User talk:Yemote

The usage of the "right" name for locations sharing a history between German and Poland was a matter of dispute for a long time. The policy we follow is described in the following "Gdansk vote".

This page is affected by the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes:

For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945
For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945
In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively
In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdańsk (Danzig) and later Gdańsk exclusively.
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). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.
Reverts to conform with community consensus are excluded from the three-revert rule (3RR). Only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR. Please use descriptive edit summaries.
Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. In case of doubt, assume good faith and do not bite newcomers.

The detailed vote results and the vote itself can be found on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. This vote has ended; please do not vote anymore. Comments and discussions can be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion anytime. This template {{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} can be added on the talk page of affected articles if necessary.

Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silesia

I have tried to understand the comment you left on my talk page and when you reverted my edit but it does not make sense. Perhaps there are language issues. Another go?Rsloch (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A land that contained Germans, Hungarians, Austrians, Slovaks, Czechs, Kashubians, Jews, and Poles (not an exhaustive list) seems historically ethnically diverse to me. Would a reference end your reverting? Rsloch (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

My edits in order, one is doubly cited, two is a typo correction, three is the reversion of a grammatically flawed generalised section to a Silesia specific one, four is bringing the Intelligenzaktion Schlesien section into the one above, five gives the date of Jewish settlement in Silesia with cite, six expands their history with cite, seven expands on Nazi expulsion of Jews with cite, and six reinstates text by MyMoloboaccount that got lost in the mix. Could you explain why you are removing all of these additions? Rsloch (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The warnings left on this page were designed to persuade you not to conduct blanket reversions of valid material. Responding with tit for tat is rather silly.

Again I am having difficulty understanding what you have written. None of it justifies your actions. Neither MyMoloboaccount or I need each other's or your permission to edit a page. Consensus is sought not given. Also much of the material you reverted was not in contention, like the spelling error. If there are concerns about the validity of a statement editors will often seek to provide citations to justify them. That is what I did, twice. You may not agree with a doubly referenced statement but that is not grounds for removing it. As to your claim that the Nazis conducted genocide in Silesia the facts do not support that. The Nazis conducted their genocide elsewhere. I think we should concentrate on the evil things that occurred in Silesia don't you?

Blanket undoing of referenced valid material is vandalism. As the second warning says that 'you may be blocked from editing without further notice'Rsloch (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted five separate revisions that I made in one go. That means that you specifically chose to revert the spelling mistake and the other edits you seem to have no dispute with. That is why I warned you.

You may speak and write perfect English but a fair amount of what you have posted on my talk page is difficult to understand. I don't highlight this to belittle but the possibility of confusion.

You don't like the two reference I have provided for the '`Silesia has historically been...' sentence. Could you be clearer as to why?

Genocide is something separate to random killings or even mass murder. I've checked the Extermination camp article and no death camps existed in Silesia.

I've never stated that the Germans were always in Silesia and though I am part German I've always believed that when start wars you have to put up with losing territory if you lose. I'm not a fan of expelling people on the grounds of ethnicity whoever does it. My views on geopolitics though aren't relevant to this article. Rsloch (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Silesia. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits.

Please don't be discouraged. Editors using sources and trying to make articles more neutral and representing more viewpoints are always welcomed. I am sure with time to learn how to edit wiki you will become a valuable contributor. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How should we describe the Nazi genocide of Polish and Jewish population in Silesia during Second World War?

[1] I would welcome your opinion as you have been involved. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments there

"For Rsloch murdering of tens of thousands has to be done in specific way to be considered GENOCIDE. He is definitely Holocaust denial. I have to investigate if this can be put in court in US, here is possible to put a foreign citizen to respond." Your comments are very difficult to read, since this is sub-par English, but it is clear that you are accusing someone of being a Holocaust denier, and that is a pretty serious accusation, a personal attack. In addition, it seems (again, your English is almost incomprehensible, so I am not entirely sure) that you are making a legal threat--specifically not allowed, see WP:NLT. Don't make such comments again, and try to proofread your comments so they cannot be easily misunderstood. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IT IS WRONG ASSUMPTIONS ADMINISTRATORS

It is wrong assumption. I am not user: Serafin. I request review and unblock.--Yemote (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]