User talk:Domen von Wielkopolska

Welcome!
Hello, Domen von Wielkopolska, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Darkness Shines (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

New Piast map
At the moment there is no room to add more images, but if you are able to create a map that combines features of File:Poland960.png and your new map we can just take out the other and keep yours. So, have a new accurate map that of Mieszko's Poland, with old cites and political boundaries and names of countries (color would be a plus). That would really add to the accuracy of the article. --E-960 (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Cities
Hi,

I understand your point about Toruń and other academic cities above 250,000, however, we cannot name all of them in the lead. The lead is only focused at largest cities (not metropolitan areas) just like in the other European country articles. The rest is mentioned in the body. Best Regards. Oliszydlowski, 10:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * But other European articles mention at least cities over 300,000 in the lead, including France:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France


 * "Other major urban centres include Marseille, Lyon, Lille, Nice, Toulouse and Strasbourg." - Strasbourg has 276,170 inhabitants (city proper).
 * Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Śląsk w I Rzeszy
Cześć. Dlaczego skończył się spór o mapkę w infoboksie HRE? Przecież ewidentnie np. Śląsk w XIII wieku nie należał do Rzeszy i jest na to bardzo bogata literatura. W internecie można znaleźć niby z książki Norberta Conradsa Berlin-Oppeln 1995, ISBN 3-87466-248-9 sowie ISBN 83-85716-36-X, Zarys historii Śląska do 1945 "W ten sposób Śląsk brał udział w politycznym i kulturalnym rozwoju Czech jako centrum Rzeszy i Europy, a nawet sam miał w tym znaczny udział. Dla czeskiego króla Karola, który w latach 1347-1378 jako niemiecki cesarz Karol IV rządził Rzeszą, Śląsk stanowił istotny element jego władzy. W 1348 r. włączył on na trwałe Śląsk do grupy krajów Korony czeskiej. Ponieważ Czechy w całości należały do Rzeszy, Śląsk jako część Czech był jednym z krajów Rzeszy."

Ale zawsze mi się to nie zgadzało, bo kiedyś coś wyczytałem innego. Teraz to znalazłem w książce jaką mam w domu Śląsk Cieszyński w średniowieczu (do 1528 roku), w przypisach 424 i 510, odpowiednio na stronach 116 i 135, że nawet po inkorporacji Śląska do Królestwa Czech przez Karola w połowie XIV wieku, Śląsk dalej nie należał do Rzeszy (!). To przeczy drugiej części powyższego cytatu, choć potwierdza pierwszą część, bo książę cieszyński był wikariuszem Rzeszy w latach 80. XIV wieku i miał bezpośredni wpływ na jej politykę. D_T_ G ( P  L ) 07:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Cześć, nie jestem pewien, nie miałem za bardzo czasu uczestniczyć w tym sporze. Proponuję zebrać solidne dowody i wtedy wznowić spór. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Spätaussiedler
Could you please provide a source for your claim that Spätaussiedler show a "Slavic DNA" and are thus not considered "real" German. By legal definition Spätaussiedler are "deutsche Volkszugehörige" and my dictionary translates that as ethnic origin. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The ones from Russia are Volga Germans etc., but the ones from Poland are at least in large part Slavic (Polish-speaking Silesians and other groups). Wikipedia article says that a Spätaussiedler can be anyone who was a citizen of Germany before WW2 - regardless of ethnicity (and pre-1939 Germany had Polish minorities, see the 1925 census) - as well as any ethnic German who was not a citizen of Germany before WW2 (so for example Volksdeutsche from Volhynia, Lublin, Poznań or Łódź, who had Polish citizenship in 1939, can be Spätaussiedler too). Due to the fact that Volksdeutsche from outside of the Recovered Territories can also be Spätaussiedler, I don't think you should add this data in the section about population of the Recovered Territories. Because it is quite misleading to suggest that all of them emirgrated from the Recovered Territories. Many of them were emigrants from Poznań, Łódź, Bydgoszcz, Warsaw, Lublin, etc. - anywhere where pre-1939 Polish citizens who signed the Volksliste in 1939-1945 lived. Nobody really knows how many of them were from the Recovered Territories and how many from pre-1939 Poland. I know that the official German narrative is that anyone with German citizenship is an ethnic German. Germany even continues this narrative today, but now it looks like political correctness when they claim that Afghans or Turks in Germany are ethnic Germans. Before 1945 the same argument was used by German nationalists to claim that all Slavic-speaking groups in Germany were ethnic Germans (except those who were to be eliminated according to Generalplan Ost). But they were Germans only by citizenship, and perhaps by national identity in many cases, but not in terms of ethnicity (the original 19th century German definition of ethnicity was based on Muttersprache, so someone whose Muttersprache is Slavic cannot be an ETHNIC German, by definition). Genetic studies are now considered politically incorrect in countries like France or Germany so I don't think they are interested in researching how much of "Slavic DNA" they have, but you will agree with me that the 19th century German understanding of ethnicity was based on Muttersprache. Someone whose mother tongue was Slavic could not be ethnic German, even if their genetic origin was Germanic. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's your personal WP:Original research. You need to provide WP:Reliable sources to support your theories. And even if you would find such sources we would present both views in a WP:NPOV manner without deleting well-sourced content. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you need to support that 1) all of the Spätaussiedler originated from the Recovered Territories and 2) that all of them were ethnic Germans. The English Wikipedia article about Spätaussiedler (remember, we are on English Wikipedia, not on German Wikipedia) says the following about who they are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return#Germany
 * "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 (Aussiedler/Spätaussiedler "late emigrants")." Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a source, please stop WP:editwarring and don't delete sourced content. You also restored a completely unrelated edit by a sock who had just made pretty absurd and unsourced additions. Please stop. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 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) 16:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you please quote the relevant part. We distinguish between Spätaussiedler (ethnic Germans) and their family members (not necessarily German) I guess that's what that article is about. Could you please at least restore "your" version without the edits of the sock. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

Reversion reason re:French_ancestry_in_the_USA_and_Canada.svg
Hi Domen von Wielkopolska- I've copied this here to make it more accessible - I appreciate the good intentions [regarding adding the numbers for that map] but [I had] not added them for a reason, the census collects those numbers by response to those identifying "one or more ancestry group", and even notes in the 1990 abstract (page III-3) that the response data for those handles reflects a change in the way the census asked questions; ergo the map with these categories combined is double-counting large amounts of people who are "French", which is the category that by far has the largest general answers. Many of those "French" responses would have included other categories, in reality many being both "French - French-Canadian" or "French - Cajun/Acadian". Also adding Quebec w/[a] label is inappropriate, as many within this umbrella of "French Canadians" or "French Americans" do not necessarily identify as Québécois, even if it does have the highest proportion of Francophones. W/some ancestries like Polish Americans, there is 1 answer, but having 3 distinct identities listed for Francos does not mean intuitively that they add up [to a representative number]. Respectfully --Simtropolitan (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've responded on your Talk page. Best regards, Domen (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Italian ancestry map in Canada and U.S.
Hi. Thanks for creating the Italian ancestry map for Canada and U.S. I have a comment though. The percentage range from 7-20 % seems much too broad. For example, Ontario with 7% and New York with say 15% (I haven't checked) is given the same weight in the map. I think it would give a much better picture if these much higher percentage ranges were given separate categories. Is this something you can update? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've responded on your talk page. Best regards, Domen (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, see my response there. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 00:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Disputed figures
First, the figures have already been denied by the original publisher (a tabloid newspaper), while no other reliable sources have cited the figure. See for example and  where it has already been stated by RS that the figures might be inaccurate. Thus, its been already disputed if the figure actually came from the Russian MoD and no other RS have cited it to the Ministry. Putting up a casualty figure and citing it to the MoD ignores the fact that the original source recanted and no other sources have backed it up. I have no problem with mentioning the whole thing in the casualties section where we can expand on the whole issue. Also, regarding my comment "within minutes", I was quoting the BBC, as you can see in their post. EkoGraf (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The BBC is wrong that they were "removed within minutes". They were there for over six hours. Check the number of captures from Web Archive:
 * Here (there were 6 captures when I was last checking, now there are 8) - http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.kp.ru/online/news/4672522/
 * And my screenshot - https://imgur.com/a/B0UwIbj - the figures were there in the snapshot from 12:13:37 and they were still there at 18:32:07.
 * I would leave these figures in the Template until we hear some sort of official dementi, or new official figures, from the Russian MoD.
 * Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We have an official denial by the original publisher cited to reliable sources (RS), while there is no actual RS verification that the figures actually came from the MoD. Just because we think that the figures might be right and that there is a cover up, unless its verifiable per WP guidelines WP:Verifiability (verified by reliable sources) we should tread lightly. Ignoring the fact that the information has been denied by the original publisher as inaccurate, and presenting the information as fact goes contrary to WP: Original Research. I would advise that you take up the issue at the main article's talk page and reach a consensus on the issue first. Best regards! EkoGraf (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine - death toll
I think that the Russian source mentioning 9861 military deaths refers to casualties on the Ukrainian side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Weber 123 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Western Belorussia
 * added a link pointing to Plurality
 * Wilno Voivodeship (1926–1939)
 * added a link pointing to Plurality

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Western Belorussia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plurality.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

July 2024
Hello, I'm Donald Albury. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Seminole, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Donald Albury 12:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)