Which map?  Dr. Loosmark  17:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't have a map of Prussia in 1701 at hand so I will take your word. But I have restored some information which you have removed for unknown reasons.  Dr. Loosmark  17:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you also inserted into the lead the names from 1938-45 which were basically invented by Nazi Germany. There is absolutely no need to insert Nazi names into the lead for Polish villages, in fact it may be seen as insulting. Also please withdraw the accusations of WP:vandalism as they are uncivil. I spend considerate amount of my time on Wikipedia fighting vandalism.  Dr. Loosmark  16:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then re-add the name for Przeździęk Wielki. Although frankly adding the German name to a totally unimportant little village with 243 inhabitants seems to serve no other use than making a point. But again do as you wish. You also wrote on my talk, quote: "the years 1938-45 are unfortunately part of the history of this area and concealment is not the way to deal with it, do we agree on that?". My comment to that is the following one: I most certainly don't wish to conceal anything but since when is not having a Nazi invented name in the lead "concealment" of the history? You are free to add that information to the article, just better not in the lead, there is no special need for that.  Dr. Loosmark  17:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a discussion on WikiProject Poland about your recent additions. If you wish you can present your view there.  Dr. Loosmark  17:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your source seems to be self-published and as such doesn't fill the neccessary criteria for sources on Wiki. Please check: [2] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we agreed to leave out the Nazi invented names from 1938.  Dr. Loosmark  08:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The hell you are. The WP:PLACE is very clear: Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages. You should demonstrate that the Nazi names are used by at least 10% of sources in English or that the Germans still use the Nazi invented names.  Dr. Loosmark  08:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am sure that they would. Same as people born in Łódź between 1939 and 1945 would have "Litzmannstadt" in their documents too. But that's not a reason to have those names in the lead.  Dr. Loosmark  08:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is far from senseless. You have still not demonstrated that the Nazi invented names satisfy WP:PLACE and you don't use any sources either. So far the only thing we have is your feeling that those names should be in the lead and that's a bit little.  Dr. Loosmark  09:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop giving Nazi names in leads about Polish locations.Their place is in proper section-I suggest Nazi germanization campaigns or Nazi propaganda section as the name where you can put information about actions by Nazi regime.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit here[3] is contradicting the sources in the text, and your wording is not supported by any additional source. Please rever to version supported by sources given in the text. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Jewish Community of Danzig at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Pgallert (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm you seem to have presented only defensive views, there are others thoughs:

[4] Salomon Korn, vice president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, told the Frankfurter Rundschau newspaper that his group would be discussing the comments by Saenger and Tölg at their next board meeting. Silvio Peritore, head of the Central Council of Sinti and Roma in Gemrany, called the comments an "affront" and said it smacked of trying to recast Germans as the true victims of World War II -- "which has long been the intention of the League of Expellees."

Perhaps you can also help me translate: [5] Historiker kritisieren die Äußerungen von BdV-Chefin Erika Steinbach zur Charta der Heimatvertriebenen.Der Antisemitismusforscher Wolfgang Benz und der Historiker Peter Steinbach haben heftige Kritik an Äußerungen von Vertriebenen-Chefin Erika Steinbach (CDU) zur Charta der Heimatvertriebenen geübt. „Das ist haltlos, das sind Stammtischtöne“, sagte Benz zu einem Radio-Interview Steinbachs vom Donnerstag. Darin hatte die Chefin des Bundes der Vertriebenen (BdV) behauptet, dass es entlassenen KZ-Häftlingen in der Nachkriegszeit materiell besser gegangen sei als Vertriebenen.„Da läuft es mir eiskalt den Rücken herunter“, sagte Peter Steinbach, wissenschaftlicher Leiter der Gedenkstätte Deutscher Widerstand. „Das ist ein kolossales Eigentor.“ Die BdV-Chefin bestätige mit solchen „bornierten“ Vergleichen die Kritiker, die ihr Geschichtsrelativismus vorwerfen.

Don't worry, if you don't have time, I will ask somebody else :) But if you do, I would be grateful. Of course it's just part of the article(numerous articles I think that were recentely published). Have a nice day. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the current version lacks the criticism in Germany. How would you integrate it in the article?

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh and personally-its actually rather strange that some in Germany claim PIS is attacking Steinbach in Poland(as per your source), I don't think there was any positive comment about her in Poland, from any political group or media publication, opposition to her seems to be above political division and views.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Well I guess you would have trouble finding person in Poland willing to defend a German politician that voted against Polish border agreement with Germany, was born to IIIrd Reich officer stationed in Poland and claims expellee status, refuses to deal with Nazi past of BdV and defends views that shift the blame on WW2 from Germany ;] I wouldn't call that psychosis(and of course you already made a judgment about this by calling it so).But yes we must present views of diverse nature you are correct-so besides German defense there should be also German criticism don't you agree?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Stempin works for Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg where he received his doctorate and habilitation. He isn't a profesor, at least in Poland. Cheers.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[6] No. The Gdansk/Danzig vote very clearly implies that this article should be under Jewish Community of Gdańsk. I am therefore, enforcing the vote, and moving the article to its proper name. If you think there is some compelling reason for why an exception to the vote should be made THEN YOU can start a proposed move. I don't have to - I am simply following Wikipedia policy and the Gdansk/Danzig vote. Please don't move the article again without a proper reason and a proposed moved.radek (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on my talk page. I am going to source the sections I've added tonight - I have the sources just need to format it all etc. I really hope that this will not prevent the article from appearing at DYK as I think it's an important topic and quite a good article (thanks for creating and writing it). BTW, if you want to have an article that's strictly on the "Danzig" period then why not focus on one of the notable people you added to the article and expand those articles? Some of them are short stubs and it wouldn't be hard to expand them x5 for DYK.radek (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide in Nazi Germany Von Christian Goeschel does not claim the suicides indeed happened. He mentions Buske the politician claiming that.So he uses the questionable source already presented.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you translate(I will translate myself if needed, but German speaker would be welcomed):

"Der Amokschütze ist offenbar Studienrat Gerhard Moldenhauer. Der NSDAP-Mitläufer hatte einer Nachbarin erklärt: „Ich habe eben meine Frau und meine Kinder erschossen, nun will ich noch ein paar Russen umlegen.“It's from one of your sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

""aus der bisherigen grenzsitutation und der sich hieraus ergebenden wirtschaftlichen Randlage erwachsen Probleme" Norbert Buske. What does it mean? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make this edit compliant with the Gdansk/Danzig vote? I realize that sometimes when writing stuff the G/D vote is not the first thing that springs to mind, particularly when translating from Polish or German, but respectin' the vote avoids a lot of potential trouble. Also, any idea who this Wolfgang Sonthofen is? Is he an academic historian?Just curious.radek (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that.radek (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You probably didn't realize it, but the source which you provide for "Johannes von Baysen" here [7] is actually an "alternative history" novel. It is also apparently self published: [8] (note that the author is the same as the publisher).radek (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to think of a nice image that can emphasize the compromise within the topic of Eastern European articles - maybe make it into a barnstar or an award. The idea being that it recognizes editors who are willing to put aside their differences and work toward quality articles free of the usual fighting and disputin'. There's a lot of dimensions to all these disputes so it's sort of hard to think of something that's universal enough. If we stuck with Polish-German disputes than maybe Willie Brandt or something would work though it wouldn't quite be universal and also too much rooted in modern history (whereas a lot of the disputes are about old history). Given that you're, um, Herkus Monte I though that maybe you could help with some ideas regarding this. The obvious problem here is that most historical symbols of cooperation have themselves been a battleground, hijacked by too much emotion on both sides. Something that will make editors on all sides understand that cooperation is more important than conflict but at the same time won't get anybody's blood boiling. Any suggestions? radek (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that a great way to improve the relations between community members would be to create quality content together. At the moment I'm waiting for someone to start articles on interesting (at least for me) topics like pl:Autonomia Wileńszczyzny / pl:Polski Kraj Narodowo-Terytorialny. I understand just elementary Polish and no Lithuanian at all, so I hope both Lithuanian and Polish users could expand such articles here together due to their language skills (I dare hope nationalist passions related to those brief affairs have subsided long time ago). -- This was just an example that came to my mind, I know that HerkusMonte is German, but there's nothing that would invalidate the cooperative approach on German/Polish matters either. Regards, Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 17:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Herkus. Hmm, regardless of whether the stamp works as an award, the de:Polenvereine is a good topic for an article on English Wiki. I can try and look in Polish sources but it would be great to get some of the stuff from the German sources in the German Wiki.

Re Miacek. Someday. I'm sad to say that that day isn't here yet. I am pretty certain that that kind of article would get some people riled up - not even about the content itself but just something as simple as whether it should be under "Vilnius Autonomy" or "Wilno Autonomy" on English Wiki. And then the whole endeavor for cooperation might be stillborn. If you start it though I can help with translating stuff from Pl Wiki. In that area my expectations are low and my hopes dismal. I dunno, ask Lokyz, who can be level headed and reasonable, and see if he wants to work on it.radek (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, ok started something here: [9]. I'm horrible at this template kind of thing so any monkeying around with it to make it look nicer would be much appreciated. I want to keep the word "controversial" in the name of the award because I think it is important that that is what the award recognizes - not just any kind of editing on these topics, but the ability to edit cooperatively when it's particularly difficult. It'd be nice also to have an explanation of the background of the picture in the award itself, something like "The image shows the Polish German cooperation during the Hambach Festival in 1832 when etc. ..." (I need to sit down and think of the best way to write it).radek (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in that sense I guess the award is "good to go". The phrasing "... is awarded in remembrance of the Polish-German friendship at the Hambach Festival during the Spring of Nations" (or something similar) can be included at the particular instance of the award being given to someone. Which means that the easy part - making the award - is done, the hard part begins; finding someone who's worthy of such an award. If you have any suggestions they'd be welcome. I'll also announce the award at WP:Poland and WP:Germany. I would like for the award to be "scarce" (too many barnstars are given for no particularly good reason) so this may take some time. Yet, recognizing the intrinsically controversial nature of the topic area that the award is meant for, I don't want it to just sit there gathering dust. So, um, ... we shouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good and the criteria for the award need to be flexible but we should actively encourage folks to engage in the kind of editing that would be recognized by the award. (radek) Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re this [10] - I'm assuming your es of "avoid red" refers to a red link or something. I'm gonna leave it alone because it's not that important, but just want to point out that it wasn't in fact a red link since Peace of Budziszyn is a redirect. Also IMO Budziszyn would be in accordance with Gdansk/Danzig vote. But whatever. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been entering information about different census results of counties into town information. This gives false impression that German ethnic groups were larger than the towns/cities itself. Please put information about counties population into the proper pages(for example Leszno County).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like here [11] It would give the impression that the vote was unfair and against majority, where as the information shows that you deleted the majority of population where the city was located voted otherwise.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not state such ideological statements, I hoped they are a thing of the past.Ethnic data and political plebiscites are two different things.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please study the subject you are editing:this claim was very ignorant[12], Bygdoszcz, Inowrocław were annexed by Prussia in 1772.I added this info into the article and will restore the deleted information. I urge you to stay away from the article, as it seems you do not have a comprehensive knowledge about the subject. Please do not be offended, I am just interested in best for the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I restricted the information regarding German population left from Germanization era in Polish areas to interwar era when those territorial entities were in existance. Obviously those entities didn't exist in 1910. Cheers.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced an essentially unsourced cherry picked quote with more scholarly analysis based on scientific publication-in any case please wait that till I finish editing the article. Many German atrocities in WW2 remain that need to be covered. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, do you happen to have additional information on Bernhard Knapstein? Some users were contesting the use of a link to Knapstein's article critical of Ingo Haar. I've removed the thing for the time being, but if we can clarify the matter, perhaps we can re-add this newspaper piece into the article. The were concerns over Knapstein's alleged 'far-right' affiliations, but I had a suspicion that the anon who once added such references (User:Dodo19) might have been trying to discredit someone again. If you can help to clarify, please take a look, if not, just have a nice evening :) Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what's the problem. I just acted on the talk discussion, and categorized the redirects. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a normal way to move a page. You know, using the move tab? I thought there was a consensus... plus, the name was supported by the Gdansk Vote. But if you want to restart a discussion, WP:RM can be done at any time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a fascinating read. A very nice start to an article; hope it'll develop further. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is now on Portal:Germany. If you have DYK related to Germany, feel free to place it there yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added this one to the other, complimenting each other, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting source for Frederick's motivations. Can you link to Google Book pages in the future? It is easy, and helpful. This tool can generate cite book templates - very handy. See how I improved your reference in the First Partition of Poland article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, and I know it perfectly, it was not a constitution in today's meaning, but a bill like "constitutions" of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth's Sejm before the 1791 May Constitution. But still it's an official document issued by the local governement with an official name (legal name), so you must accepted if you like it or not. BurgererSF (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a German name from the lead of Gdansk article despite that I personally think that it should be there. There are however a double standards on Wikipiedia which is that some Lithuanian editors constantly removing Polish names from all articles about the places which once were Polish and now are in Lithuania. This is going on for years with 3 editor being active on that. Please join the discussion here [[13]] if you don't agree and be aware that if they continue removing Polish names from Polish-Lithuanian places or decide to change the rule I will have do the same to all of the German-Polish articles for consistency. Thanks. unsigned edit by User:Jacurek HerkusMonte (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, comment here? [[14]]--Jacurek (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you already did.--Jacurek (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. This is not the version of the book I am using. I added the quote from the page. That should be enough(although not enough about Germanization, and racist treatment(that's what German sources state btw) of Poles under German Empire which I shall expand)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC) You linked to second edition, while I am using the first one. Please be careful in the future.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Herkus, thank you for your time and efforts working on this [15]. Unfortunately I'm unable to participate anymore but I know that you guys will work something out and the naming disputes will be just a bad memory. All the best and good luck.--Jacurek (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herkus, Bitte lesen Sie meine Antwort hier Talk:Siege of Kolberg (1807)# Casualties auf Digby Smiths Zahlen. Besten Grüßen--Woogie10w (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help on Schenk. Wanna come up with a DYK hook? (I of course might go with a different one if I think that'd be better).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We use scholarly sources and confirmed titles by established research. We do not use invented names by Wikipedia users. Also you might want to read rules on names and page moves-if you want to move a page, you have start a discussion and vote. I hope that in future you will abide to these rules. Have a good day. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect, look at the original name of the article. Your undiscussed edit moved it to Original Research title. The first name, which is now sourced, was Intelligenzaktion Pommern. If you want to change that please start a discussion and Request for Move supported by scholarly sources naming this action as the title of your undiscussed page move before. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link you gave on my talk page goes to a period where there is no shared history, hence no double naming-just like in [16] 1988 Polish strikes article we use no Germanized version of Gdańsk, since no shared history is present in this part of history.Or Euro 2012 where no Germanized names are used either. Or Adoptation of Christianity by Mieszko were we also don't use Germanized versions of Polish names. I am sure you will give me a correct link to a period where shared history is present and double naming is applicable. The one provided by you leads to no such period. I hope you aren't pushing to give Germanized names into every info about Polish history where there is no shared history with Germany like in 1988 Polish strikes or history of Pomerania before German takeover(else all Euro2012 Polish cities have to have Germanized names)? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that part of the article contains no shared history so no double naming. Likewise we don't use double naming in general articles about history of Germany o Poland where there is no shared history no more or yet-for example History of Wrocław doesn't use the Germanised version of Wrocław in its early sections and there is no double naming before German period is described[17], as well as during the period it was restored to Poland. The same applies to German history-otherwise you would have Królewiec even in 1945 when it was once again under control of Russian state. So unless the timeperiod is described that shares history with Germany or Poland- no double naming.Notice that I left the Germanised versions of original names in the same article where it describes the era when German newcomers arrived. Cheers--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC AG Vulcan Stettin, Stoewer had Polish workers(awfully treated and paid less than Germans btw). But if no shared history is present, yes, the names can be removed, why not.Also shared history is present already in the articles:The shipyard was finally taken over by the Polish government after World War II and a new Szczecin Shipyard was started at this site. The Szczecin Shipyard named one of its wharfs "Wulkan" and two slipways "Wulkan 1" and "Wulkan Nowa. Cheers.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice the info in the article about Poland acquiring the shipyard after Szczecin was restored to Polish state?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits here violate the Gdańsk vote [18]. Please note that we do use double naming only in cases of shared history between German and Poland. This timeperiod doesn't fulfill that critera.For examples see 1988 Polish strikes article where we use no Germanized version of Gdańsk, since no shared history is present in this part of history .Or Euro 2012 artilce where no Germanized names are used either. Or Adoptation of Christianity by Mieszko were we also don't use Germanized versions of Polish names.

Contrary to these rules you added the Germanised versions of the names mentioned. Please remove them restore the proper names in accordance with the Gdansk vote. Or do you want to add Germanised versions of Polish names to rticles such as 1988 Polish strikes article or Euro 2012?

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 and have a nice day. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative names are only used in case of shared history. There is no Germanised version of Gdańsk for example in Lech Wałęsa article, or history of Wrocław before German newcomers arrived. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[19] yes, i understand that - but what's the point of that being in there, particularly since the fact of how it was used after WW2 has everything to do with how it was "used" during WW2 (hence my es)?Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this [20] he became a doctor of arts in 2006. Your work that you use is dated as published from 2003. Are you using a Master of Arts thesis as source ?:)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he is an expert now, but in 2003 he certainly wasn't. And storing Master of Arts thesis on pdf by university is nothing new. So what is that pdf-a master of art thesis, a reviewed book in pdf format? I look forward towards an answer.Right now we have a pdf that was created 3 years before he became doctor.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking you about where he worked or when he finished his studies as a student. I am asking about the file that you are using. Is it a master of arts thesis that was later published by him before he became a full fledged scholar, was it a book? For now it is certain that it wasn't written after 2006 when he became doctor nor is it his doctor's thesis from the looks of it. So what is it ? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that this file was established in 2002. I am growing in suspicion that this might be Master of Arts thesis.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the unknown pdf file if it will be confirmed that it was not written as doctor's thesis or after that.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Polish nationalists wanted to restore Piast borders of Poland like you wrote in Oder Neisse line, the ones that did were actually belonging to opposition in Poland pre-war that was opressed by Sanacja regime.You might want to clarify that, or should I do so?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Germans attacked the Soviet Union 70 years ago, however, those who did - were German (at least most of them). Not all Polish nationalists claimed the "motherland territories", those who did - were nationalists. I don't see the problem about that. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking about your edits to Oder Neisse line. The people you added were a fringe group, not the main party as with Nazi Germany and Nazis.Also unless you provide sources that support your OR and Synthesis theory that they influenced Allied decision making this will be removed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you manipulation the source by Ingo Haar [21] You used him as source to claim that

Polish historians called for the "return" of territories up to the river

This is a blatant manipulation of what is actually written in the text.

Some of the Polish historians who propagated mysl zachodnia sometimes rattled their sabers by caling-particualarly in journalistic articless-for the "return" of territories up to Elbe

This is an essential difference. Please remove your manipulation.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]