User talk:Ksenon

This user may have left Wikipedia. Ksenon has not edited Wikipedia since 23 October 2007. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome! Wonder how fast the year will fly by from this fresh beginning...

Welcome!

jumped on to the Polish pages for this topic (the controversy over Maryja is so big it apparently has it's own page) and noted that we need more editors, hopefully we'll get more eyeballs, and thus, a better article. Ronabop 07:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if I understand [1], there is discussion and debate about whether Maryja *itself* is anti-semitic, or whether some of Maryja's *listeners* are anti-semitic? Are the radio personalities themselves blaming "Jews" for things, or are callers blaming "Jews"? If the regular callers were anti-semitic, that would be one case (and we could reasonably note that some callers/listeners are anti-semitic), but if the regular hosts or personalities of the channel were being anti-semitic, without the institution taking a resulting action to such behavior (firing, censureship, apologies), then it seems like it would be fair to characterize the station itself as anti-semitic. Ronabop 13:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are censoring articles if they are against Catholic Church

Are You a priest? A jesuit? Man, this is exaggerated, this breaks any rules of ethics. I suupose You must be a kind of a person whose task here is to perform a small cenzorship. Moa anbessa 11:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

German WW2 Military Losses

Please read my posting to the WW2 Casualties and explain why you are disputing German military losses.--Berndd11222 19:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

I noticed you reverted my bot's disambiguation edit on Eastern Front (World War II) by changing the link [[Saint Petersburg|Leningrad]] to Leningrad. Perhaps you didn't realize that the first link takes the reader to an article about the city, while the second link takes them to an article that basically just says "See the Saint Petersburg article." Both look the same to the reasder. I have restored the correct link. --Russ Blau (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reading the same article I am? I just checked Leningrad again to make sure I wasn't mistaken; I saw nothing there that I would characterize as relevant to the Eastern Front, other than the simple statement that this was the name used for Saint Petersburg during much of the 20th Century. --Russ Blau (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message

I'd like to help out with the revert war/vandalism by dengziaopeng on Eastern Front. I've noticed you, Michael Z, and I reverting the same edits of his over and over. I reported to AIV. What next? I am tired of simply fixing the same thing over and over. DMorpheus 20:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the page is protected now. I reverted to a version of yours. Deng put an unprotect request up. Hopefully this can be worked out. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created a skeleton of a new article on the eastern front- proposed page. I cut the old article pretty severley in hopes of achieving some consensus on the new, shorter article. Then maybe the contentious issues such as the atrocities can be confined to a separate page. Let me know what you think - hope it's useful. DMorpheus 15:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work

On the World War II casualties page. Rmhermen 21:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vistula

I don't know if you noticed, but most of what you add to the article is... well... rubbish. Of course, -ila, -ula were suffixes of the Gothic language, but they were also present in other indo-european languages (such as Latin -ilus -ulus, as in Augustus-Augustulus). What does it have to do with the name of the river in modern English? Halibu tt 22:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't me, but I think Molobo's revert was a little hasty.

Your sins are forgiven, son. As a matter of fact your explanation made more sense than the revert. Well, any explanation is by definition more sensible than any revert... :) Halibu tt 01:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

You are cordially invited to the Grand Reopening of my Bumper Sticker Gallery User:Space Cadet/Bumper Stickers. If my great work inspires you to come up with your own ideas for a sticker, T-shirt, poster, symbol, sign, etc., please let me know and I'll be happy to try to do my best for you. I will only turn down anything racial, anti-semitic, fascist and so on. Yours Truly, Space Cadet 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Radio Maryja

I have just blocked you (and your opponent) for 24 hours for violating Wikipedia's rule against reverting an article more than three times in a 24 hour period, which you can review here. Edit warring is harmful to Wikipedia -- please use this time to think of ways you can come to an agreement when the block expires. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 01:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he's like one of the Polnische Banditen that you so insultingly referred to on my talk page. Dr. Dan 16:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you know the Vatican has taken a position on Radio Maryja, is this also "false propaganda"?

[2]

Picture on your user page

I removed the picture on your user page which featured a crowd making the Nazi salute. While I suspect that it was an allusion to your interest in history, some other users have complained that it constituted "Nazi propaganda".

Sorry about that. David.Monniaux 17:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was a parody of the nationalist tensions here on Wiki, as one could have deduced from the description. Ksenon 03:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Poster

Say, that poster was cool. Sorry to see that the Reds ripped it down Berndd--68.236.161.237 17:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You already have fans, congratulations. Space Cadet 23:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copernicus

Applying modern nationalist descriptions to 15th century personalities, regardless on the agenda, is similar to driving a horse-drawn cart at 400 miles per hour. It is possible, but in no way you're getting a chance to survive. Having said this, of course Copernicus was a Polish astronomer of German origin. Just like he was a Zulu astronomer of Na-Dene origin or a Burmese astronomer of Scottish origin or a German astronomer of Polish origin. Halibu tt 02:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is applying a modern nationalist description here? I think it is generally understood that if a person from the 15th century is called French, English, German or Italian, the meaning is clearly different from what those terms would have meant in the 19th or 20th centuries. In the case of the 15th century, can we not agree on a practical criterion that being Polish at that time did not necessarily mean being a fluent Polish speaker or having Polish-speaking parents, but was determined chiefly by being a loyal subject of the Polish king? If you don't believe this is a good criterion, what would you propose instead? Fluency in Polish won't work as this is almost impossible to prove for people of that time since Polish had not yet become a written language to any significant extent. If you believe no such criterion exists for that time, then we should remove all mention of Polish nationality from articles about any person living before the second half of the 16th century. Balcer 03:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, I'll go one better. Much of my family is from late 1800 to early 1900's Sokal.... so what am I? In less than 50 years, that land changed hands so many times that language, culture, etc was all totally fluid... my grandfather, who thinks of himself as polish, has a Ukranian last name, and my grandmother, who thought of herself as Ukranian, had a Polish last name... (It's a good thing to be living in america sometimes, where we all just laugh and laugh about leaving these kinds of ethinic wars behind us...) :-) Ronabop 11:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr on Treaty of Welawa

I've blocked you for WP:3RR on Treaty of Welawa. Please... talk more and revert less. William M. Connolley 23:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

East Prussia

http://www.polishroots.org/slownik/east_prussia.htm Poles, Lithuanians and Germans live in East Prussia. In 1875 Poles were 18.39%, Lithuanians 8.11%, and Germans 73.48%. German is spoken up to a line drawn from Ostróda to Lec, although Poles live in some places there; below that line Polish is spoken. According to German statistics, 80-90% of the population in the villages is Polish, whereas the German element is more numerous in the cities. The Masurian towns of Wilebark and Pasymin are an exception-they are pure Polish. As for religion, the inhabitants of almost the entire regency district of Gabin are Protestant; Protestants predominate in Królewiec district, but almost nothing but Catholics live in Warmia, and they are quite numerous in the powiaty of Niborsk, Ostróda, Szczytno, also in Królewiec and Klajpeda.

--- And this based on falsfied cenzus even, that enlarged German population --Molobo 14:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no joke

I do not think removing other peoples comments in discussions is constructive. Don't do it again Agathoclea 14:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how constructive is adding "$City" as a 'viable' option in the C. vote? At first it looked like plain vandalism. Ksenon 19:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City of birth / city of major accomplishments. I think when I first wrote it it was all CAPS indicating a variable (Geek-speak). Agathoclea 00:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Infobox Swiss town

Hi, I saw your name on some of the de:en translation talk pages and was wondering if you could help me get larger fonts implemented in the Swiss town infoboxes by placing a post in favor on the page above. I'd really appreciate it. --Mmounties 18:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

You didn't provide any source for your numbers. I shall delete them if no source will be provided. Also why delete the information on German genocide against Herero ? --Molobo 20:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus

The vote on that talk page has been open for over two weeks now, and I think everybody with any interest in the article had ample time to express their opinion. As the originator of the vote, could you please wrap it up? The article has just been unprotected, and it would be good to avoid another outbreak of the revert war. Balcer 00:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that you are back, I repeat the request. Balcer 17:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for wrapping up the vote. Still, I am a bit suprised that you simply moved everything to an archive without any comments or summary. Did the vote have any significance at all then? I understand that this is not a binding vote, but it would be good to at least put a summary somewhere counting votes and determining which option was accepted by concensus (if any). Balcer 03:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you started the vote, I believe you should do the summary. Other voters may not view me as impartial, given that I was one of the main advocates of one of the options. BTW, couting the votes for all the other options as "against option 1" strikes me as a bit disingenous. Balcer 04:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I removed my comment. I really wanted to avoid any charges that I wrote the summary unilaterally without consulting with anybody. Balcer 22:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SOV Losses

Do you really believe that the sovs lost only 1.8 million POW-MIA combined? I went with Erlikman who says the real nr is 3.3 million. That makes sense. What is your opinion?--Woogie10w 21:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I have a dilemma with Soviet losses. The official data does not make sense, you and I find it laughable. The source on the casualties page now is Erlikman because he is the only one who makes a bit of sense, but still he is using Sov era data to allocate the losses. Soviet era sources are not known for reliability.
Here are the facts:
1- The Russian Academy of Science published a report in 1993 that gave data on the demographic impact of the war on the USSR. The losses were 26.6 million including 17 million draft aged males.
2-The official Russian military report published in 1993 listed 6.9 million confirmed dead plus 1.8 million POW and MIA deaths combined. They claim 4.5 million POW & MIA less 2.7 liberated in 1945.
3-The Germans claimed to have taken 5.7 million POW not counting Sov MIA.
4-Most western historians( I could make a list) give Sov POW losses as 3 million+. Not counting in MIA
5-An independent Russian researcher Vadim Erlikman published in 2004a handbook of statistics on war casualties(with decent footnotes) that claimed the USSR military losses were 10.6 million in the war including 6.9 million Killed, 700,000 MIA, 2.6 million POW and 400,000 partisans and milita. The number of POW and MIA is more credible than 1.8 million so I posted Erlikman's data for the USSR. Erlikman is not an apologist for the communist system or the Russian government. He listed an estimated 1.7 million dead due to Soviet repression in addition to total war losses of 26.5 million
6-Back to the 2.7 million POWs and "Vlasovites" that were sent back to the USSR in 1945. I wonder how many are included in the total of 17 million draft aged males lost in the war. They were marched off to the Gulag. We just do not know their fate.
7-Please go to my talk page --Woogie10w 00:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)to see a posting I copied from the Dupuy Forum on Soviet Casualties. Today there is a high level Russian military official( he is head of the military archeives) who claims there is a card file in Russia with the names of 13.8 million Soviet war dead.[reply]
I really need the help of people in Wikipedia who may have knowledge on this topic. We need to get the numbers right--Woogie10w 00:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning the WW2 task force, I hope the folks over there can give me some feedback on this topic. --Woogie10w 01:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Max Planck / Werner Heisenberg

You were asking for a source about Heisenberg considering emigration from Germany. I cant give the original source now, but the fact is mentioned in many biographies of Heisenberg: In spring 1933 Heisenberg visited Planck for discussing the destruction of German science by the Nazis, and Planck could convince him not to give up hope and emigrate.

I have just recovered the Planck article from severe vandalism (by others) and reinserted this sentence. Hopefully I find time to insert references into this article later. Nullstein 17:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original Planck article written for the German Wikipedia was mainly based on the following sources:

A. Hermann: Max Planck in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten, Rowohlts Bildmonographien 198, 1973.

J.L. Heilbron: The Dilemmas of an Upright Man: Max Planck as Spokesman for German Science, 1986.

I have no access to these books now and cannot check where I found the detail on Heisenberg considering emigration. The matter may have been more complex than presented by these authors. It would probably also be interesting to consult Cassidy's biography on Heisenberg. Nullstein 15:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

history of Belarus

Answered on my talk page. mikka (t) 20:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Burgos36.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Burgos36.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Stan 12:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

User notice: temporary 3RR block on José Calvo Sotelo

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 19:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to evade your block, its a recipe for sadness. You said:

Im afraid your block of me is ill-founded. Please see the page history and notice that 24 hours passed between these edits, with 3 subsequent reverts, not 4. Please take action accordingly. Ksenon

You're wrong. The history page clearly shows 4 reverts by you in the last 24h. Indeed, how could it be otherwise, given the other block? William M. Connolley 19:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems in Germany

Yes, the things here are wrong today. I've learnt that all of these deletors know each other and they have private contacts. They elect each other for administrators and play their game. But mabe some time...

Anyhow, thanks for your message and greetings from Munich The Rain Man 07:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG...

...my sandbox was found ^_^

Seriously though, thanks for your cleanup work!!! I started writing the article today and it was in draft yet. This will speed up my work quite a bit :)) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:Radio Maryja

Hey, thanks for contacting me on my talk page. The reason I've reverted you is not because I think the criticism is true, but rather because the criticism is verifiable and significant. Feel free to point out factual inaccuracies in the criticism, as is the wiki-way.--Urthogie 16:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Smolensk

Hi again,

Since you're interested in Eastern front and you do very nice cleanup on my articles, can you take a few minutes and proofread the V1 of Battle of Smolensk (1943) (the one you saw in my sandbox, but completed :)

Thank in advance! (a lot) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption

User Ghepeu made disruption and reverts against you, now makes so against me in foibe massacres and istrian exodus. This user is political POV very much: you can itervene in edits of these articles or in their discussions. Is possible to block him for disruption? Ciao,--PIO 15:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Hindenburg_ernennt_Hitler.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Hindenburg_ernennt_Hitler.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Grossdeutschland.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Grossdeutschland.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]