The Blockade of Germany included the blockade of German occupied Poland. The 1928 German academic report on the blockade Deutschlands Gesundheitsverhältnisse unter dem Einfluss des Weltkrieges did not break out the deaths by region. Over 40 years ago older Germans( 80+) from Danzig and the east told me of the WW1 famine, a diet of apples and turnips!! They claimed Germans in the West were not as bad off as they were in the east. I wonder if the Prussian bureaucrats in Berlin were starving the Poles in order to feed Germany. What do Polish academic sources have to tell us on the WW1 blockade? Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

here (zap one step back to read the dirt).

[self-irony] I am german, and depending on the rotation of the earth, mostly i am closer to the left than to the right edge of the disk [/self-irony]. On the first view it is too much to analyze, whether you have the propagandistic bias that is criticised. I doubt that your politic of editing in wikipedia, and all of your arguments are always sound, as I doubt that for anybody else, including myself. And therefore, digging deeper, I found some of your arguments scientifically well supported. Therefore they have their own right in Wikipedia. In everyday life, with people in germany and in poland, I notice a tendency, to forget unpleasant historic facts, and to make friendship on the base of embellishing the own past. The opposite is neccessary: friendship on base of unpleasant historic reality. Though it sounds crazy.

There are convincing reasons, to treat nazi comparisons as an „unsubject” in internet communication. Nevertheless, I understand your remarks about bad jokes and propaganda, when you tried to defend yourself. The dilemma is, such comparisons, when you want to speak the truth, and want to communicate about the subject in a way that leads to somewhere, need another level of language to work, than you have used. I believe we share the category, whether someone acts humanfriendly or not. The mobbing propaganda against you is absolutely intolerable not only from this point of view. Best wishes, --fluss (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC) small addition --fluss (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC) I concentrate on content, long time ago I realized that this wiki off topic debates about editors are usually waste of time and lead to nothing productive, so most of the tiem I don't even read it these days..--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Kingdom of Poland (1916–1918), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dąbrowa (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) 10:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Lekarze orzekli nie mniej ni więcej tylko raka, nie zważając na ogólne kontuzje, opowiedzieli się za koniecznością operacji. Operacja się odbyła, podobno otwarto jamę brzuszną i zaszyto z powrotem z powodu beznadziejnego stanu. Jakaś życzliwa ręka podała mu bezpośrednio po zabiegu alkohol do picia. Ostatnią wolą umierającego była prośba do żony, aby pochowała go w Olsztynie, gdyż wiedział że w Wawrochach nie spoczywałby w spokoju. Zmarł 29 marca 1920 roku w Olsztynie. Tam również został pochowany i od 1973 roku przy al. Wojska Polskiego ma swój pomnik."

My Polish is rudimental but I think the source says that he died after an unsuccessful cancer surgery. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote what you mean. I think the first sentence says he was tortured, not murdered. The source describes that he was sent to a hospital because of his injuries but died of cancer, regardless of the treatment before. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would contradict the detailed version as quoted above. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, because the cancer was lethal. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Lekarze orzekli nie mniej ni więcej tylko raka, nie zważając na ogólne kontuzje, opowiedzieli się za koniecznością operacji. Operacja się odbyła, podobno otwarto jamę brzuszną i zaszyto z powrotem z powodu beznadziejnego stanu." HerkusMonte (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that our text apprehension differs that much, but I still think that the source clearly states that he died "regardless of his injuries" because his cancer surgery was unsuccessful. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Tymek for a translation. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Tymek is known to be in heavy dispute with me that is a surprising choice Herkus.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, both the German and the Polish side established an immense "public relation" campaign. In political context such a campaign is usually described as "Propaganda" and that headline was established long ago. The violent atmosphere was however a result of such propaganda and that's why it belongs to that section. What I don't think is helpful is to mention only German activities under a topic named "Propaganda" while the Polish campaign is presented as an attempt of Masurians to join Poland. In fact the Polish campaign had only very limited support from within Masuria (though I'm sure we disagree on that). HerkusMonte (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC) P.S. I have to take a break for a while, so I'm not going to answer your questions for some hours.[reply]

You do realise that Turosl is a very small village in the middle of nowhere and a rise from 500 to 1,000 is highly unlikely (and OR to write something like that). Any reader might judge on his own which information is more likely. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing ORish to mention the official number of inhabitants 3 years earlier compared to Partisans claims. It's you who tries to claim an immense rise of populace. However, Good Night HerkusMonte (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at East Prussian plebiscite violate the Gdańsk vote. In the pre-war timeperiod we use German names (modern Polish names in brackets) Contrary to these rules you added (only) the Polonized versions of the names. Please restore the proper names in accordance with the Gdansk vote.

Also remember that: Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism.

Thanks in advance. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Giżycko, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grod (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) 11:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest edits at Masuria violates the Gdańsk vote. Please restore the proper names in accordance with the Gdansk vote.

Also remember that: Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please recognize WP:CLAIM. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch your edits, this was unacceptable refactoring of other's comments and damaged the page archive. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• and this Fifelfoo (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• and this Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to finish up this article [16], though I'm a bit short on time. The article itself is mostly about Weigl's institute in Lwow and the lice feeders, like Banach and Herbert, who survived the war by working there. However, the article would be missing a good chunk of relevant info if it didn't talk about OTHER experiments on typhus, as carried out by the Nazis in concentration and death camps. If you know of good sources on the topic, I'd appreciate if you could add some info to it - there's a hidden "Typhus experiments on human subjects in German concentration camps" section that could use expanding. Thanks.VolunteerMarek 09:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello MyMoloboaccount. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article to which you contributed is almost B-class, but needs a few cite requests addressed. If they aren't, we will have to downgrade it to C-class. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[17]

Please see User talk:Volunteer Marek#Close by agreement?. Any such deal would also need your participation. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Friedrich Meinecke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Posen (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) 12:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have determined that there is consensus to remove your restrictions imposed in 2008. In the future, please be sure to avoid the issues that led to those sanctions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please compare the numbers of dead Czechs vs. dead Poles or dead Kroatians vs. dead Serbs.Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Friedrich Meinecke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Posen (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) 16:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maschke is the source that was cited by historians in the US to refute James Bacque, in any case the work of the Maschke commission was confirmed by Overmans. Do you have a source that says the Maschke figures are tainted?--Woogie10w (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The German historian Rüdiger Overmans puts the number of German POWs dead in the Soviet captivity at 1.0 million. Based on his research Overmans believes that the deaths of 363,000 dead POW in Soviet captivity can be confirmed be the files of Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt), he maintains that it seems entirely plausible, while not provable, that 700,000 German military personnel listed with the missing actually died in Soviet custody--Woogie10w (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

92,000 surrendered at Stalingrad, only 5,000 returned home.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not really about the numbers but how the 1.0 million missing POWs became an issue West German politics. Maschke's commission was set up to investigate the fate of the missing. Maschke concluded that the men were dead during the war, not being held as slave labor in the USSR. --Woogie10w (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kołobrzeg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subhuman (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) 15:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Erich Keyser, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halle (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) 19:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pelplin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Moloboaccount
You deleted a lot of information that I added to the article. I don't know about any banned English Patriot Man that you mentioned; as you can see I'm adding information from Germany. No suspicion please.
Simply for the sake of truth I added quotations and verifiable information that helps paint a true, a correct picture and correct common errors. Of course it's easy to simply delete information if it does not fit into one's idea. I think it's a pity and does not help truth to do so.
Let the Wikipedia-reader decide whether citizenship / ethnicity matters. I'm sure it's a false impression to say that Nazis considered Slavs subhuman (before reading more and more sources I shared the common idea considering this; not any longer) -- and I do not delete information -- I add verifiable information. Don't you think that's a better way to approach truth? Sincerely, 79.230.143.69 (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC) You are using original research(please read on this rule in wikipedia), synthesis and author connected to revisionism. Please read on Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that you also removed information that I added to the „master race” article. Without giving a source / a reason / an explanation you maintain that the Junge Freiheit would not be reliable.
I just added information to the Junge Freiheit article by adding a quotation that the Jewish writer Ephraim Kishon said in an interview with the newspaper.
Prof. Dr. Elliot Neaman who teaches at the University of San Francisco also regularly writes for the Junge Freiheit. The information I added to the Wikipedia article was written by Dr. Stefan Scheil. Why do you simply delete it?
Sincerely, 79.230.143.69 (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you doubt that Slavs were recruited for the Waffen-SS?
Do you doubt that the Wikipedia reader can decide for himself how to judge a statement from the very same pamphlet that actually is already quoted in this very article? You simply remove it.
You seem to be very sure that those secondary sources that you added were correct -– then for the sake of truth -– provide original sources, primary sources! Why not substantiate what you deem true, but instead remove information you don't want readers to know?
You insult me and accuse me of falsely presenting a wrong picture! By doing what? Adding verifiable primary sources!
I also added information to the Junge Freiheit article -- are you going to remove it?
You simply claim that Dr. Stefan Scheil can't be trusted and remove a quotation from a primary source, that he provided. No substatiation for your claim. Let's try to handle this decently. I think you err, but I do not simply erase what you added.
Sincerely, 79.230.185.191 (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_Schultze-Rhonhof In recent years, Schultze-Rhonhof published works on the history of the Causes of World War II in Europe. In this context, in May 2006 he and historians Stefan Scheil and Walter Post took part in a conference organized by the publishers Wigbert Grabert and Gert Sudholt (which are assessed as extreme right by Verfassungsschutz, the German Federal Agency for Internal Security).

Hitler's War in the East, 1941-1945: A Critical Assessment - Page 4084 "Revisionist work, such as Stefan Scheil's Fiinfplus Zwei, and idem, 1940/41, continue to be the historiographical exception"

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Scheil Scheil nahm wiederholt an Veranstaltungen teil, die auch von Rechtsextremisten ausgerichtet werden. Er war neben Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof und Walter Post Hauptreferent auf der Tagung Wollte Hitler den Krieg? vom 6. Mai 2006, die die Herausgeber der geschichtsrevisionistischen Zeitschriften „Deutsche Geschichte – Europa und die Welt“ (Druffel & Vowinckel-Verlag) und „Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart“ (Grabert Verlag) organisiert hatten.[5] Er nahm an der Jahrestagung des von Dietmar Munier gegründeten Schulvereins zur Förderung der Russlanddeutschen in Ostpreußen vom 3. bis 5. April 2009 teil,[6] und verfasste 2009 einen Beitrag für das vom rechtsextremen Druffel & Vowinckel-Verlag herausgegebene Sonderheft Deutsche Geschichte.[7] German wikipedia mentions several other points like blaming Allies for war and other activities in far right and revisionism. Enough said. He is not an acceptable source. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a disambig. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you! --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus has been reached. Two editors, Piotrus and I, have proposed a link to Nazi war crimes, and you want the text you have written, variations of which are appearing on numerous other articles. Until a consensus is reached any edits you make are subject to revision. It would be best to leave the text as is until a consensus is reached or seek alternative forms of dispute resolution. Rsloch (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding material you know to be disputed to get past the agreed desire for a consensus. I'm asking you this privately here not on the talk page to avoid any antagonism. Rsloch (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote '...the Jewish population of Silesia was subjected to Nazi genocide with executions performed by Einsatzgruppe z. B.V led by Udo von Woyrsch either placed in ghettos or expelled to the General Government and Einsatzgruppe I led by Bruno Streckenbach' Could you explain why that doesn't need editing?Rsloch (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been adding things willy nilly all day, oddly just after I've made edits, and I've had to do a clean up. Please be more careful. On Forster I said in the notes I would welcome the addition of extra material on massacres Forster was responsible for. Your additions do though need editing before inclusion and should be in the right sections ie massacres in a massacres section, Germanization in the Germanization section. The massacres at Piaśnica deserve their own section and can not be viewed as 'minor'. Rsloch (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Silesia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Between May 5 and June 17, 20,000 Silesian Jews were deported to Birkenau to be gassed. .}</ref> and during August 1942 10,000 to 13,000 Silesian Jews were murdered by gassing at Auschwitz.<

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an attempt to avoid the need to take this further. You have always, wrongly, assumed some partisan motive for my edits. Bar terminology we only really disagreed on where the mass murder of Silesia's Jewish population occurred. It's a question of fact made moot if you add Auschwitz to Silesia as seems to be the consensus on the article. Not really a reason to launch into an attack on another article's talk page. So here's an idea, you and I robustly but civilly edit each other's material as usual but agree that we have both in the past been prats towards each other and we're leaving that behind. Agreed? Rsloch (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something being sourced does not preclude it from being edited or removed. I have tried to explain every edit in the summary, and you are welcome to ask for more detail. Rsloch (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit of yours had big gaps and other strangeness inside refs. See if my "fix" was close to what you intended or not. Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kołobrzeg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subhuman (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) 16:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 7th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• , in Hew Strachan and Holger Afflerbach (eds.), How Fighting Ends. A History of Surrender (Oxford University Press 2012, page 332

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carl Maria Splett may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• during the war there was hardly any disapproval in Polish society towards sentencing Splett<ref>[http://www.tygodnik.com.pl/numer/2746/listyspletta362000.html</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will find this Russian website interesting «Скепсис» [18] My Russian is fair so I use Google translate for the text I dont understand. Regards --Woogie10w (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are perpetrating totally biased and unbalanced post war Polish propaganda here deswigned to try and justify the Polish annexation of Most of Eat Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia after WW2.

I had to remove fist part of [19] as unreferenced (feel free to restore it w/ a ref). Second part seems incomplete: what about Little Poland? Masovia? Lower Silesia? Kresy? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: [20] - I suggest summarizing this or simply moving to Regency Kingdom of Poland. I don't think Dmowski article needs any discussion of the Regency Kingdom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:History_of_Poland#Extermination_of_Jews_and_Poles. Seems like something you'd like to answer. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments about neoslavism. You may also want to look at Template:Did you know nominations/Polish nationalism. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have came to your talk page because I have seen that several of my edits into pages around Nazism, Nazism and race, the Nazis view on other people besides Germans and Hitler's own political beliefs.

I see that further up on your talk page titled "Second try for a discussion" somebody else has had this problem with you and which is why I have came to your talk page to try and resolve this problem.

I typed in "Nazis Slavs Aryan race" into Google Books and found on the first few pages the exact books that you cited as 'evidence' that they were regarded as non-Aryan, the sources you provided do not actually go in line with Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and the Wikipedia:Verifiability when citing sources.

There is overwhelming evidence that they regarded as "Aryan" as the Germans were. In fact, even Alfred Rosenberg acknowledged the Slavs as Aryan (although in his mind - lesser than Germans) and complained about the treatment Slavs and other non-Jews were receiving by the Nazis in occupied territory. The Aryan Certificate said Slavs were Aryan, the Nuremberg Laws did not effect the Slavs. The Ahnenpass mentions both Czechs and Poles (both Slavs) as examples of Aryans.

After the invasion of Poland in 1939 the streets were straight away rounded into the "Aryan Side" and the "Jewish Side" and any Poles that helped Jews by forging them "Aryan Papers" to pretend to be ethnic Poles were given the death penalty. After the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 the Russians were regarded as "Aryan" and were encouraged to fight against the Jewish Bolsheviks, even in Ukraine, Hitler was seen as "liberator from the Communists" and many Slavic SS divisions were formed to fight against Bolshevism.

The definition of "Aryan" was so loosely used that it could be used in many different ways such as: German, Germanic, Nordic, European, etc etc. Under the definition of "Aryan" by the Nazi racialists the Slavs WERE accepted as Aryan and were never racially discriminated against as all Europeans were racially equal - even by Nazis standards. It was when they used the term Aryan to mean the "Germanic race" was when Slavic peoples, Celtic peoples and others were not accepted as Aryan.

Even the term untermenschen aka subhumans was never directly applied to Slavs, yet many authors of books continue to repeat the Slavs = untermenschen myth. Please use your translator and visit this site http://actualhistory.ru/race_theory_origins--198.58.112.253 (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are refusing to co-operate with me but are simply taking out chunks of info on pages and editing to them how you want to and ignoring the talk pace of the article.

Can you please actually resolve this with me instead of simply reporting me as a sockpuppet in which I am not?

I am simply using Wikipedia and sticking to the rules which you are not, you seem to be ignoring all what is shown to you and mis-reading words and then reverting back to your version whilst reporting me which is wrong and outrageous.

Firstly, "volk" under Nazi terminology could mean "race" "European" or "Germanic" so Slavs could also be accepted in the "volk" like others, please see Volk#Nazi_era for further information.

You are seeming to forget that the sources you are showing is using the term Aryan as the 'master race' or 'Germanic people' this is not what the Nazis always used the term as, all non-Jewish Europeans were Aryans INCLUDING the Slavs.

Please go to the talk page of the master race here Talk:Master_race#Slavs_were_Aryans_but_not_part_of_the_Herrenvolk I have tried two attempts to co-operate with you about this and you are ignoring this. Please stop.--198.58.112.253 (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a recent contribution to the Folk page and put "Thus the term Volk refered in the vision of Nazis to the entirety of German nation" and the source as Literature and Film in the Third Reich but I Googled that book and found no way you can access it directly, may you show me the source fully please? I have made a section Talk:Folk#MyMoloboaccount_recent_new_edit to see what others users say as in my opinion it is irrelevant already mentioned such as the Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer the Volk in this slogan translates to nation, i.e the German nation which is what you edited and added into the article...?

I also see on a sidenote you have done this because of the Master race debate me and you have had although you have left atm unedited again, the term "volk" could mean several things and your recent new edit is just covering what is also mentioned in the article already. Any reason why you emphasized it so much apart from the fact that the Aryan description of all non-Jewish members of the European Volk meant more than just Germanic people has upset you?

Also, your page claims you to be of German and Polish descent, surely you should be aware of the "Aryan Side" in Poland after the invasion of Poland in 1939 such as Ghettos_in_Nazi-occupied_Europe#Aryan_side (there is also other articles on Wiki that mention the Aryan Side) which was mostly of ethnic Poles and the other end was the "Jewish Side" and many Jews tried to forge "Aryan papers" pretending to be ethnic Poles i.e Aryan to avoid persecution and any Poles found helping Jews were subject to the death penalty instantly, why do you deny this?--198.58.112.253 (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The unregistered editor doesn't appear to be a sockpuppet, based on comments at WP:SPI. Please discuss on article talk page or go to dispute resolution. The unregistered editor has complained at the Help Desk, but that discussion has been closed with a caution to watch for the incoming boomerang. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang came back. The IP address wasn't on the same continent as the blocked user, but that is because the IP address was an open proxy. Since the IP address was an open proxy, it should have been blocked even if it wasn't being used by a sockpuppet. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, English Patriot Man is in England, but doesn't appear to be English, as he doesn't seem capable of writing Standard British English (or any national variety of Standard Written English). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update!--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is public domain (1910) map so we can add it to Commons. Would you like me to do so? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I successfully saved the zoomified file you requested from [21]. Can you give me a filename to upload it under, the license/PD reason, and the {{information}} fields? Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MyMoloboaccount. You have new messages at Jackmcbarn's talk page.
Message added 12:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest thing is to request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion to have an article temporarily undeleted and userfied in your userspace. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Józef Beck may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Soviet Union]]. He rejected Hitler's demands for annexation of Polish territories in [[Pomorze]] ([[Pomerania]], that would cut off Polish access to the sea and its main trade route, effectively

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Axis powers may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• upheld its agreement to abandon assimilation of Germans.ref name="Richard Blanke 1939. P. 215"/>;at the same time Hitler during a secret meeting of Reich Chancellery informed military officials

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Agnes Miegel may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Blackbourn page 158</ref> In August 1944, in the final stages of World War II, she was named by [[Adolf Hitler] as "outstanding national asset" in the special list of the most important German

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ulrich von Hassell may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Resistance, the Underground and Assassination Plots, 1938-1945 by Michael C. Thomsett page 147 1997)</ref>.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ahnenpass may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• = 1 January 1990 | publisher = Walter de Gruyter | isbn = 978-3-11-091484-9 | page = 447}}</ref>}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay MyMoloboaccount, I see you have accused me of being s sockpuppet because some other now apparent banned user has questioned about Slavs being Aryans by the Nazis. Well, if you take a look on the several related articles such as on the Racial policy of Nazi Germany or the Nazism talk pages there is others who have questioned this.

Your recent edits of:

Master race article - [22], [23], [24], [25].

Racism in Poland article: [26], [27].

Aryan race article: [28].

Strike me as being somewhat parallel to those of others who I've had a dispute over and has now went way further than I had imagined. It seems rather a coincidence or not that the user Yatzhek first had the "advice" of Tobby72 and now you have been commenting on the investigation article talk page and then you have started making edits which are related to the dispute.

In regards to Slavs as Aryans, there is overwhelming evidence that the Nazis did regard the Slavic population as Aryans the same as Germans. I'm aware that some authors and historians do say that examples of "non-Aryans" were Jews, Gypsies, Slavs. However, in regards to the Slavs there is actually no evidence to support this as Slavs as pointed out were used as examples, they were eligible for Reich citizenship and they were not subject to any discrimination against them by the Nuremberg Laws like the Jews, Gypsies and others such as blacks. Thankfully and rightfully so many authors and historians do state the truth about Slavs and they were Aryans. It should be no big deal about this I don't see why it bothers you to accept this fact when all the evidence is there for you to see.

Let's look at your edits:

Master race - can you show me anywhere in Nazi terminology that Slavs were given the non-Aryan status?

Racism in Poland - can you please tell me where anywhere says Poles were not part of the Aryan race and where in Mein Kampf Hitler says that Poles were not Aryan (chapter and page please)?

Aryan race article - the status of the Poles is not what the page is discussing, why is there any need for it to be there?--Windows66 (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of actually ignoring me, it would be best to cooperate. My recent edit on here on the Ahnenpass page is reliable. Your recent revert here is confusing me, how is the sourced paper "controversial" and how is what you put as a source considered reliable? You may want to check out WP:V.--Windows66 (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MyMoloboaccount! You have been accused of being my sock.[29] -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All what I can say is that I'm not MyMoloboaccount, nor Yatzhek, and any check will confirm this. Windows66 is obvious sock puppet per WP:DUCK, wasting my time for several weeks. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Volk ohne Raum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subhuman (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) 09:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've left comments for you here and here. As a matter of courtesy, I would ask that you respond to the query left for you 3 days earlier on the relevant page before continuing to use article talk pages in the same, tendentious fashion. I am anticipating a rational and civil response there ASAP. Thank you for attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, based on my understanding of a source published in West Germany, Menschen und Grenzen by Alfred Bohmann. I believe the Volksliste figures include about 300,000 ethnic Germans resettled in Poland. Bohmann's presentation of the Volksliste figures shows that cat A & B totaled 710,000 persons, he then goes on to describe the resettlement of 287,000 ethnic Germans in Poland. To me this implies that 710,000 persons from pre-war Poland were in Cat A/B, not the 1 million that appears in the sources cited here on Wikipedia. Alfred Bohmann was an SS officer during the war and a well known supporter of the expellees in post war West Germany. If this is the case, the number of ethnic Germans in prewar Poland has been overstated in historical literature. I need your help. What do Polish sources tell us about the classification of persons on the Volksliste? --Woogie10w (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for getting back to me. It seems more than likely to me that the figure of 1 million Germans in Cat A/B Volkslisten includes 280,000 Germans re-settled there in 1940-41, based on Alfred Bohmann's study. I was hoping that Polish historians would have caught this. BTW Alfred Bohmann was quite frank in his description of the mass murder of the Jews, which indicates to me he no longer was supporter of the Nazis after the war. There is a German translation of Madajczyk, I need to order it. Anyway I am reading Die Vertreibung im deutschen Erinnern. Legenden, Mythos, Geschichte, I would not be surprised if it is translated into Polish and Czech.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I requested the book at the New York Public Library. They replied, Your request for Organizacja i przebieg wysiedle ludnoci niemieckiej z Polski w latach 1945-1949 / Pawel Kacprzak. was successful. Stay tuned, I may need your help for translation, my Polish is so-so.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the book, Kacprzak did not mention this. West German sources claimed that there were 1.2 to 1.371 million ethnic Germans in pre-war Poland. Alfred Bohmann's study puts the number at 711,000 in cat A/B on the Volkslist, in a separate section he then goes on to detail the 280,000 Germans re-settled there in 1940-41. To me it seems that the the figure of 1 million Germans in Cat A/B Volkslisten cited in historical literature includes the re-settlers. I am surprised that Polish historians have never caught this.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the dummies at Nurnberg in 1946 picked up the document that listed 1 million Germans on the Volkslist, they did did not realize it included 290,000 Germans resettled in Poland. Alfred Bohmann's Menchen und Grenzen is a goldmine of statistics. --Woogie10w (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia nie jest klubem dyskusyjnym. Xx236 (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mariupol standoff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (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) 08:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have partially reverted your edit at [30] because those terms are not used in sourced cited. Please find and cite sources which use those terms. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I reverted the other part [31], as I am not seeing this information at Keith Bullivant; Geoffrey J. Giles; Walter Pape (1 January 1999). Germany and Eastern Europe: Cultural Identities and Cultural Differences. Rodopi. pp. 32–. ISBN 90-420-0688-9.. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Germanisation of the Province of Posen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *Lech Trzeciakowski - ‎1970 Kulturkampf w Zaborze Pruskim (Poznan: Wydawnictwo Poznanskie: 1970

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Economy of Poland may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• stopa-bezrobocia/stopa-bezrobocia-w-latach-1990-2014,4,1.html</ref> and 9.7% according to Eurostat(Eurostat doesn't include people who have given up on finding work<ref>http://www.wbj.pl/article-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rudolf Nadolny, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Memel (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) 08:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MyMoloboaccount. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mariupol standoff.The discussion is about the topic Mariupol standoff. Thank you. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion that mentions your name at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding an alleged violation by other editors of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Unemployment in Poland may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• numbers, as it does not count as unemployed those who have given up looking for work altogether).<ref name=wbj>{{cite web|url=http://www.wbj.pl/article-58030-poland-strong-growth-high-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wojciech Kętrzyński may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• support of the Polish [[January Uprising]] in the [[Russian partition]] and spent his jail time in [[Olsztyn](Allenstein) , [[Berlin]], and [[Kłodzko]](Glatz). Throughout his imprisonment he

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rudolf Nadolny, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Entente and Memel (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) 08:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for your participation in the image review on discussion on the Germany talk page. The Image has now been reverted for the third time and ruins of Berlin photo is back. I would really appreciate your participation in this discussion and hopefully reaching a consensus. Thanks again.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you review the content you added at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Lvivske.

• At least one of the diffs you posted were not correct diffs.[32] I think the reason for the problem is that you are stepping through the article history and assuming that this process produces good diffs. It often does not on my browser (Firefox). I find that the only way to get good diffs is to create them by pressing the "compare selected revisions" button on the article history.

• There is a second problem. You need to explain carefully why each diff shows a breach of the sanctions. The explanation you gave under "T-64 article" might be OK if you were accusing him/her of edit-warring, but does not explain what you think the problem is for your accusations about Lvivske.

• For at least one of the accusations, "Reverted to revision 612105104 by SkoraPobeda (talk): Category exists for a reason, terrorists took control of an airport and did terroristy things Revert done without discussing it prior on discussion page as per sanction." the revert looks like reverting vandalism, which is allowed by the sanction. Again the problem may be, because you have not provided an adequate explanation.

--Toddy1 (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you may find this of interest

Manifest z Peenemünde 2013 Na rzecz odpowiedzialnego postępowania z dawnymi ośrodkami doświadczalnymi reżimu nazistowskiego

http://www.peenemuender-erklaerung.eu/index.pl.php

Regards, --Woogie10w (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You removed large parts of the article giving a rational "version before introduction of sources based on Nazi research". The only "problematic" source (by your POV) might be Boockmann's book. Please stop calling perfectly reliable sources "Nazi research". HerkusMonte (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC) Sources published by Conze or Rode(in 1941 btw) are Nazi research.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! HerkusMonte (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the Stratfor source. It has provided clarity that we otherwise lacked. I was wondering if you'd care to update our maps of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblast to match this, from your source. I'd do it, but I don't have time at the moment. However, it makes me realise that our maps are quite outdated. RGloucester — ☎ 15:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia as well. I'm not Serbian, btw, just a supporter of the country and its people :) --Tocino 09:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you're an NPOV editor when it comes to Ukraine conflict Wikipedia entries. I am currently under severe attack -- see Haberstr -- for also being an NPOV editor of Ukraine conflict entries. Any comment or support at the Arbitration will be greatly appreciated! Maybe if enough of us protest the obvious, anti-Wikipedia bias, we'll get things moving in the right direction.Haberstr (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Free City of Danzig may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• into the [[Kingdom of Prussia]] in 1814, after Napoleon's defeat at the [[Battle of Leipzig]] ([[Battle of Nations]] by a coalition that included Russia, Austria and Prussia.
• 2</ref> Nazi propaganda claimed that Poland was the aggressor in local elections to [Volkstag]] of May 1933, in which Nazis won absolute majority.<ref>Epstein, C (2012) Model Nazi: Arthur

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Molobo Thank so much for the very interesting link. In general, I think it is clear that the "men of July 20th" wanted a greater Germany, or in other words, they were not planning on giving most of Hitler's conquests, especially in Eastern Europe. I am sorry for being so late in getting back to you. I so overwhelmed with work as all this business of working all day and studying all day takes its toll, plus Chinese is NOT an easy language to learn, so I am rather hard-pressed with time. And then there are all the sorrows caused by a broken heart. But enough of my problems. Thank you for all your great work and sharing with me such interesting info. Cheers! --A.S. Brown (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

没关系! 谢谢！--A.S. Brown (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your fine work with history of Central Europe, I award Mobolo this Barnstar. A.S. Brown (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that you have made a series of alterations and removals to content involving Nazi Germany's official diplomatic gestures to Poland involving reassurances on lebensraum. Some of those changes I disagree with, though I agree in retrospect that the info mentioned on the Axis powers article on Germany's war justifications was too long and unnecessary.

First of all, I want to be clear that I am not a person who holds a revisionist tendency in reviewing history. I am not attempting to say that the Nazis let alone Hitler genuinely wanted any permanent Polish state on their frontier. The behaviour of the Nazi regime regarding Poland was one that mixed their views of racial inferiority of Poles though also for a time there were concerns that pushing Poland too far would be giving the Soviet Union an ally. The Nazis for diplomatic and strategic purposes, put forward the concept that Poland could achieve its own lebensraum, while Germany would go through the Baltic states into the Soviet Union, this meant to convey to Poland that they did not need to fear destruction by Germany's lebensraum. Was it a cynical ploy to buy Germany time to prepare for war without having Poland go into the Soviet sphere? From Hitler's behaviour on other similar diplomatic occasions, I believe so. However it is noted that Hitler did speak of the possibility of the benefits of using Polish soldiers against the Soviet Union, albeit in vulgar taste that it would reduce the number of German soldiers needed and less German casualties - in short they would be cannon fodder.

From my perspective, Hitler always used the same tactic with each country he conquered, first he would engage in positive diplomatic relations and claimed that old issues in the past could be resolved peacefully at some point; next he would attempt to diplomatically corner the country on a contentious diplomatic issue - be it minorities, supposed "aggressive" behaviour of the government in regards to relations with Germany, and raise the highest possible demands upon them; when the country did not accept Germany's demands and either war or forced diplomacy occurred (Sudetenland), Hitler would then claim to the public that he had done everything possible to achieve a mutually acceptable agreement for Germany and the other country but that the other country's leadership refused to cooperate due to "anti-German" or "pro-Jewish" tendencies and that Germany was forced to struggle against them.

Including material on it does not mean that it is the truth, it is stating what was said and what was claimed.

I see inclusion of material on Germany's official claims to placate Poland as valuable because it shows that Germany was scheming to keep Poland's guard down and especially to keep it from seeking help from the Soviet Union.

I agree with your inclusion of material that shows that Germany was preparing for a war with Poland while at the same time claiming that it was seeking cooperation with Poland. That was a common tactic that the Nazi regime used.

To use a famous quote used by an actor portraying a diplomat speaking with Joachim von Ribbentrop in the movie Battle of Britain (1969) "Hitler's guarantees guarantee nothing."

--184.145.74.119 (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See here.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of your recent edits had citations that did not mention the facts it was being cited for. I find it had to understand why you do this. It is really easy to find citations to reliable sources for the activities of the fascist militias. All you achieved by doing what you did was to bring discredit on Wikipedia.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC) It is pretty well known that Right Sector or Azov are right wing nationalist militias. I saw no need to reinforce this with additional citations since it is in the relevant article.But if you insist I can easily add them.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

respectful user molobo please assist me in dealing with Russo agent known as Marek. user is known to run false flag ops for putin regime. i trust respectfuly molobo user, who makes attemppt at neutral. marek is putin agent, please remove him. please molobo user help remove marek from usa pov article on debaltsevo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.235.243 (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Volk ohne Raum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subhuman (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) 09:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to play games like this, you'd better find someone else to play them with. I have no tolerance for disruptive editing. Blatant disregard for the sources in order to make a point? Vindictiveness? I shan't tolerate it. Cease and desist, or be prepared. RGloucester — ☎ 23:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of threat is this? You know incivility is against the rules, don't you? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mymoloboaccount. I really appreciate your efforts to reach a consensus in Crimea article, however they both are not trying it at all. Could you please expres your opinion on my propose here on talk page? Jirka.h23 (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Erich_Ludendorff#Prophetic_.22Telegram.22

Hello, have you ever looked in to the Ian Kershaw source mentioned here? Popish Plot (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what is your expertise in Russian language? Xx236 (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ja śledzę rosyjska wikipedię, która ma systemowy bias antypolski, nawet w sprawach UPA. Dziesiątki wariatów zwalczają artykuł o Katyniu, jego obrońcy na razie wygrywają. W sprawie sowieckich jeńców 1920 wygrywają wariaci.Xx236 (talk) 06:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nadal czekam na odpowiedź.Xx236 (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Oles Buzina page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, please do visit the talk page of Racial policy of Nazi Germany regarding your recent edits to the article, see here.

Cheers.--Hashi0707 (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned you can remove the estimate if you like. I wasn't the one who put it there. It was someone else. I only added the latest Ukrainian and US estimates. I don't care ether way because I never even heard of this RUSI group/organisation. :P EkoGraf (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo, if you have problems with sources - or how they are attributed - take it to the article's talk page and comment there. Article content is not some sort of conspiracy you need to approach individual editors about for their 'consensus'. I have no idea of where RUSI came into the War in Donbass, but taking it to the talk page is a good place to start... sans hysterical section headers and accusations of POV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the War in Donbass page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any sources for this, please let me know. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit. Please could you add the date of the article, as it will make it easier to find the article if the URL changes. If the FT gives the name of the author, please add that too.

It may seem bizarre, but the FT sometimes uses different headlines for the same article in print and online versions. I know this because I buy the paper version of the FT some of the time, and a friend reads the online version.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Perhaps Molobo should actually join in the current discussion before making unilateral decisions as to what is WP:DUE, Toddy1. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kulturkampf may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Bismarck considered the [[House of Hanover]], Poles(whom he personally hated and wished to eradicate<ref>''National Identity and Foreign Policy:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I am following it. However, I don't think there will be a direct military intervention (I may be wrong). More likely, like they have so far, the Russians will give more weapons, vehicles, arms to Syria. But since they are more advanced than those before, there will be a limited number of Russian military advisers on how to use all that equipment. In any case, if you were planning on creating an article for the intervention I would suggest to hold off on that until it really happens and concrete sources confirm it. EkoGraf (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Molobo

Old friend, hope is well. Sorry for bothering like you like this, but I would like your input if you have the time. I noticed that you advocated very strongly on the Adenauer page about what did Poles think of Adenauer’s policy of integrating those elements who had supported the National Socialist regime. I think my best to add something along those lines into the article, which has since been sadly removed by other hands. To provide an example of how I think the article should read, I created an user page, which has since been nominated for deletion. If you wish to vote in my favor, or against me, or not all, no hard feelings either way. The link is some here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:A.S. Brown/Konrad Adenauer. It seems to me, shameful the way that the section on the German restitution laws was re-written to imply that any victim of National Socialism could collect compensation. To begin with, I by no means mean to devalue the suffering of German victims of National Socialism, but the vast majority of the victims of National Socialism were not German. The Nazi regime tended to leave the average German alone, and to focus its murderous rage against non-Germans. Beyond, to collect compensation, one had to live within West Germany, the “land of their tormentors” and to prove that one was part of “the realm of German language and culture”. So let’s say if you were a member of the Armia Krajowa, were arrested and tortured by the Gestapo, and ended in the west after the war-unless you were willing to move to West Germany and you could prove that you were a member of “the realm of German language and culture”, then and only then could one collect compensation. If you didn't speak German, then you were just out of luck. I have been accused of the outrageous and totally false charge that I am “Stalinist”, which is remarkable given that my family had to flee Russia to escape the bloody hands of Lenin and company. Just for the record, I think these blood-and-soil identify politics are absurd and very silly. As someone who is of English, French, Scots, Irish, Russian, Finnish, Danish, Norwegian, and Dutch extraction, I would have to perform a very complicated geopolitical dance if I were to be guided by considerations of blood. My loyalty is towards the truth. I would be the last to deny that the Russians have behaved very badly towards the Poles-I rather tell the truth than by guided by these stupid ideas of blood-based loyalty. Communism is an abomination, but that is my own viewpoint that does not belong in the article. But having said that much, Adenauer did champion freedom for Nazi war criminals, let war criminals like Oberländer sit in his cabinet, and sought to re-write the past in such a way as to exonerate the overwhelming majority of Germans from any sort of guilt feelings (not that they were much inclined to feeling guilty in the immediate post-war period anyhow), which is why I created the user page which is now under threat of deletion to show people how I feel that page should be. I really think that it outrageous stating those things is "Stalinist POV-pushing", and it does concern that all has been removed. I would appreciated your input if you feel so inclined. Thank you for your time, and please have a wonderful day! --A.S. Brown (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ukrainian conflict and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,Tobby72 (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Ukrainian conflict arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to, has been declined and removed. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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

Dear Mobolo

Sorry old friend for being so late in getting to you. No hard feelings, I know how life has its own demands that must take precedence over what goes on around here. As for myself, Christmas is never a good time of year for me, and this has been no exception. I noticed on the Adenauer talk page how you mentioned about how the article should at least say something about how people in Poland viewed the Adenauer government and the presence of people like Oberlander in the government. I thought you were quite right about that, so I added some materials relating to topic of Adenauer and Poland, most of which is now sadly gone. It is true that Gomułka had his own reasons for playing up the subject of a revanchist Germany that did not recognize the Oder-Neisse line, but it is true that the subject did resonant with ordinary Poles at the time. This outrageous canard that I am a “Stalinist” really angers me, the sort of thing one expects from a certain type deeply enchanted with Hitler’s war machine, and simply do not want to hear about the criminal nature of Hitler’s war. I detest Communism, but my first loyalty is towards the truth. I am not Polish, but I like to think that I at least understand Polish history. When I first saw the film Katyn (which I really enjoyed), I think I must be one of the few non-Poles who understood the symbolic meaning of all those black crows that hover ominously in the background in the part of the film set in 1950s Poland. Having said that much, I think it is clear that at least for a period of time that the Gomułka regime was able to enjoy a certain legitimacy in the 1950s because of the fears of West German revanchism, and I thought that the article should say that. Of course, I am not trying to justify Communist oppression in Poland; just merely saying there is a great deal of evidence that for his first ten or so years in power that Gomułka did enjoy at some real popularity. Adenauer had his own (domestic) reasons for rejecting the Oder-Neisse line and keeping people like Oberlander in his cabinet (a man who should not had been appointed in the first place, let alone allowed to stay for so long), but it did all play very badly in Poland, to Gomułka's benefit. An article should cover a variety of perspectives on a historical personage, not just one. What happened in history does not change. What does change is how people remember history. The familiar image of Germany guilt-stricken by what was done in its name has a basis in fact, but that Germany did not start to emerge until the 1960s when a new generation came of age. The Hitler generation for the most part did not feel guilty or ashamed. But people missed that generational change and anachronistically project how Germans feel today back to the 1950s.

But then everything around here is that. Nobody really wants to make the connections or think critically. So every cliché keeps getting repeated around here. To use one example, there was a film called All The King’s Men about the Battle of Gallipoli, which I both liked and disliked. I thought it was well acted and moving, but at the same time, the film’s message that the war was “bloody disgrace” to use a line used by one of the characters was really wrong. Quick summary; the Ottoman empire had almost no modern industry and was entirely dependent on weapons from Germany to fight World War One. The point that the weapons came in was Constantinople. So if the Allies had taken Constantinople in 1915, not only would they had taken the capital, largest city and the economic heart of the empire, they would also had knocked the Ottoman empire out of the war. The idea was good, the execution was something else. There is a right way to do something and a wrong day to something wrong, and the British commanders at Gallipoli consistently picked the latter. There is really no excuse for the British to lose that battle as successive admirals and generals proceeded to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The film was very accurate in portraying Gallipoli as a bloodbath with the British leaders making unbelievably inept decisions, but one angers me is the message that this was all for nothing. In 1915, the Ottomans were waging genocide against the Armenian minority, and if the Ottoman empire had been defeated in 1915 as it should had been, the lives of great many Armenians would had been saved. If the film-makers were really honest, they would had included scenes of the Armenians been forced on death marches, being shot, stabbed, tortured and rapped by the thuggish “Special Organization” (whose rank and file comprised the worse scum from prison such as murderers and rapists released to kill Armenians) and then told the audience that stopping this was not worth it. That is what it angers me. The same goes with almost of the articles on the Wehrmacht around here. In defiance of the rules of history, where all of the consequences of an action are examined, the articles on the Wehrmacht want to tell you about what great soldiers these guys were. I said this before, but sadly this point still needs to be made; if Germany had been defeated earlier in the war, millions of people who were murdered would not had been murdered. I am not saying that everybody in the Wehrmacht understood their role in this manner (indeed a great many clearly did not), but by fighting for Hitler, they were at the minimum enabling mass murder. Everyday the Wehrmacht held out was more day that the death mills of Auschwitz continued to operate. Yet hardly anybody wants to say that. 92% of the articles around here are written by men, and of them, about 80% are single. The Wehrmacht has a certain fascination for a type of man who to put it crudely do not get laid that often. The Wehrmacht offers an image of masculine strength and power that really appeals to that sort of men, who are no surprise are the most inclined to write articles around here. I find that whatever people like the most is that they claimed to have the most. The people who are really stupid are say they are the smartest, the laziest are always claimed to work the honest, and the most dishonest always claimed to be the most honest. In the same way, the guy are always the biggest homophobes are always turned out be gay. The fact that one has all these men who engaged in all this macho posturing while praising the Wehrmacht as the ultimate in masculinity probably tells you quite a bit about them. Do you ever notice that? Every-time one gets into a debate with a Wehrmacht-worshiper around here, they are always try to imply that there’s something wrong with your masculinity and start tell you about how the Wehrmacht were the consummate military professionals? The very fact that they need to live out vicariously all these macho fantasies is a sad commentary on their own lives. The link between Wehrmacht-worship and an image of masculinity can be seen in the beginning of the book Hitler’s Enforcers by James Lucas which goes to absurd lengths to glorify the Wehrmacht. Lucas begins his book by writing that the ultimate in masculinity is to be a solider (why that is the case is not explained) and that because the Wehrmacht were the ultimate in soldiers that they were the ultimate in masculinity. It is all quite silly if you really think about that.

I don’ know if you ever seen the film 300, which is a rather fictionalized version of the Battle of Thermopylae. Attacking a film based on a comic book for being cartoonist is probably besides the point, but it is true. The Persians who are described as out of the “darkest depths of Asia” are freakish and monstrous while the European Greeks, especially the Spartans are presented as personification of manliness. So many books written by the Wehrmacht-worshippers follow the same type-plate as does 300. The Wehrmacht are all macho “military professionals”, the perfect soldiers and men who battle the sub-human “Asiatic hordes” of the Red Army. The fact that these people take images and language straight out of war-time Nazi propaganda is quite disturbing. Of course, the system the Russians fought for was quite inhumane and yes, quite of the few Red Army were vicious types, but the same can be said of the Wehrmacht. It really bothers me the way the Russians are portrayed as insect-like, sub-human, people devoid of any humanity who deserved to be killed while the Wehrmacht are presented as almost super-human, the "good guys" (!) of World War II. Not every German soldier was a bastard, but they fought for a truly awful cause and I see no reason to glorify them for fighting so hard for someone like Hitler. And I still don’t understand how saying that makes me a “Stalinist”.

A great many articles are like that. The article on Thomas Edward Lawrence, aka “Lawrence of Arabia” treats his claim that he was raped by an Ottoman officer in Daraa as something that he might had possibly made up. Most people get their image of Lawrence from the 1962 film, so the prevailing perception of him is that of a very heroic figure. The most recent biography of Lawrence was entitled simply Hero. So the thought of Lawrence like other victims of male rape-violated and broken, covered in blood, excrement and tears, wishing one had never been born-does not fit the heroic image. For my money, I did not think he make that story up. In 1922, there a strong taboo on speaking about homosexual rape, so it is very surprising that Lawrence would write that in The Seven Pillars of Wisdom. And after that terrible night in Daraa in November 1917, Lawrence did start to behaver very erratically. Which is especially noteworthy is that the way he kept on trying to hide himself away from the world, like he was ashamed of himself. Lawrence to be fair was always an eccentric character, but before the war, he was socially outgoing and wanted to be a professor at Oxford. Yet after 1917, he was always trying to hide himself away from the world, refused the professorship at Oxford and spent his time alone, cruising the English countryside on his motorcycle for hours. I really don’t think he make that story up. A lot of people just claimed he did because it does not fit their idea about a hero should be like. But life is not like that, which is something that many people seemed to have trouble understanding.

Sorry for wasting your time like this, and I hope all is well.--A.S. Brown (talk) 07:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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

You're tiptoeing up to the line again. Not to mention the other problems with your edits. Volunteer Marek  22:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually is more Volunteer Marek that is engaging in edit warring and is more close to the violation of the WP:3RR. Just a reminder: you can inform admins of WP:3RR violations here [33], keep in mind that even if most of times this kind of notices bring to no sanctions, it's better for you (and for any others) to not violate this rule otherwise you will be reported to that noticeboard (as you as well you can report any other user violating it). -- Flushout1999 (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although not excusing Volunteer Marek's actions, MyMoloboaccount's edits, whether or not edit warring, are in violation of a number of ArbCom rulings Wikipedia principles.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I am specifically not making this an Arbitration Enforcement block, so it can be overturned through the usual channels. However, I would appreciate being informed of an unblock request. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, I am blocking under discretionary sanctions for Eastern Europe. If someone wants to bring an Arbitration Enforcement action against him/her, I have no objection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

MyMoloboaccount (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There is no specific reason stated for this lengthy block(1 week). The author of this block seems to have blocked me without any prior warning and without specifying what this block is about. it also seems he himself had to remove initial argument for the block and then changed to another, suggesting there is no strong basis for it. No discussion about reason nor request for enforcement has been made. No specific reason has been mentioned as to what exact ruling I have violated or what exact action I have made that deserved such a long block. I see that the editor has some disagreement over the wording I have used to describe actions by Warsaw Pact(that they used troops for "internal security" but that is a common phrase regarding regime actions, and would hardly be sufficient reason for 1 week block). I am happy to discuss my actions and edits and any warnings, but to give me 1 week block based on content dispute but by someone disagreeing over one phrase seems a very big overkill.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

My mistake. I misread the term "internal security", so that the statement would be pure Soviet propaganda without a hint of credibility. I believe it still to be wrong, as at least one of the invasions was to prevent a legal regime change (under the laws of the country), which does not constitute "internal security". It's still Soviet propaganda, but arguably correct. It would be best if you did not add Soviet propaganda without non-Soviet sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Polish constitutional crisis, 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SLD (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) 09:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TITLECHANGES "Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged." Please do not move the page without prior WP:CONSENSUS. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.   Thank you. Müdigkeit (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1-The natural growth in the population 1946-50 is included in their figures. This inflates expulsion losses. My own OR indicates that the growth figures are inflated, which inflates losses. Harr and the Hahn's missed this one.

2-The Germans count as Germans those people of German ancestry in eastern Europe. My own OR indicates that the figure of 2 million is full of water ie. people of German ancestry who spoke Polish, Czech and Hungarian who remained after the war.

3-Die deutschen Vertreibungverluste uses the 1939 Nazi census of Germany to determine who was German or Polish.

I will check that article in Polish Review in the library and get back to you. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding , a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

Nice source, we can include both estimates. EkoGraf (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added it. EkoGraf (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate! :) EkoGraf (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that WP:BLP applies to article talk pages as well as to articles themselves. In particular these comments [34] [35] [36] potentially violate the policy as they make what appear to be unfounded accusations against a living person. You should consider striking those comments.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Moboblo. I'll be meaning to do that myself, but I have not gotten around to it. I have so much negativity in much life, so I come here to do something enjoyable. Writing really relaxes me as I like being creative and turning my thoughts into words, so I have tendency to avoid negativity around here, which is probably not a good habit to have. Maybe back in 2013-14 I put little too much information into the Adenauer article, but at least I tried. I thought that you had a good point that the article should say something how Adenauer's policies were viewed in 1950s Poland, so I bring something into the article about that subject which had totally ignored. Thank you for your time and effort, and please have a wonderful day Moboblo!--A.S. Brown (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état into Central Intelligence Agency. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Racism in Poland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subhuman (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) 10:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

to this. Yes, sure, I think the statement is extreme. So what? My very best wishes (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MyMoloboaccount. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Donald Trump is under discretionary sanctions, of which you are aware of as you have been notified previously. Discretionary sanctions mean in part that you should not restore newly added content which has been challenged by reversion. You did that precisely here. Don't do it again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was no violation. MyMoloboaccount added a completely different source and text to what Volunteer Marek removed—one that explicitly noted the contrast between the CIA and FBI assessments—after VM failed to respond to my question on the talk page about whether a revised version of the material could be restored with a more explicit source. The divergence between the CIA and FBI assessments has been very widely noted in RS—indeed, Rience Priebus stated as recently as December 11 that the RNC is in touch with the FBI, and the FBI is confident there was no RNC hack—so VM is simply gaming discretionary sanctions by deleting any reference to the FBI as "OR" and threatening users that disagree, when even his own argument is merely that the text should be rephrased.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Central Intelligence Agency into Poland–United States relations. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there's an ongoing discussion at [37] regarding the naming of Polish villages and how to best handle their former names. based on your recent contributions, your opinion in this matter may be helpful. Thank you! Rockypedia (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I'm aware that you have reverted a couple of my edits.

Firstly https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahnenpass&diff=768541822&oldid=767816888 with the reason being ("clarify, remove cut and paste synthesis taken from far larger passage that talks about Germanic people"). Do you speak German? The quote which is an actual primary source from the Nazis states the actual ethnic groups as the English people, Czechs and Poles as belonging to the "Aryan race" because they were considered by the Nazis to be of "related blood".

Secondly https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_race&diff=768544758&oldid=768543432 with the reason being ("as per source, Gunther didn't write "most Slavs" as it would imply exceptions."), the actual source states that only those Slavs who belonged to the "Eastern race" would endanger the German nation and the amount of Nordics residing in Germany ("would warn that more and more Slavic blood of the Eastish race was about to pour into the German nation, accelerating a process of De-Nordification"). If one bothers to read Günther's work they will know he rejected the term "Aryan" in a racial sense and agreed that there were no so such things as a Germanic race or a Slavic race. Günther also believed that the Ancient Slavs were of the Nordic race and that there existed a fair amount of Nordic Slavs in Poland, Russia, etc. He also agreed that the Germans, like the Slavs, were composed of several different "races".--Donald Ivanov (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Czechs and Poles as belonging to the "Aryan race" because they were considered by the Nazis to be of "related blood". That's completely false. Poles and other Slavs were considered non-Aryan subhumans targeted for extermination.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are primary sources from the Nazis themselves that show they considered Czechs and Poles to belong to the "Aryan race". The Nuremberg Laws did not discriminate against Slavs and there was no prohibition between sexual relations and marriages between Germans and Slavs (Czechs and Poles were used as examples of "related blood" to the Germans and Poles were used as a racial minority living in Germany that were of "related blood" to the Germans as well.) During the war, Poles lived on the "Aryan side" outside of the ghettos. Slavs were not considered non-Aryan but were considered racially inferior to Germans by the Nazis but not all of them were targeted for extermination. It varied among the different Slavic ethnic groups e.g Bulgarians and Slovaks were treat a lot better than Poles and Russians. Nordic Slavs in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Russia, etc, were considered to be suitable for Germanisation too. The Nazis were aware that many Germans themselves had some Slavic ancestry too. You've undone another one of my edits under the explanation of "(previous edit deleted information that he considered Slavs to be a separate race.)" Have you actually read any of Günther's works? He never spoke of a Slavic race and only warned against the influx of Slavs who belonged to the Eastern race, not all Slavs. --Donald Ivanov (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MyMoloboaccount,

I'm the bot who is deleting {{Persondata}}. I noticed your edit on Erich Maschke in which you added {{Persondata}}. This template is deprecated and deleted. Please stop adding {{Persondata}}. In case you want to support the Persondata project you can help with the migration of the dataset to Wikidata at KasparBot's tool. See Wikipedia:Persondata or contact my operator T.seppelt in case you have any questions.

Thank you very much, -- KasparBot (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to straight out accuse you but I'd like to think you're not the one using the IP address 32.218.39.154 and have basically checked my contributions to Wikipedia and have either altered or flat out removed some of my edits. It just seems strange I've had no problem until I've edited on the Nazism and race article and then have seen you have altered some of my edits to that page and now I see some of my other edits on other even unrelated articles have been changed.--Adolphus Weber (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC) The IP isn't mine.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]