User talk:HerkusMonte/Archive 5

Two years ago ...
resistance fighter
	... you were recipient; no. 730 of Precious,; a prize of QAI!

July 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Johannes Hevelius may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:

was a  councillor and [[mayor]] of [[Danzig]] (Gdańsk], then part of the [[Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth]].<ref>Robert Bideleux, Ian Jeffries, ''A

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What are the rules here regarding foreign names in the intro? Can you help? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One last question: Do you know whether the following rules are into force after the Gdańsk vote?::

Here is one rule: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#General_guidelines, see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Alternative_names_policy

"Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced by a link to the section phrased, for example: "(known also by several alternative names)". When there are several significant alternate names, the case for mentioning the names prominently is at least as strong as with two. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead "(Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names"

Here is another rule (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Alternative_names):

"Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead'" 2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gdansk vote

Please show that "Gdansk vote" to avoid any unnecessary edit wars. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overmans figures

Contact me by email and I will provide a jpg to support the edit "The West German search service was able to confirm the deaths of 86,860 civilians due to the wartime flight and evacuations from those areas" I have a copy of Overmans article as well as copies of the the detailed schedules from Gesamterhebung zur Klärung des Schicksals der deutschen Bevölkerung in den Vertreibungsgebieten, München : Zentralstelle des Kirchl. Suchdienstes, 1965 .BTW as a rule of thumb I keep hard copies to support my edits. --Woogie10w (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited German evacuation from East-Central Europe near the end of World War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Pomerania. 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) 09:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

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 Death and the Maiden. 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) 09:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs

Thank you for your recent articles, including Polish constitutional crisis, 2015, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

disruptive canvassing

Re [1], please see WP:CANVASS. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Forum

Please consider WP:NOTAFORUM, Thanks.

Please consider that you read and quote only biased Western, mostly German, comments. You have been warned you are nonneutral.Xx236 (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consider that you were the subject to two ANI notices recently and were topic-banned for all things on Poland for at least six months mid-last year. Pot kettle, Xx236!!!!!

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 12:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

polish constitutional crisis

please add full refs ( dates) when you edit and dont make sarcastic remarks in edit summaries.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another user blocked for edit-warring and getting a topic-ban on top of that - and you are here critiquing Herkus??!? It is to laugh.

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Town names that are translations vs. town names that are entirely different, and {{langx|de}}

According to the land-de template page, the template should only be used "to indicate to readers that the previous term or phrase is translated from a foreign language" - in many cases, Polish town names in Pomerania fit that requirement; however, in other cases, the new Polish town name is completely unrelated (language-wise) to the previous German name, so I believe it's more appropriate to state in the article body "Before 1945, the town was in Germany and known as (old town name)."

Also, the Manual of Style page MOS:SEEALSO does not say that See Also should be avoided; on the contrary, if the History of Pomerania page needs to be mentioned, the See Also section seems like a perfect place for it. That surely makes more sense than the same parroted phrase being added en masse on every single town and village page. Rockypedia (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More recently, I've discovered that your blanket reverts of about 67 of my edits also left many pages with improper translation formats for the town names that do have German counterparts. I'm slowly fixing them, which is a huge waste of time that could have been avoided. Please, in the future, discuss this kind of thing before doing dozens of reverts without looking at the consequences. I'm not some anon IP doing drive-bys; I can work with other editors. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even more recently, at least one of your blanket reverts (on Grodno, West Pomeranian Voivodeship) resulted in a restoration of the "ethnically cleansed" language. That was the most serious issue that I've been trying to fix, after the anon IP added that to over 1,400 pages over a year or two. I'm still working my way through that mess. Rockypedia (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to address these issues on your talk page, where I first raised the issue. You have so far ignored everything I've said above. Rockypedia (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot going on here, so let's see...

Well, there's a lot of articles involved here, so there's not a clear obvious place to stage a discussion. User pages are maybe not the best venue. One of the article talk pages maybe, then point to that page....

@User:Rockypedia, User:HerkusMonte did open a discussion, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Foreign names in the lead.

Just looking at Wyszogóra -- and I guess on a bunch of similar articles we've gone down the same path --it looks like there's sort of been some confusion (along with legitimate disagreements). An editor added some "ethnic cleansing" language which User:Rockypedia rolled back, but at the same time he removed "{{langx|de|Piepenburg}}". User:HerkusMonte, seeing and maybe focussing on that, rolled back the whole rollback in order to restore "{{langx|de|Piepenburg}}".

So for both editors, maybe not the neatest and most precise editing, and so some confusion. User:Rockypedia, sometimes it is better not to convolute a rollback with other changes as it can get a little messy. But User:HerkusMonte, if your objection was just to the removal of "{{langx|de|Piepenburg}}", could you not have undone just that?

As to the merits of the case for and against "{{langx|de|Piepenburg}}": I don't think there is a hard rule against it, and its been in the article since 2012. So that's the stable version and the ball's in User:Rockypedia's court to make a positive case for change if he want to change it and the change has been objected to, which it has.

User:Rockypedia, you cite {{lang-de}} which says it is "usually used to indicate to readers that the previous term or phrase is translated from a foreign language". Fine, but while that is a reasonable point to open a case, it is not a deal-closer.

For one thing, it does say "usually". For another, I think (not sure) that this form is quite common in our articles, and common practice is definitely a valid point in discussions like this.

User:HerkusMonte has cited Talk:Gdansk/Vote which IMO has no bearing, but WP:NCPLACE does and it says exactly this when describing the lede: "The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses, e.g.: Gulf of Finland (Estonian: Soome laht; Finnish: Suomenlahti; [Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help); Swedish: Finska viken) is a large bay in the easternmost arm of the Baltic Sea". And note that the "lang-" templates are specifically used. (However, the foreign terms appear to be translations (maybe... it gets into the weeds a bit... is "Soome" the Estonian translation of the Finnish word "Suomi" or just the Estonian term for Finland?). So its complicated.)

Anyway, point being its not an open-and-shut case for either side, and so if there's objection (which there is) the existing stable version is the correct version absent consensus to change. So if you want to make this change, you have to gather and convince other editors, and since these are obscure articles and you want to change a lot of them, your best bet might be to initiate a WP:RFC. Not sure where, possible WP:NCPLACE Herostratus (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 18:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, colleague. You just pasted in {{Uw-harass4im}} and there are four templates that are suppose to precede it (Uw-harass4, -3, -2, and -1). Don't pull out your gun a the beginning of a dispute. I'm sure we can work this out, see above. Herostratus (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: Sorry, I didn't see you post this until today. I posted that because of this edit, which was completely out of line. Both of the users need to talk and find a solution instead of insulting each other and calling each other liars. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 15:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Well, sometimes tempers flare. I'm confident we can work this all out. Herostratus (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 16:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Georg Ludwig von Puttkamer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Province of Pomerania. 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) 10:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Ethnic cleansing" passage added to hundreds of Polish village and town pages

I'd like to ask you directly: are you the editor that is responsible for adding this passage to the hundreds of Polish village and town pages, while editing as an anonymous IP editor?

Prior to 1945 it was in Germany. After World War II the region was placed under Polish administration and ethnically cleansed according to the post-war Potsdam Agreement. The native German populace was expelled and replaced with Poles.

I'd appreciate a forthright response. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DisuseKid.

I started the conversation here. Why did you respond on my talk page? I'll ask again: Have you edited as an anon IP on those Polish village pages? Rockypedia (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about Prior to 1945 it was Nazi Germany, an area without Jews, but with mistreated racially lower forced workers. After World War II the region was placed by the Allies under Polish administration according to the post-war Potsdam Agreement. The native German populace [[ run away or was expelled and replaced with Poles, who survived 5 years of German terror. Xx236 (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

peasant - patriots

Please find peasant-patriots on pages 30 or 31.Xx236 (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google rather doesn't support such name, isn't it your OR?Xx236 (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, HerkusMonte. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Six years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Nun, Brüder, sind wir frohgemut

HerkusMonte, there is a problem with the review you posted here: there is no icon indicating what the result of the review is.

The problem seems to be that you have not filled out the {{DYK checklist}} template correctly. In particular, the instructions for the "status" field, which causes an icon to be displayed, are as follows: Put "y" if no problems, "?" for minor problems, "maybe" if nomination needs work, "no" if completely ineligible, "again" to request another reviewer take a look. You haven't used any of these values, so no icon appears.

Please return to the review at your earliest convenience to fix the template and complete your review. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, HerkusMonte. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Hans Bredow

Hello! Your submission of Hans Bredow at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Yoninah (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the article! It's also featured on Portal:Germany. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Königsberg

Hello HerhusMonte, your sweeping reversal - what do you mean by "POVish", please - has put back all the poor English copyedits and such unfortunate and colossal bloomers like describing Hebrew script as "Yiddish" for the city's name! Is it possible you could be more exacting and helpful in your editing?? --Po Mieczu (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Po Mieczu: Why did you move specific languages to the top? I don't see any reason to split the names like that. I'm unable to read Hebrew, I guess it's just the specific spelling of the Yiddish "Kenigsberg" in Hebrew letters.I don't think it's actually a different name.

Calling the Albertina an "initially Polish and Lithunaian intellectual center“ is an exceptional claim which needs a much better source than the source you provided (a wayback machine version of "Albertina on postcards and stamps"). The Albertina was a German language University from the start, your selective choice of notable students shows a significant national (POVish) bias.

You replaced a section header Duchy of Prussia with Polish Prussia. Polish Prussia is a term used for Royal Prussia, the western part of the Teutonic Order's state which became part of Poland in 1466. Königsberg was not part of Royal/Polish Prussia. Again a POVish edit.

Some other changes were just minor sentence constructions, grammatically wrong (Stadtstheater) or unsourced. I'm pretty sure the Königsberg garrison wasn't "quartered" and Christian Ludwig von Kalckstein wasn't assassinated but sentenced to death by a Prussian court.

If you think some of your changes should be adopted, please seek WP:Consensus at the relevant talk page. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity of Spätaussiedler

Look, English wikipedia very clearly says that they could be of any ethnicity, not just ethnic Germans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return#Germany

Quote from the "Right of return" article, "Germany" section: "German law allows (1) persons descending from German nationals OF ANY ETHNICITY or (2) persons of ethnic German descent and living in countries of the former Warsaw Pact (as well as Yugoslavia) the right to "return" to Germany and ("re")claim German citizenship."

Also, Spätaussiedler do not have to be Reichsdeutsche but also Volksdeutsche (who were not German citizens before WW2, but lived for example in Volhynia).

Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Deutsche Welle article about Spätaussiedler which clearly mentions that many of them were ethnic Poles or with mixed Polish-German identity:

https://www.dw.com/pl/emigracja-z-polski-do-niemiec-liczna-i-prawie-niewidoczna/a-16181647 Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the article mentions Czesław Gołębiewski and Lukas Podolski as examples of ethnic Polish Spätaussiedler (not family members, but Spätaussiedler - they could be ethnic Poles or other ethnic Slavs as well). I will remove those edits by sock. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Spätaussiedler

Immigrants from pre-war Polish Silesia (East Upper Silesia) were also counted as Spätaussiedler or not?

Because there were around 2 million Einhemische Silesians there in 1950: https://i.imgur.com/HmJiihn.png

Source (Tabelle 7): https://ulis-buecherecke.ch/pdf_neben_dem_krieg/schlesien_und_die_schlesier.pdf

Wojewodschaft Kattowitz included small part of West Upper Silesia with over 300,000 Autochthons, but the remaining 2 million were Einhemische Silesians from East Upper Silesia, which had been part of Poland already before 1939. Many East Upper Silesians also emigrated to Germany for economical reasons.

If they were counted as Spätaussiedler, then you cannot equate Spätaussiedler with "autochthons of Regained Lands".

In such case I suggest we should remove the statement about the number of Spätaussiedler because it has nothing to do with the number of "autochthons of Regained Lands", as Spätaussiedler could be recruited also from other groups (Volksdeutsche in all regions of Poland, even Lublin etc., Silesians in East Upper Silesia which is not part of "Regained Lands", etc.).

I removed that statement from those two articles, but I added it to the article about Right of return: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return#Germany

And I added "See also" templates linking to Right of return page to those two Ostgebiete-related articles.

Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Ontario (steamboat)

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Fryatt

Hi, can you provide an English translation of the quote you added to the reference? I think it would benefit those readers who don't speak German. Mjroots (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gdansk vote

Please respect Gdansk vote-it isn't used for modern locations in Poland or administrative districts.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MyMoloboaccount:: "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" These districts obviously share a history, the date of construction of the current houses is completely irrelevant. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw shares a lot of history with Germany Herkus-are you claiming all locations in Warsaw and its administrative districts should have Germanised names? For instance are you claiming [[]]Wola district should have Germanised name just because Wola Massacre happened there?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to keep this discussion factual. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,are you saying Wola Massacre didn't happen? Please clarify. I believe you are seriously misrepresenting the vote-it isn't used for descriptions of modern locations but for historical part of the articles. Since all of Poland was once under German occupation in WW2 your interpretation would mean every Polish location should have a Germanised name-which is obviously wrong and absurd.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Masurian People's Party

Hello. Just a heads up: You introduced a contradictory claim in this article that an MVP candidate received around a third of the vote in a constituency, but the winning Conservative Party candidate received 73% of the vote. Cheers, Number 5 7 18:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Masurians

Hi, Hieronim Malecki moved to Masuria in the 1500s but at that time a lot of Poles/Masovians were moving to Masuria, so I think he should be added back because he was one of the "founders" of this population, and he was Lutheran. I'll add him back. The ones without articles on English Wikipedia were taken from Polish Wikipedia.
Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Carlshof Institutions

Hello! Your submission of Carlshof Institutions at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Translation request

Hello HerkusMonte, Would you write / translate the article of Isabelle de Charrière (Q123386) for the NDS Wikipedia? That would be appreciated. Boss-well63 (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see...

...this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:FDP chairs

Template:FDP chairs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Before/after 1945...

I would perhaps suggest that you refrain form adding stand alone text about "before 1945" (it was Germany) or "after 1945" (expelled Germans) into every Polish town and village article. In some cases, it appears that the new text exceeds what's already written in these small stub articles, thus clearly creating issues of undue weight and balance. Also, if you want to expand on the history of a particular place, then please start at the beginning, as most of those areas were part of the Piast Poland and were inhabited by the Slavs, before German colonization. 1945 is not the "start of history", for those places. --E-960 (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

E-960, If you would take a closer look to my edits you would realize I only reverted a sockpuppet. The single sentence "the area was part of Germany before 1945" was added by the bot who created these articles (e.g. [2], [3], [4]). I restored longstanding versions of these articles. Could you please explain why you deleted clearly sourced content ([5], [6]) HerkusMonte (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, upon further review I did notice that a bot used a template to generate these stub articles for Polish towns and villages. However, I'm not sure if a person set the template up and the bot did the rest, as I'm not familiar with the technical aspect of this. However, I'm completely taken aback by the fact that out of ALL the history, the only reference made was that "prior to 1945 it was Germany" (since forever???). This is clearly POV-ish, and cherry-picked. I think a bot should be used to remove these blurb statements, or include a bit more detail to summarize the history of the region(s) from the start. --E-960 (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how you're calling it "POV" and "cherry-picked", while you're deleting facts about the changing of borders in 1945 and deleting sourced German place names, but at the same time you're adding the information - totally standing-alone - , that this areas belonged to Poland 1000 years ago (!)... A time where the most of this villages WASN'T even founded! lol.. Just to proof the claim of the ancient Piast/Polish grounds... THIS is POV... It's so obvious what your intention is. --Jonny84 (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny84, stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS and imply what my "intentions" are. When someone adds a statement to a sort stub article and only says "before 1945 it was germany" and nothing else... it's POV. Pomerania was Polish, an independent duchy, Polish, Danish, Swedish, Prussian, German and again Polish. So, it was more Polish than "German" when looking at the full context. When someone adds an out of context statement which say that it was germany before 1945... what does that suggest, that it was such since the last ice age??? Funny, how you don't notice this imbalance in the text, yet throw around grievances. I hate to break it to you, but Germany is not the only country that lost much territory, yet you don't see such POV-ish additions in other country articles": "it was Sweden before 1809", or "it was Poland before 1945", or "it was Great Britain before 1921". --E-960 (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny84, btw that's non-sense, you ridicule me for adding a reference to Mieszko I saying that "this areas belonged to Poland 1000 years ago (!)", then you follow that by adding a reference to germanic tribes form like 2000 years ago, who left and just went west. Really, just stop with the POV push, it's clear that you only add to the Poland articles stuff (out of context) related to Germany or germans. Like for example you did not bother to mention that the area also belonged to the Kingdom of Denmark, or that Duchy of Pomerania was a Slavic duchy. Your edits are POV-ish and create undue weight, ignoring anything non-german to the point of grossly distorting history. --E-960 (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm not "load up Poland articles with stuff (out of context) related to Germany or germans.", I'm just restoring related informations, you were deleting before.. 2) I'm contributing to articles who are related with Germany and German people in the past.. So there is nothing wrong in that.. If you disagree, then delete the name Lwów from Lviv and everything about Poland and Poles in "Ukraine articles".. I'm sure you wouldn't do that, because this don't fit with your agenda... --Jonny84 (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny84, I reverted your edits, stop with the blatant POV push and falsehoods. For one in the 12th century it was the Holy Roman Empire, not the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. At that time the "empire" was still rather multi-ethnic. Also, stop adding irrelevant and misleading information about the Polish-Soviet war and Polish-Ukrainian war, by writing clearly misleading and inaccurate information such as this: "...in 1945 the German inhabitants were expelled, and Polish population brought in from the Soviet Western Ukraine and Belarus, where Poles had to leave following the previous aggressions in wars against Ukraine and Soviet Russia in the 1920s." Your edits are disruptive and clearly bias, what you added is simply a distortion of facts. --E-960 (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was a part of Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (name was used since 15th century and was it latest name) till 18th century, till the End of the Empire... So were is nothing wrong in the name.. There is no reason to use just the name from 12 century. We also don't use words like Polacks today, because it was used in 18th century. I know you are trying to act like a fool.. But in reality you know exactly, that you are tring to push polish nationalist claims in all this articles, especially by trying to delete everything related with/about Germans.. since years (so this is no coincidence).. This is REAL POV, learn to deal with it and acknowledge it. I know your (real) intentions, don't make me a fool. --Jonny84 (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation "So, it was more Polish than "German" when looking at the full context." This couldn't be more POVish... 9 centuries is less? So you are claiming something like Maria Theresia of Habsburg wasn't a German Emperor and every Roman-"German" Emperor else? So what did they were else? Polish? Roman? Italian? Marsian? --Jonny84 (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A standard message to notify about an administrative ruling in effect.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- GizzyCatBella🍁 14:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m replying to your message left here -->[7]. You have shown interest in Central/ Eastern Europe, particularly the WW2 history of Poland (eg. [8]). Due to past disruption in this subject area, an additional strict set of rules named discretionary sanctions is in effect hence the above notice. Consider yourself notified. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]