User talk:Molobo

I never used profanity against you

I never used profanity against you, if you had not deleted what I had said, I said what it can possibly mean, how do you know I meant the cuss word and not the delicious treat?

--Jadger 01:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

why do you remove pertinent information?

Why did you remove pertinent information about German groups aiding the oppressed Poles, without giving a reason? Are you so deeply anti-German that you think that no German has ever done anything nice for a Pole? or rather, you try to delete it so that you can continue with your false enemies, I know you feel more secure in your "it's us vs. them" dreams, but when it is undeniable, please don't remove it.

--Jadger 01:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It is very valuable, as it describes Germans resisting the actions of the government. stop trying to paint all Germans as evil, in the real world it is not just black and white/good and evil, there is always differentiation when it concerns humans.

--Jadger 01:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Stalking again?

Molobo, you know that I derive no pleasure from feeding the trolls and talking with you. So please stop littering my page with your insensical and desultory exclamations. For the umpteenth time, I remind you that sockpuppetry is now allowed. Don't bother to answer on my talk. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC) I ask again. Why do you remove sourced and linked information from articles and call Britannica definitions "original research" ? As to sockpuppets I have no any. The explanation is presente clearly by mean on IP adress and the main page clearly states that it is me. --Molobo 17:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice to meet you

Hi. Nice to meet you. Thanks for your message om my talkpage. I consider it as a kind of support. Hope to cooperate with you in future. Drop me a note if you'll need my help.

BTW, are you sure your talkpage is OK? I'm afraid it somehow migrated to the bottom of your userpage :)). Czesc,AlexPU 10:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Troll will be troll?

Molobo, I see that you relapsed into delations that preceded your block. Please stop recruiting revert warriors now! --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You have been warned by Arbcom[1] to stop such personal attacks Ghirlandajo. --Molobo 14:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Molobo, please avoid public comments like this against Kenaz9, even though you kept it indirect, ... and more direct ones, such as this one. Sciurinæ 17:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Doing just what I criticised in a question of yours that asked what I was criticizing, is not funny. I would very much appreciate if you could stop implying that users—just for the sake of it—were trying to conceal discrimination/war crimes. No one has ever, for example, exhibited you in the German-speaking noticeboard implying you were acting in bad faith, so don't do something like that, either. I had actually thought that at least this would stop, yet incivility, trouble and reverts (you've collected about fifty of them in the last few days already) would not leave your path. Just make sure you won't follow it until it's too late and then ponder for a long time about the road not taken. Sciurinæ 18:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate if you could stop implying that users—just for the sake of it—were trying to conceal discrimination/war crimes Of course not[2] No one has ever, for example, exhibited you in the German-speaking noticeboard implying you were acting bad faith I would be surprised one would ever do that cosidering the amount of time I dedicate to help German related topics and may I say the goal of Polish-German reconcillation by fully presenting the complex issue of German nations relations with its neighbour. Whatever made you say that ? "Just make sure you won't follow it until it's too late and ponder for a long time about the road not taken" Sorry I don't read too well German and I don't understand the lines above the poem. Anyway I am too busy documenting atrocities made in Poland by Germany so that our two nations can understand themselfs better. Isn't a good goal, don't you agree ? --Molobo 18:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a good goal. Concerning the poem, the text is just about the poet. If you're interested in an interpretation, oh well, you can use Google better than most others anyway. (no, there is no hidden message; I was trying to say you should be careful not to go the wrong way and made a stupid reference to a (at least IMO) good poem) Sciurinæ 18:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Soviet partisans

Hi. I'm engaging in the editing of that article, seeing an intense revert war here. To make my participation in it :((( easier (as well as yours), we should make an agreement on the versions of UA- and PL- related parts of the article that satisfy our vision of neutrality. That's why I suggest you to either copy-paste text from one of the last-week versions to some talkpage and specify the respective date and time of article version. I'll do just the same, so we can discuss to what version we roll-back the RU POV-pushing. Of course I neither promise to follow your version automatically nor demanding the same from you and your friends: we'll discuss. Ukrained 05:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

To Ukrained: Good idea, Bohdane!

To Molobo: Thanks for being there, although you have your own reasons to seek neutrality on that page. And please react on Bohdan idea ASAP: we need to know what to do with Polish sections.AlexPU 19:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Kopernik

[3] --Molobo 00:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Brest Litovsk

[4] --Molobo 11:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

German ideology of Ethnic Cleansing 1920-1945

[5] --Molobo 11:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ludendorff, Wilhelm, plans of ethnic cleansing and annexations towards Poland in WWI

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] --Molobo 15:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop Vandalising

I’ve so far ignored your wikistalking and random acts of what to my eyes constitutes nothing but sheer vandalism, but you’ve finally pushed me over the edge. I’m now officially pissed-off with you. The removal of the Morgenthau Plan map with the comment ’’’removed strange map(there was no "Russia" )’’’, shows your lack of respect for the contributions of others. If you’d bothered to read the images discussion page where I provided the source [12] for the image, you’d have seen that the area was described as ’’Territory to Russia’’. If despite this the term Russia was unsatisfactory to your ”high standards of quality”… then all you’d had to do was request me to change it, instead of blatantly erasing it! --Stor stark7 20:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please insert correct images. You are confusing Soviet Union with Russia, the two are different entites. I advise you to be more carefull in creating maps and you will avoid such mistakes. While it is possible that somebody refered to it as Russia, you should not spread this incorrect view by creating incorrect maps. --Molobo 20:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Lublin to become German

[13] --Molobo 00:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Attempts to create the myth of "Good German"

[14] --Molobo 00:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Subhuman Poles

[15] --Molobo 00:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Polish Jews, not Poles. I do hope that was not an intentional misquoting attempting to show the German attitude towards Poles in the worst way possible, but just a misunderstanding. Kusma (討論) 02:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Warning that German towns could become death traps for foreign tourists in "Brown East" of Germany

[16] Uwe-Karsten Heye warns Africans that they could lost their lives if they visit certain places in Germany. --Molobo 12:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[17] "There are small and mid-sized towns in Brandenburg and elsewhere where I would advise anyone with a different skin colour not to go," said Heye, who now runs an anti-racist action group called Gesicht zeigen (Show Your Face). --Molobo 12:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[18] "Es gibt kleine und mittlere Städte in Brandenburg und anderswo, wo ich keinem, der eine andere Hautfarbe hat, raten würde hinzugehen. Er würde sie möglicherweise lebend nicht mehr verlassen." Später relativierte Heye seine Äußerungen. DW --Molobo 12:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I did just what you asked for and restored the original

The thing about "Silesia" was my edit summary, not what I wrote into the article. What I did was just what you asked me to do: quote more accurately. The website linked says "according to some authorities his father was a Germanized Slav". I just removed the misquote that made that "Polish". By the way "Slav" is used as ethnicity here, not as nationality. Kusma (討論) 16:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Which group of Slavs was he ? Perhaps we should go even further and change it to Indo-European. This latest attempt to avoid mentioning that Kopernik was a Pole is simply absurd. --Molobo 16:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I read somewhere that he was Silesian (I think in the old Copernicus' nationality article). I just don't like misquoting and overly general interpretation of sources: if the source says "Slav", not "Pole", I assume the source deliberately does not say "Pole". I personally do not care whether Copernicus was a Pole or not, I think the whole question is silly. Kusma (討論) 16:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Neonazism in Germany on the rise

[19] --Molobo 10:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Discrimination of Poles in Prussia

[20] --Molobo 18:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility 2

Pleeease... no more of that stuff [21] [22] [23]. You will not stand to gain from such behaviour, especially not at a time when you had better keep your profile low. Sciurinæ 20:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You are yourself acting badly, as you are engaging in deletion of sourced information. I don't see how information about Prussian history is "being uncivil". --Molobo 20:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You're continuing?! I can't believe my eyes! Sciurinæ 21:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I am simply trying to engage in dialogue with you. But It seems that you are unwilling to talk to me. Let me repeat, why don't you show neutrality and for once try to contribute something about German war crimes or discrimination against other nationalities that happened in the past instead of constant deletions ? It would serve to show that you are able to contribute in neutral way. I certainly ain't shy to show Polish wrongdoings [24]. --Molobo 21:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's get this straight: I'm not deleting your comments regardless of their contents. Comments like [25] are doing little to engage in a dialogue. I have tried to talk to you for a whole long time, for an endless number of hours and sentences. Remember our very first dispute we ever had, on talk:Polonophobia? Yes, that was when Alx-pl, I and others had apparent consensus, until the article became unprotected and you reimplemented your version, with all the anti-German distortions of truth and only deleting the paragraph that tried to show the upperside of Polish-German relations. Yes, I still remember that shock. If I had known you were banned for at least three times from forums for similar behaviour, I wouldn't have been that astonished. Discussions with you are better than your edits. You're trying to convince of your views in the same way but if one regards you not like an individual as an advocate, which you surely are, then discussions are much less disappointing, in my opinion. On talk:Copernicus I still see the same chatter without an aim. Can you believe this?? They're actually trying to convince you! Once they have more experience, they will understand that they have to try convincing the others and then proceed without your prior approval. But sometimes one is still naive again, and tries to explain to you, as I did some hours ago, why your changes were blatant original research, here Talk:Centre_Against_Expulsions#Website. And I could have known better! When I questioned the "article" Polonophobia, there were as many as seventeen disputed statements. It was in January 2006. But following the fact that I did not remove them all again, you never ever felt it necessary to answer or do something about them, even after I reminded you later. Today you even removed the tag.

I don't know how many times I've to tell you to stop accusing me, whether implicitely or explicitely, of denying descrimination and atrocities. I can only see malicious teasing behind these accusations.

As for your "lack of shyness" to show Polish wrongdoings, yes, Molobo, I remember that unusual case of yours cited above, because I was extremely astonished by that myself. Trying to interpret the context, I guess you have an intention behind that generosity. It appears that you vehemently try to ally with Ukrainian editors to fight against Russians. That would also explain why you're so keen on defining my "collegues" [26]. It's strange that you make me make friends with others. I cannot understand why you're looking for enemies and even work towards uniting them, though it may not be your goal. Maybe that helps you to believe that your opposition is a group/nationality rather than individuals. Comments of yours like this are pretty scary, somehow I get the idea that you're planning some kind of Wiki World War... Sciurinæ 01:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Only 29 %

Russians agree with the current borders of Russia[27] --Molobo 00:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to your userpage.

Just letting you know that your userpage was vandalized earlier by 205.188.116.202 and reverted to your previous version (revision 54427420). Thank you. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Youre on the black list

Ghirla, Irpen, you, Deng.. these slavs/slavophiles are ruining Wikipedia, just like they ruin their own countries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.5.218.99 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Molobo hardly shares the views and goals of Irpen, Ghirla &Co. You're unjust about that. Then, ethnic profiling is what also ruins the Wikipedia and undiscriminately insults editors. There are some reasonable editors even among Russians. I'm afraid it's more complicated than you think.

Talking of blacklists... Molobo, if this editors starts bothering you (or, what is important, articles) enough, file an RfC, Vandalism in progress etc., and you can count on my participation there. Slavic, Ukrained 08:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing is bad for Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with Slavs etc. Kusma (討論) 15:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your question on my talk page

This is a little bit like the pot calling the kettle black, especially the thing about the edit summaries. You have accused Scinurae of nationalism in edit summaries and accused others of POV pushing many times before. I can also understand if people don't take the time to talk to you anymore since, talking to you and discussing a point with you is rather stressful and tiring. You should perhaps try to suggest compromises instead of simply demanding that certain information is included in cases where the relevance of that information is not clear. Kusma (討論) 15:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your apparent inability to compromise and your assumption of nationalism on the side of editors who disagree with you are stressful. The way you always try to make discussions go offtopic is also exteremely aggravating (on my talk page, you started talking about Prussia). Please also learn how to indent properly. Kusma (討論) 15:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

About indenting: See indentation for what "indent" means. On Wikipedia, it is done with the colon (:) sign.

About your accusations claiming I am not interested in neutrality: I think persecution of other nationalities is an important topic, but like every other topic, it does not have to be repeated in detail in every article that it is somewhat relevant to. That is what we have wikilinks for, and See Also sections, and categories etc. In the interest of neutrality, it is often better to move details to other subarticles. Kusma (討論) 16:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit on Wehrmacht page

The full diff is this, where the War Crimes of the Wehrmacht are mentioned again in Wikipedia:Summary style, as they should be in an overview article like this. The war crimes section should have a length of approximately one paragraph, not longer, details should be in the subarticle War crimes of the Wehrmacht. The exact content and the location of the overview paragraph inside the main article are of course debatable, but the length of the paragraph is mostly fine, and the intent here is obviously not to "delete all information on war crimes of the Wehrmacht". Kusma (討論) 16:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

An edit like the one by Revealing you pointed out to me I would revert on sight. That really is plain deletion of information apparently with the intent to deny the war crimes of the Wehrmacht, and so is unlike what Matthead did in his two edits. Kusma (討論) 18:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Putin returns to traditions of Imperial Russia

[28]

--Molobo 11:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ekhem

How can a photo be incredible? If you suggest that it's a forgery (that it is in fact a painting or someone's photoshop work), then please be so kind as to provide some rationale other than one of the guys to use it in his book has written an article for some non-notable monthly. //Halibutt 16:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, but these were not the sources of the picture. The primary source of the picture is an unknown foto amateur who made it some time in late 1943 and then passed it on to his successors, who then made some copies and made them available. The picture is used by some books. Some of them are completely idiotic, some of them are not. The fact is that even Wikipedia is using it, and the picture does not influence the credibility of wikipedia or the other way around. If a picture of a Palace of Culture and Science appeared in a monthly published by some I was taken by the UFO crazies would it mean that the Palace of Culture and Science is not there? At the moment I have no time to check it, but I believe the pic is also in the book by Siemaszko's, who are among the most credible specialists (even though often also blamed for some statements) in the matter. If so, does it change a thing about this pic? Not really. //Halibutt 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The primary source of the picture is an unknown foto amateur who made it some time in late 1943 and then passed it on to his successors, who then made some copies and made them available

The problem is that this is according to two very biased authors. I would like some more neutral authors. --Molobo 19:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Poznan

[29] --Molobo 00:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC) [30] --Molobo 00:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[31] --Molobo 00:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)