User talk:Goodoldpolonius2/Archive3

Odessa Massacres
What do you have in mind with this article? Would you put everything you know about Transnistria deportations into this article? --Vasile 17:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * See my response on your talk page - basically, I am trying to match the US Holocaust Museum description on the events in Odessa, but I will make it clearer in the article that there is a definitional issue in deciding what is part of the "Odessa Massacre" vs. what is part of the Holocaust in Odessa and Trnsnistria. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Now the data is matched. --Vasile 12:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

My reason: A better article. --Vasile 16:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

1) I see no need to specify the Romanian gov. accepted that report. 2) The Holocaust Museum estimation was probably made before the opening of the Romanian archives captured by USSR. For the entire region between Dniestr and Bug, including Odessa, it was estimated that around 150,000 local Jews were destroyed under Romanian and German occupation. The archives give a better estimation of the number of local Jews found in autumn of 1941. 3) The story inserted at the end of the article is written by a Soviet professional writer and it is not representing a testimony. The Holocaust Museum should have real testimonies. --Vasile 19:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA
Joe, given the amount of patrolling of history and technology articles I am doing, I am thinking of nominating myself for administrator -- do you think I'd get the required support? --Goodoldpolonius2 03:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd support you. I imagine you'd get some opposition just because you work on controversial articles and some people take it personally when there is disagreement about content, but I think your work has been excellent (and I say that as someone who has probably been about 50-50 with you on the controversial questions where we've crossed paths). Let me know if you go ahead with this: I don't usually keep track of RfA, but I'd suport you. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I cast my vote. Two issues worth mentioning: we have a lenghty object on FA, and what do you think of recommending Halibutt for adminship? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Happy wiki-anniversary!! --Rogerd 03:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Martin Luther redux
Could you take a look at Talk:Martin Luther. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * also unrelated: Talk:Palestine (region).  ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Christianity and anti-Semitism
Would you mind taking a look at some recent edits to Christianity and anti-Semitism. To me they seem to be inserting a non-factual POV. Jayjg (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Germany
Hi Goodoldpolonius2, I do not care which version you put in, as long as the Holocaust with explicit mentioning of the Jews and all other butchered populations remains in the article. This inclusion is to date my greatest accomplishment on en.wikipedia. I thank you for safeguarding it. Regards, gidonb  03:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your support on my RfA, I really appreciate it. And good luck with yours; I'm glad you won't be going through the same controversy as I did! Ramallite (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Help with Hebrew
Hello. Can you please help me with translating some Hebrew texts on graves? I photographed abandoned Jewish cemetery in my city and was wondering what is written there. and for example. Whole my gallery is here. Thank you. Btw. good luck on your adminship race. - Darwinek 15:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"History of the Jews" articles
So, what do you think we should do with them? Jayjg (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yoohoo, over here!! Any ideas? Jayjg (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

How would we decide which is which? Would you be willing to help fix the re-directs? Jayjg (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Mufti Quote
I appreciate your response (and its tone). However, as reasonable as it may be, it still ignores the issue of leaving out a major, existing (even if disputed) belief about the 1948 War and its context. No article describing how that war is understood and viewed (as well as the atmosphere in which it was fought) can be complete without that (in)famous statement (even if it is only presented as alleged). Kriegman 16:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Spell check
Hi I create a blank MS Word document and then copy & paste my proposed work into the blank document in order to do a spellcheck. I have been using English all my life and still make spelling errors. I envy Poles who dont have this problem since spelling is a mirror image of the spoken language. --Berndd11222 21:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although, oddly, I am not actually a Pole (though my family was), I chose the name from Shakespeare. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII
I think you misunderstood me on Madigan: I was giving reasons for rejecting him as a source for the article because, as far I could tell, he had not written a historical article but a speculative one -- and presenting these reasons for you and other readers. I wasn't claiming imperial powers over his exclusion. In editing the article earlier, the anti-Pius editors were so unprofessional and hostile that I had to present both sides. I think of this as a Catch-22for Pius XII: the only way he could have satisfied the anti-Pius side would have been to have died in a concentration camp, and for the Church to have been destroyed. Pope Pius's crime seems to have been to have survived, along with the Catholic Church, a war in which 62 million died. patsw 03:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Congrats
Congratulations on your successful RfA! NSLE ( 讨论 ) \< extra > 14:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Beaten to it, but congratulations - you are now an adminstrator! If you haven't already, now is the time to read the Administrators' how-to guide and Administrators' reading list. All the best, Warofdreams talk 14:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! Very well deserved. Ramallite (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! Jayjg (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! A very sensible decision. --Ian Pitchford 11:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Martin Luther
If possible, you take a look at the latest discussion at Talk:Martin Luther? It would be much appreciated. Jayjg (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your vote on my RfA, it's really nice to read what you wrote. Halibutt 07:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks as well. Could you reply to user Vb there, who seem to oppose judging Halibutt's edtis on History... as seriously 'flawed' (not to use the a-s word... :>). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Zero
Just out of curiousity, what do you think of Zero? do you think he is a good administrator or do you think he is overly condenscending and rude?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg &#91;&#91;User_talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg&#124;(talk)]] 20:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you're right about his competence and skill. So I guess he is just another editor with an arrogant and snobbish attitude.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Congrats!
Hi, I had a breake of Wiki and have just discovered that you were nominated an admin. Congratulations and regards --SylwiaS 03:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Dubious link
Could I ask you to take a (thorough) look at Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab lands? I still think this is a very problematic link, and that our captioning does not give a clue. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocked user
Thanks for blocking that guy for the Jewish attack (I blocked him about a minute before you did for four days, not seeing that he had been previously blocked). I want to keep that comment (if not on my talk page, then on a BJAODN page of mine) because I find it so damn hilarious. It makes me laugh to think that it's probably some scrawny little kid, or an obese 30 year old living in his parent's basement, who takes the time out of his night to insult someone over the internet that he doesn't even know, yet hates because they are in a category on Wikipedia. Pretty funny, I think. Don't get me wrong, I hate anti-semitism as much as the next guy, but I just find his comment so damn hilarious. Thanks again for blocking him, and thanks for removing the comment.
 * P.S. I think there should be a way of seeing if a user has been previously blocked by another admin at the blocking page. Oh well, I'll persue that in the morning ;). G'night and thanks, Mys  e  ku  rity  05:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Rafterman
I wasn't angry or anything, but I know what you mean. It was pretty stupid but I thought it would be kinda funny I guess. Sorry about that.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Dissident voice
Some anon has repeatedly reverted my edits to the Dissident Voice article without leaving any comments or explaining his reasoning on the talk page. I have edited the article each time to change what could be construed as pov or too controversial. The IP of the user is 24.222.129.69, I guess he is only an occasional editor so he only does this about 2 times a week. What do you think is the appropriate action in this situation?

Dissident voice
Some anon has repeatedly reverted my edits to the Dissident Voice article without leaving any comments or explaining his reasoning on the talk page. I have edited the article each time to change what could be construed as pov or too controversial. The IP of the user is 24.222.129.69, I guess he is only an occasional editor so he only does this about 2 times a week. What do you think is the appropriate action in this situation?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Dissident voice
Some anon has repeatedly reverted my edits to the Dissident Voice article without leaving any comments or explaining his reasoning on the talk page. I have edited the article each time to change what could be construed as pov or too controversial. The IP of the user is 24.222.129.69, I guess he is only an occasional editor so he only does this about 2 times a week. What do you think is the appropriate action in this situation?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hallo, why do they call 1933-45 'Die Hitlerzeit' in Germany? I heard that line while drinking beer with the old timers in Munich back in 1969.--Berndd11222 21:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Poland
Just in case you were still interested, I explained the whole anti-kosher absurdity here: Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#Rising anti-Semitism - kosher slaughter. Please take a look at it, though I admit it might be a tad drastic. Halibutt 21:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust
Dear GOPolonius, I have seen that you have reverted EffK's last edit and I agree with you. However, as he will undoubtedly complain, could you please drop a line on Talk:The Holocaust, where I asked for different views on this issue. If you don't, I won't bite you, but be sure that someone else certainly will (at least that's my experience). Str1977 22:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Turkish Policy 1915-23
Hi R J Rummel's Statistics of Democide gives a good account of Turkish genocide.--Berndd11222 03:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * R J Rummel's Statistics of Democide

Turkish Policy
Hi I agree that Rummel's numbers tend to be off the mark, however his chapter on the Armenian genocide is quite correct. His numbers always tend to be fzzy but the fact of genocide is real. Why do you refer to it as " a persecution " ? Not genocide? As for.Matthew White his sources are only in the English language.That fact limits its value as a source. Can we work together to improve that Holocaust page? I would like to limit it to the Jewish Holocaust, the sections on Gays, Roma and Slaves are a diversion from the real topic. Hitlers war on the Jews. --Berndd11222 04:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Rummels Nrs on Armenians
Hi Rumell includes all Christians not just Armenians, that is why his numbers got bumped up, anyway Matthew White's 1.5 Million estimate is darn high and near Rummell's. --Berndd11222 04:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Dormancy Question
I sincerely ask, since July, for clarity re the Rise of Hitler, that a source , or anything, show how the procedural change in the Reichstag in c.  The Fire Act allowed for the arrest of Communist and SPD deputies.

Str1977 has recently qualified this by saying that such a procedural change could only have happened by action of the assembly. However it is my understanding that the Reichstag did not sit either prior to or following the Fire ( the 30 Jan govt ruled through Decree, as did  the previous Schleicher  administration ) so I do not see when a majority of the assembly passed such a cardinal change. Can you help ? EffK 06:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Focus of Holocaust page
Hi: Exclusive or not I believe the Holocaust was the war on the Jews, in any case I was the guy on 11/10/05 who inserted the USHMM link on Poles as victims of the Nazi era. Gay losses in Germany were 10-15,000, the 1 million other gay men were in the closet doing their duty as loyal Germans and nobody asked any questions. In wartime Germany there were 1.5 million German citizens[] who were of Polish ancestry plus 1.3 million ethnic Germans from Poland many of whom were bilingual. They were considered Germans and fought for the Reich just like other Germans just as long as they did not speak Polish in public. The fact of the matter is that many Germans despise Poles and treat them with contempt. As for the Jews, over 90% of Jews in German occupied territory perished, over 90% of the ethnic Poles survived the war and treated the few Jews survivors very poorly. Most Jews have left Poland because of anti-semitism, an ugly reality that can't be denied. Again I caution you with regard to Matthew White's data. He does not list recent sources in German, Russian and Polish that have corrected many of the mistakes that were made with regard to World War Two losses. He has done a fine job of compiling English language sources on casualties, but his ommission of German, Russian and Polish sources limits its value as a source with regard to WW2. Anyway I still belive that the Holocaust page needs to be updated to reflect the reality of WW2 when 90% of the Jews perished and 90% of the Christians survived.

Best Wishes--Berndd11222 11:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Armenian Link Added
Hi: I added a link to the Wkipedia Holocaust page on the Armenian Genocide. I hope this helps us to clarify the issue for future readers of the article. --Berndd11222 18:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Why the Holocaust should refer only to the Jewish genocide of WW2
Hi: My reasoning on this topic is as follows: 1-The policy of Hitler Germany was to kill all the Jews of Europe. No other group was targeted for elimination. Even the Roma were spared if they were assimilated. The Slavs were held in contempt by the Nazis and probably would have been eliminated if Germany won the war, however after Stalingrad the Nazis had 1 million Soviets in the German Wehermact along with Slovak and Croatian forces. Ethnic Poles served in the Wehrmacht as German citizens and as Volksdeutsch. The Poles did little or nothing to help their Jewish neighbors and turned in many Jews for a bottle of vodka from the Gestapo. Ukrainians were well represented in the Nazi death machine, murder robots who retired in Ohio and Canada. The Slavs do not deserve to be on the same page with the six million Jewish martyrs during the Holocaust. 2-The Gay deaths were minimal compared to the actual number who lived and served the Third Reich. They deserve a footnote. 3-The genocide of the Armenians was the only modern experience that can be compared to the Holocaust. --Berndd11222 20:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

History of the Jews in The Netherlands
At first glance, you seem to have added some good material. I'll need to read it all throrougly and I can't do that now. One initial question, you say there's a high rate of religious observance: where did you get that from? BrownBean 05:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your other questions, concerning other Jewish history article, I may well want to contribute more broadly eventually. However, I knew something about Dutch Jewish history and I try to stick to what I know, so other contributions won't come quickly. BrownBean 05:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Referring to the template generally, I took your explanations seriously and was thinking for the longer term about a system of templates to help all users of all interests navigate through all things Jewish. However, the dynamism of this medium is its own disadvantage. BrownBean 21:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works. As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Zionism
I've been looking forward to the benefit of your response and analysis. Doright 19:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

tfd
Hi, Template:Jewishhistory has been nominated for deletion, see. Thanks. IZAK 10:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Who are you?
I don't understand you constant deleting of a Treblinka passage regarding an historian counter point of view?

My RfA
Thanks for your words of support after the fact. I didn't want to seem to be pandering for votes, so I didn't tell many people about it. Have an award for being nice to me anyways. Any particular requests for the cheese curd pix? Tom e rtalk 02:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Revisionist Censorship
I ask you to consider also the Reichskonkordat situation. I am surprised that certain editors are taking this extreme action in catholic articles prior to out-come of the Arbcom on me. I ask you -if an editor refuses source repeatedly and circularises an intellectually dishonest denial, do you accept that ? You will note there is one thing in common in the two sets of reverts, which is Dilectissima Nobis, that which says in eveything except the exact same words, that the Church saw nothing wrong with a Christian Dictatorship. The Church apologists would like to re-write their history and encyclicals, so do we simply abandon the WP for them to do so ? I suggest to you that if they beat me out of wikipedia, no one will be safe afterwards, as happened in Germany. It is perhaps time to remark this over-all situation, hitherto concentrated more easily upon me. User:Effk 13 December

Dear Polonius, thanks for your note on my talk page (though it was hard to find, please place messages into the bottom section), and I will have a look into the situtation when I find the time. Surely not all recent edits will find my approval, but it is neither appropriate to simply summarily revert it all, just because some anon IP shouted at the talk page.

I also want to address EffK's message above (even more so since he points other editors to your talk page): He misrepresents the situtation and in fact this is the worst stunt he's ever pulled. Again, I should say, since it's about an old discussion on Pius XII.

Once upon a time he included a reference to the Encyclica "Dilectissima Nobis" (1933) into this article and claimed it callled for a Christian dictatorship. I checked the document (and had a Protestant friend of mine read it too, for indeptendent confirmation) and it had nothing in there remotely resembling that. In fact, it dealt with the situation of the Spanish church suffering from antagonistic policies of the then government. In this context, Pius XI wrote that the Church could adapt to various forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy) as long as natural law and the freedom of the Church were respected. In the context this means: democracy is acceptable (quite in contrast to some 19th-century Popes). However, FK claims otherwise. His interpretation he derived from the Humanitas timeline he's constantly referencing, which made such a claim. So his first mistake is excusable. He has however never accepted that it is wrong and still insists on Pius' advocacy of a "Christian dictatorship".

A few days ago, he has needlessly (it wasn't addressed by anyone in any discussin - except in the Arbitration process) resurrected our old discussion and posted it on Talk:Reichskonkordat. Since I am sick and tired of pointing out his misrepresentation again and again, I have deleted the repost. I know it is not the best thing to do on a talk page, but in this case it is justified IMHO, as it is only a recycled talk (anyone interested can look into archives) and it so demonstrably a misrepresentation that is has no merit at all. To say nothing of relevancy to the editing of that article.

Cheers, Str1977 12:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

situation directed

claim

On its surface this Dil. Nob explanation would be enough, but given the surrounding circumstances, it is not.EffK 12:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

oy
I do believe this "Mark twain" is perhaps the dumbest holocaust denier I've ever encountered! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry
But your description of a racist view that Poles have predetermined traits from birth that need to be cleansed as "denouncing antisemitism" seems inapproprate. I certainly don't think that any nation has inherent genetic traits. --Molobo 16:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

In that case I apologise for my mistake. --Molobo 16:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII
I'll keep an eye on it too. You make some good points, as does he, however I agree with you that the blind rollback was not good. Let's just make sure, above all, we are fair to the Pope, and keep it NPOV (which, actually, I thought the current (before the rollbacks) one was pretty much) so I'll help you to make sure you don't violate the 3RR. JG of Borg 17:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust edit
Out of curiosity, why did you delete my addition about the Blitzkreig in the holocaust article? It seems you thought it was vandalism or something similar, being that you simply reverted the article. - eykanal, 1:00 PM EST, 12/14/05

Greetings
yes; I'll do what I can. Not all of these articles are on my watch list but they can go there (let me know which ones you'd like me to keep an eye on). I looked to see if that was the same anon who was hitting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion article yesterday but I believe it is not. (This edit -- -- is characteristic; look at the edit summary.)  Dealing with these people is  exhausting, I know. Take care, Antandrus (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I take that back. Both IPs are Comcast in the same geographic area, and they could easily be the same person.  That could be the same one I collided with yesterday.  Antandrus  (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Reuters
I call your attention to my recent edit to Reuters. patsw 04:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia
I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 15 December [],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005 EffK 01:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Protest
The article about jews and progrom from Iasi page must go to holocaust and not on that page!--Dacodava

Partitions of Poland
Would you take a look at talk:Partitions of Poland. We are discussing a possible change of the name of the article there and I believe that a view from non-Polish perspective would be helpful. --Lysy (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Institute for Historical Review
Thanks for the note on IHR. I had looked only at the one article, and not at the site as a whole. After perusing the site, then reading the review, I have to agree that they have an agenda. I need to find some more good sources on Rudolph, since most of what I have so far is his version. --Gadget850 14:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Gross
Surprisingly, yes, Gross based parts of his book on court records (plus some witness testimonies). I'm not sure if this needs to be mentioned in the article, though. --Lysy (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Liberty
Hi Goodoldpolonius2. What I said in my edit comment about the USS Liberty article was not meant as a personal criticism. I felt that the way that paragraph had been reworded implied that Bregman was arguing against the deliberate attack hypothesis.

You're right to say that he doesn't discuss motives in great detail in that section. However, I think that, reading between the lines, when he says things like "the key to understanding what really happened on that fateful day lies in the recordings of conversations...", it's pretty clear that he doesn't believe the official Israeli position. In any case, you found another quote that removes all doubt about his position, so thanks very much for that.

Personally, in the interests of full disclosure, I'll declare that I don't accept the Israeli explanation for what took place either. However, I do firmly believe in keeping POV out of Wikipedia. I believe that the job of this article should be to articulate the opposing positions.

Europa Universalis
I noticed your mention of the game at Talk:Partitions of Poland. An outstanding series, one which I still play and modify to this day. Olessi 18:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In case you don't know, Paradox has released a new patch for the game. In addition, there are new maps available as well. Olessi 22:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Natzweiler-Struthof
Hi, Thanks for your comment on my talk page. There's another page I'm concerned about (although it probably has very little traffic) - List of subcamps of Natzweiler-Struthof. This camp, located in Alsace near Strasbourg, was quite small, and I simply don't believe that it had 50+ subcamps as far away as Frankfurt-am-Main. It is possible that slave-labour from Natzweiler was used in factories that far away, but it would be misleading to call these 'subcamps'. I've tagged it 'disputed' and 'needs verification', but none of my books cover it in any detail. I'll get round to looking it up in the new year, but if you have an atlas of the Holocaust to hand, you might be able to correct it sooner. (I'm only going on a hunch that it is wrong, so I haven't edited the page apart from tagging it). Best Regards, --Squiddy 23:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The quote from Times
You added a very controversial quote from Times. It is a very controversial statement, which would need to be discussed in the article, since it contains debatable opinions. The statement about Home Army "murdering Jews" is very POV since you would have to enter the debate if those people killed were killed because they were Jews or because they were part of communist organisation that fought with Home Army. Also the statement of the author that "antipolonism didn't kill any Poles" is as well disputable, since they are documented events involving Jewish people engaging in murder of Poles-see for example Solomon Morel, Helena Wolińska, or Koniuchy Massacre(and in all those cases attempts by IPN to prosecute the guilty have been meet with charges of Polish antisemitsm). The statment you put in the form presented now is very confrontial and would lead to further changes in order to counter some of misleading statements that it contain.I suggest to work on statement that would give opinion of Jewish people that is containeed in it but countered with explanation of other side as well, parts of the quote can be given in the quote section. --Molobo 08:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

In adddition the quote is misleading since Michal Cichy apologised for his mistake and corrected his statements : http://www.historiazydow.edu.pl/biblioteka/czytelnia/h_pw001.pdf ''Sformułowanie o AK, NSZ, Żydach i powstaniu war-szawskim było złe, za co przepraszam. Przede wszystkim pisząc, że AK i NSZ mordowały, nie miałem na myśli or-ganizacji, ale niektórych należących do nich ludzi.'' Formulation about Home Army, NSZ, Jews and Warsaw Uprising was wrong, for which I apologise.First of all when i wrote that AK and NSZ murdered, I didn't mean organisations, but some people that belonged to those organisations.

--Molobo 09:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In addition the quote you give said that Home Army murdered 30 Jews in Warsaw Uprising.This is incorrect, as Michal Cichy wrote about NSZ not Home Army -those are two different organisations.

In view of the fact that the quote gives false information about writings of the author, and the author himself denouced such statements I think the quote from Times, has to be reworked. --Molobo 09:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

new noticeboard
I've created Islam and Judaism controversies noticeboard, I thought you might be interested. --Victim of signature fascism 19:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

posible request for comment?
I am inclined to let it slide because I think I am dealing with a nut-case. But do you consider this (the last sentence) an anti-Semitic threat? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Commiserations
Hi Polonius...on the AN/I saw what you've been dealing with. That's really upsetting and a pain in the ass. Keep your chin up, all wikimensches are thinking of you and hoping this ends very soon. Babajobu 06:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Question
What did you mean by Transylvanian? In Transylvania live Romanians, Germans, Hungarians, Roma. They are all Transylvanians! Aelia

Wannsee Conference
Hi,

When you reverted edits to the Wannsee Conference article, you apparently didn't notice that the person who made them also removed the interwiki link to the Spanish version (Conferencia de Wannsee). Since you've protected the article, I can't restore this interwiki link, so you might want to. Schoen 08:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

From the Talk:Holocaust discussion
The editors of the article are zealots.


 * I tend to agree that the Polish deaths should get more prominent coverage, but comments like those play right into the hands of your opponents - enabling them to shift the focus from the content of your arguments to the tone of your comments. I think a number of editors may intentionally try to provoke their opponents into making personal attacks for that very reason.  So it's in your own best interests not to let your frustrations get the better of your judgements.


 * It's disappointing. From Goodoldpolonius2' talk page it seems that he has labeled other people as vandals for editing.  He also seems to inform people they need to put things into discussion before editing, which is antithetical to Wikipedia's original motto.


 * I suppose I'll just re-insert the comment frequently for now.


 * My ears are burning, but I am confused. Wikipedia policy is to discuss controversal edits on the talk page -- that is not my policy, that is what we do here.


 * OK. We're discussing.


 * I objected to your points, above, and tried to provide clear reasons for doing so on the talk page.


 * I did not find your original statements clear nor reasonable. I thought they were rushed and barely considered.


 * Usually, we then talk through the issues and see if we can resolve the problem. Instead, you started insulting me after two exchanges, including posting this insulting screed here. I have not called you a vandal, nor have I attacked other people as vandals for editing, despite your dripping implications above. My objections are substantive, and you should respond to them substantively, rather than with this sort of anonymous (and untrue) attack.


 * I'm getting substance from you now and hope to be providing substance also.  The first time I entered that edit I received a note of vandalism and a threat that I will be prevented from editing.  Without getting rationals it was upsetting.


 * So here is my request: 1) respond to the substance of my objections to your insertion above so that we can resolve them, 2) stop insulting me and 3) [if you really want to continue this] tell me which editor I "labeled a vandal" just for legitimate editing as you imply above (especially as the word vandal appears only once on my user page). It is really, really annoying to be attacked personally because I disagree with you. We have a legitimate argument about substance, and you are making it personal and smearing me as well. Stop. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Actively editing this discussion. 2) tit-for-tat 3) Gonna have to look... I was hitting on user links and other history links and came across a complaint.  The above comment I made is incorrect in that the note did not appear on your talk page.
 * FYI, WP:NPA is a policy here. Ad hominem is never justified. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My comments do not qualify as attacks as defined on the page you linked. Looking at the examples section it appears that if I made the comments "repeatedly" then they would qualify.  Goodoldpolonius2 appears to me to initially maybe breach "bad faifth". However I am not accusing him of attacks.  He has since started discussing. 69.57.226.137 12:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe "tit-for-tat" is a good answer for why you started insulting me.


 * I find your initial treatment negative. My judgement is you have since started behaving in an acceptable way.  I also see you have a large body of work behind you, which is indicative of time and effort on Wikipedia.  We have switched tracks to positives. 69.57.226.137 13:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Especially as I did nothing to insult you in either of the comments before your attacks. You can find the comments here and here, for the record.  I also never called your comments vandalism or threatened you about editing, ever, I made two edits to the material you added, all of which were explained quite nicely, as you can see from the edit summaries.  You keep making baseless statements about my behavior, even after you admitted the first such statement was wrong, and I would really appreciate it if you stopped now. And it would be nice if you apologized for your use of incorrect information in your insults, rather than continuing to attack me. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The piece of information that the note was on your talk page was incorrect. I'll see if I spot the complaint again, and when I do I'll post the correct link. 69.57.226.137 13:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am a disappointed that you seem to want to continue to try and research me in order to find new ways to attack me, rather than admitting you were wrong or even letting the matter drop Every fact you have presented about my behavior has been demonstrably incorrect (the supposed note on my talk page, me calling you a vandal in edit summaries, me insulting you in my comments), but you still insist that somehow that your insults were justified. From your answers above, I realize you aren't going to apologize, but I would really appreciate it if you didn't continue to insist that your attacks were justified while researching every interaction I have had to come up with new ways to smear me.  It is a pointless distraction from working on the encyclopedia and annoying to boot. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted
The quote is very biased and aims to present Poland as an antisemitic country.We already have information about misuse of the term by certain groups.The quote is far larger then the section on Soviet Union and discrimination of Poles there.It does not give any new or important information.It isn't placed in quotes sections.If you want it to be present I suggest giving a summary of opinions found in NYT(which often makes very incorrect information about Jewish-Polish relations IIRC) and give as a sentence. The quote in itself isn't needed.Also please don't delete information on persecution of Poles. Your changes disturb the neutrality of the article by making it speak more abotu antisemitsm then antipolonism.Also I removed the links that were completely unrelated to the sentence that they were supposed to reinforce. --Molobo 22:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)