User talk:Sciurinæ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


  • Please post new messages to the bottom of my talk page and insert the characters

at the end of your message.

  • Be kind.
  • When starting new talk topics, please use helpful headlines.

Thank you!
— Sciurinæ

Start a new talk topic

Please only address me in English.
en-3This user can contribute with an advanced level of the English language.
deDieser Benutzer spricht Deutsch als Muttersprache.
fr-2Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau intermédiaire en français.


Thanks for your voting![edit]


Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.

If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very mach, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the award. I know I don't deserve that as I sometimes loose my temper. Although, I'll keep that to remember the standards I aim to adhere to. :-) alx-pl D 22:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Help needed[edit]

Hi, I wonder if you could take a look at Talk:Erika Steinbach, where among other things one of the editors explains that Polish territory was not occupied by Nazi Germany during WW2 but was "integrated" into Germany instead. I hope it could be useful if not Polish but German editors would voice their opinion there. --Lysytalk 17:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hallo, ich würde mich gerne mit Dir (und all den anderen, die das unerträglich dumme und selbstverliebte Geschwätz nicht mehr ertragen können) über Molobo und dessen Verquerung/Verzerrung/Falschgewichtung/etc geschichtlicher Tatsachen (zB Kulturkampf) auf der englischen Wiki-Seite sowie über geeignete und angemessene Gegenmaßnahmen sprechen. (Eigentlich sollte einem dieser Ignorant egal sein, aber) Wenn man bedenkt, wie viele Menschen im englischsprachigen Raum täglich diesen Schwachsinn lesen und - mangels anderer Informationen - am Ende auch noch für bare Münze nehmen, kann einem nur Angst und Bange werden.

Da unter Molobo und seiner Clique der Glaube vorzuherrschen scheint, dass der von ihnen verzapfte Unsinn, wenn man ihn nur lange genug wiederholt, schon irgendwann wahr wird, sehe ich jedenfalls keinen Sinn darin, sich mit dieser offenbar völlig verblendeten Truppe im Wege einer sachlichen Diskussion auseinanderzusetzen (dass Du das - wie man sieht - bislang tapfer versucht hast, ehrt Dich, ist aber mE ein Kampf gegen Windmühlen). Es sollte aber noch andere (selbstverständlich faire und zulässige) Strategien geben sich gegen die Kamerilla zur Wehr zu setzen.

Hallo Sciurinae At your age you should not have to wrestle with heavy problems and burdens like the topics you are trying to keep fair in wikipedia, but somehow you stepped into this morass by trying to use reason with a group of people, who are determined to and are taking over at wikipedia and elsewhere. I found this article, which gives some pretty good inside to what is really going on here and elsewhere [1]. Perhaps an independend school/student/academics or other group project somewhere could individually list the problems and the quotes. wiki is not an independent site, despite of what it seems to be. The problem is much too detailed for one or even a handful of people alone. American user Sca wrote a while back, who tried to reason with them, but gave up, as so many others did, 'these people are not bothered by facts at all'. Mind you, every word you write and is written about you, every poisonous false utterance, every statement, by Molobo & Co or others is multiplied by wikipedia mirrors and shows up on search engines manyfold, also Vorsicht. MG 3/31/2006

Sciurinae, just a note for clarification:

The article on internet talks about 'Poland and the Falsification of its History'. Therefore this link was posted for its book title only. Neither the book nore any of the people are known to me and it is not an indorsement or a recommendation of the book or anyone related to it. Merely the title reflects what Molobo & Co are doing at Wikipedia constantly.

The article starts (Translation): Have the courage to speak your mind ... there will be no longer doubts, the words bring clarity. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want to, you (or I) can take the link out and just replace it with the title: Poland and the Falsification of its History.

False Accusation: Claims, that 'your friend' recommended other books from the site and a number of other nonesense rantings. Twisting and turning seems to be a Molobo speciality.

MG 4/6/2006

Other books from the site recommended by your friend:

  • Arnold S. Leese, et al. - Jewish Ritual Murder resources.
  • Von Verschuer - Racial Biology of the Jews.
  • The Godless - What the Nazis were fighting against.

The site also uses nazi propaganda imagery: [2] signed:Tell her the truth about history, race and culture.

It's somewhat good that people show sources of their views and edits. --Molobo 18:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. You mean these racist books represent MGs' views and edits? Sciurinæ 18:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

MGs says its a good representation of what's going on. The book is a racists tirade on how inferior Poles are as a nation. What should I think of a person who presents such books and links to sites presenting Holocaust Denial and Nazi propaganda ? Anyway sorry for the interruption. Please continue your discussions with your friend. --Molobo 18:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sciurinæ, here is a Polish site in English language on internet.

Molobo, might also want to read the following article. It gives insight and some sort of explanation for what is going on.

It is a Polish article on Falsification of History in Poland:

Reading and pondering this might actually do some good. In any case it gives some explains, why the distortions, misrepresentations and twisting of facts at Wikipedia are going on. The extreme fanatism and destructiveness is difficult to comprehend though and constantly 'wiping up after them' gets tiring.

Anyway, have a good weekend. MG 4/7/2006

Kusma's RfA[edit]


Hello, Sciurinæ! Thank you for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. If you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 02:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:AA Zyda.jpg[edit]

Hello, as we can see in

I change license tag cc-by-sa to cc-by-nc-sa. If you have author agremment, maybe it need to say it. fr:Utilisateur:Bayo 15:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello... your recent contributions have been almost nothing except reverts of other editors on many, many articles, numerous times the same editors... Please, this is not the way to resolve disputes. If you don't start discussing on the talk page and stop constantly reverting, you will be blocked from editing. Thank you. In the interest of complete closure, I have also left this message for Space Cadet (talk · contribs).--Sean Black (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi Sciurinæ, thanks for supporting Berlin Wikipedia:Good Article Collaboration of the week request. May be you have the time to promote it to other users or put the request in discussiongroups. Would be great ! Sashandre all the best for you


That was my first effort at using popups...I tried to clean it up, but you beat me to it. Best, Kukini 15:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Johannes Hevelius Polonus[edit]

John Hevelius was Polish astronomer in non stricte ethnical sense - see Mikołaj Kopernik casus. He was Polish citizen, supported by Polish king. See also casus of G.F. Händel who had German origins but he was British.


Vandalism reverts[edit]

I see you have recently done a lot of vandalism reverting, which is very good. (Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage so quickly, by the way). To ensure that the vandals do get blocked when they vandalize repeatedly, could you please warn them using the warning templates and possibly report them at WP:AIV if they vandalize after a final warning? Thank you, Kusma (討論) 21:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I generally use {{test2}} for deliberate but harmless vandalism and {{bv}} for really bad stuff. I use {{test}} for cases where I manage to assume good faith that the edit was a test ("Hey I can edit this page!" would be a typical example), while some other people always start with {{test}}. There are no hard rules for all of this; use your own judgement. And don't worry that your threats are empty: via WP:AIV, they aren't really empty, and also empty threats often work surprisingly well: Many vandals stop after the first or second warning because they realize other people are watching their edits. In your specific example, I would give a {{test2}}. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 22:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


Do you really think that the map displayed at the Expulsions article is appropriate without a map that would reflect the pre-WW2 areas with german majority? I don't know anything about the extent, but I think that it is possible, that there was some new german expansion during WW2, therefore the map showing the land traditionally - I mean more than 2 centuries - inhabited by germans would be more appropriate. If we are talking expulsions, we talk about deporting people from their homes, not from the houses of polish Jews which they gained in WW2. I second the removal of the map frop. You can RfC if you dont agree. 19:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


For reverting the vandalism to my user page! --Charlie( @CIRL | talk | email ) 19:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


Are you sure you made the right title ? I don't see anything uncivil.Perhaps you should be more specific ? Is the information that Prussia viewed Poles as inferior people uncivil in some way ? Is that why it is being deleted by you and your German collegues ? --Molobo 21:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're not succeeding in making me angry, Molobo. You know very well why these comments of yours ([4] [5] [6] ) are incivil. This way you're just blowing your last chance in Wikipedia. Sciurinæ 21:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Polonophobia article was just fine. Many Polish editors agree with it and want it restored. It simply attacked too often by various national POV pushers that vandalise it. Including Polish nationalists.

It appears that you vehemently try to ally with Ukrainian editors to fight against Russians. That would also explain why you're so keen on defining my "collegues" Looking at this I am really shocked Sciurinæ. Perhaps you should rest a while from Wiki. It seems you are seeing conspiracies and plots everywhere. The reason behind my actions is simple-I study history and I know how much wrongdoings are there between Poles and Ukrainians with both sides having some misdeeds to each other. I really advise you to either rest or distance yourself from Wiki as you are sounding more and more strange(I am really sorry if that offends you but this is the impression I get from your statements).

It's strange that you make me make friends with others. Hmmm. You take part in the same debates, use the same arguments, and pursue the same edits so I guessed I generalised you as a group due to similiar interests, behaviour and actions. somehow I get the idea that you're planning some kind of Wiki World War... Please Sciurinæ either rest or really distance yourself from Wiki, you are starting to sound very, very weird. I am simply interested in XIX and XX century history.

the others and then proceed without your prior approval. Hmm ? I agree with others if they are reasnoble and engage in sensible discussion. For example Richardshusr[7] Just use arguments, no insults, and discussion. --Molobo 01:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi there, I just wanted to let you know that I have expanded the article on German Eastern Marches Society significantly and hopefully this would end the debates. I hope to hear your opinion on the matter. //Halibutt 22:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Copernicus question[edit]

As you have noticed, I try to stay out of this debate. However recently Molobo pointed me to this edit. I am rather averse to edits remving sources - could you explain to me your reasons behind it? I don't want to go to article and revert anything before I hear both sides of the story.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Answered here. Sciurinæ 13:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Hallo Scurinae,

beim durchlesen einiger Artikel ist mir ein User leider sehr negativ aufgefallen und zwar Molobo. Dieser user versucht bei vielen Themen seine germano und russophoben Meinungen durchzusetzen. Gibt es denn kein Mittel dieses zu verhindern. Das meiste was er von sich gibt scheint, mir zumindest, aus Deutschenhass und polnischem Nationalismus gespeist. Ich bin leider in der englischen Wikipedia kaum involviert, bin aber in der Deutschen und Spanischen unter Tresckow zu finden.

2 the expulsion u base ur conclusions on I completely fail to understand what you mean in this sentence ? UR-as in ancient ? "U base" what is "u base" ? I write nothing about bases ? --Molobo 18:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Backgroun - Czechoslovakia + Nationality[edit]

Hallo Scurinae,

I have added some text to the background part for Czechoslovakia into the Expulsion article. Me and Richard then trimmed it to fit into the article. I would like to know, if you have any comments on this part.

For the nationality issues: I have read an article on the German wikipedia about Kafka - some argued he was German because he was writing in German, some called him Austrian because Czech belonged to Austria, some argued he was Jewish because that is what he allegedly said in the census, and some that he was Czech as he spoke both Czech and German and died as a Czechoslovakian citizen.

To me, this is all crap. I think that nationality is irrelevant for most of these people as they would have to chose it themselves, and it was also irrelevant for them at that time (especially with Copernicus). If we have doubts about nationality in central european people before 20th century, we should call them European.

ackoz Flag of the Czech Republic.svg 21:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Nationality and Language in Czech lands[edit]

Hi .. i think it was you with whom I had the discussion about whether the German speaking people in 18/19th century Czech lands were ethnically German. I would like to point you to this article: by a norwegian journalist, which explains why many of the ethnically Czech inhabitants were German-speaking in that period. Greetings ackoz Flag of the Czech Republic.svg 14:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

please check this[edit]

I entered well sourced references[edit]

I entered well sourced references, which you simply deleted, disregarding any civility, in your usuall manner of trying to erase any information about persecution of Poles in Germany, like already tried to do in Kulturkampf and Hakata articles. Because your sole main actvitity is concentrated to following mine edits and deleting information I enter, because it conflicts with your POV, seemingly with with belief that Poles weren't victims of German state(a very strange one considering the amount of sources), I can't consider your edits as anything else then stalking vandalism. --Molobo 22:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you continue to use insults. --Molobo 22:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I could remove them, but I know you try to claim this is serious incivility etc. Really your efforts only delay the inevitable, sooner or later the information about persecution of Poles in Prussia or German Empire will be added, since it is historical fact. --Molobo 22:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you won't get me angered, too bad. I think you went seriously out of touch with what I am doing and what my intentions are. You are of no importance nor motivation to my work, besides occasional deletions of information that I have to live with. --Molobo 22:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for disruptive edit warring[edit]

Sciurinæ, more than a month ago when you were part of that unimaginable revert rampage with Molobo, which resulted in my blocking him indefinitely and then for a month, you got some stern warnings about edit warring. Recently you've engaged in extensive edit warring on many distinct articles, including, Soviet partisans in Poland, History of Poland, Historical Eastern Germany, Otto von Bismarck, Teutonic Knights, German Empire, and those are just the ones I found in the last few days before I tired of looking at your contributions. I am disheartened to see you continuing this behavior, rather than using proper, constructive, dispute resolution processes. For continuing this disruptive behavior, I have blocked you for 72 hours (which is only so light because it is your first block, but you are certainly not new here). Molobo will also be receiving a block from me. Dmcdevit·t 05:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Allright, I have deserved it and will try to change for the better in the future. Sciurinæ 07:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Good luck with that. //Halibutt 16:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your quick reverts to vandalism on my user page Thegraham 14:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Pesfan oops[edit]

  • Heh, somehow I didn't get the edit conflict warning as we both tried to fix the vandal edit. Sorry bout that, I'll defer to you to fix it right :) -- MrDolomite | Talk 21:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Eh he, and I was actually briefly trying to find the deeper meaning of the sentence "Andio has a new combine harvester and he's giving me the key." [8] ;-) Finally it's sprotected... But I must admit I liked their picture of a duck.. Sciurinæ 21:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Warning[edit]

??? Sciurinæ 11:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL, yes I did. Sorry for scaring the hell out of you. I removed the warning. VP is acting up for me for some reason. --Bearly541 12:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone was vandalizing a userpage, I did my best to revert it, but VP acted up. If you have issues with that, contact the makers of VP, but be glad that I rv that page from the suspected vandal. End of discussion. --Bearly541 12:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

desolé je voulais juste faire une surprise, j'aurais supprimé se message par apres !

Sock puppet tag[edit]

A lot of people know of Karin Friedrich's book, even you, since you say it's excellent. Whoa, what a coincidence, maybe I'm your sock puppet. Tirid Tirid 15:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert R. Ruffolo, Jr[edit]

Hey -- just so you know, {{db-copyvio}} is only for articles that are ripped off from websites trying to make money off of the copied content. This certainly doesn't seem to be the case here, so I changed to a regular {{copyvio}} tag. Also, even with {{db-copyvio}}, you should remove the copyvio content from the article. It's better to have questionable material off the pages than on them while we decide. Mangojuicetalk 16:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see.^^ Sciurinæ

It's been changed now so it's not just commercial sites. Tyrenius 00:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Numa Numa[edit]

Nice little bit of vandal reversion and warning. Tyrenius 00:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you. Sciurinæ 09:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Federation of Expellees article[edit]

Hi Sciurinae,

I think your addition to the article regarding the court decision is way too vague. Please provide an English translation of the German website that you referenced and, in particular, I think we should at least provide the phrasing that the court approved. I would even go so far as to suggest that we consider putting in the phrasing that was ruled against. (It's a sort of difficult question. It may be libel to state that X is true. However, IMO, it is not libel to state that the court ruled that stating "X is true" is libellous. I'm not a lawyer, though, so I may be wrong.

For further expansion of my argument, see the comment that I made on Wikipedia talk:Libel.


--Richard 03:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The original source for the sentence was Lesser's press release (ger.). In the fourth paragraph she didn't elaborate on what the concrete sentence that she was forbidden to repeat was, either, but revealed that she somehow misquoted Steinbach: she wrote "bomber" instead of "fighter plane" or sth like that and somehow cited "Western values" before "human rights" (I didn't quite get that). In the second paragraph she wrote what she is still allowed to state: "Als der Bundestag 1999 beschloss, in Berlin ein Mahnmal für die ermordeten Juden Europas zu errichten, forderte Erika Steinbach, dass auch die deutschen Vertriebenen ihr Mahnmal in Berlin bekommen müssten." (roughly translated: "When the lower house of the German Parliament decided to erect a memorial for the murdered Jews of Europe in 1999, Erika Steinbach demanded that the German expellees must get their memorial in Berlin, too.") I wasn't really interested in expanding upon the paragraph but it needed to be updated because the previous state implied that the "recent" court proceedings were still going on, which is definitely not the case. I understand that here my briefness was clearly at the expanse of clarity ;-) But actually right now I can't think of any solution to keep it that brief but make it lesss vague at the same time. Sciurinæ 09:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure what you mean. The bot account is simply a way to avoid sky-rocketing my own stats, as I use WP:AWB there, not some fancy bot. Which means that every single edit is being approved by me before it is made, it's by no means automatic. Besides, the account has been approved by some admin (no idea whom it was) who added me to the list of users to be allowed to use the ABW. Is there any other page where I should list it? //Halibutt 21:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So if it is just manually operated, it's not a real bot. "bots are automatic processes". To avoid any confusion, you could explain it on the bot's userpage, which you've done now, well, and since it doesn't work automatically, its chic Emergency bot shutoff button is redundant. I don't think you need to list Halibott anywhere. Sciurinæ 08:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I did anyway, just in case. Perhaps in the future I might try to use AWB for automatic changes such as categorization or so, so the listing would be useful. Besides, it's always good to hide 100 or so changes from the watchlist. Thanks for the idea! //Halibutt 05:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the vandalism revertion :) --Fr3nZi3 01:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Please consider also warning vandals[edit]

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia. Could you also please consider using our vandal warning system [9]? First offenses get a "test1," then a "test2," followed by a "test3" and "test4." At the end of this, if the vandal persists, he or she merits blocking for a period of time. If you do this, it will greatly help us in decreasing vandalism on Wikipedia. Much thanks, -- Kukini 16:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you but please consider taking my contributions into account - and you'll see that I already do often actually use warning templates - before you ask me to consider using warning templates at all. Sciurinæ 17:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism reversion[edit]

I just noticed that you reverted some vandalism by to my userpage. Thanks for that. Tonywalton  | Talk 09:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: No personal attacks[edit]

Space Cadet, I'm sick of the insults coming from you. Yes, I've told you before trying to be polite after you had made a not-so-polite comment on Talk:Kaliningrad. What happened was you just removed my request as "PA".

Your new comment at talk:Kaliningrad was no better. You should know WP:NPA very, very well by now. But still you topped the PA by adding another uncalled-for insinuation, "biased, one track minded, pseudohistorian who has nothing better to do, but to judge people he barely knows". I'd sincerly liked to refer it WP:AN/I, yet it is suggested that "Personal attacks should be reported at the personal attack intervention noticeboard", who in turn demand the user to be warned first.

All right: Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Sciurinæ 00:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sciurinæ, I'm on the other hand sick of your know-it-all, judgmental attitude. Sca's behind my back, weasel attack on me was completely uncalled for, unsubstantiated and unprovoked in any reasonable way. In the past me and Sca never had any conflict, except normal civilized discussions. I even admired his objectivism, ability to find compromise and his tendency to remain calm in stressful situations. Then all of a sudden he comes out of the blue and without any action from me against him, he goes ahead and calls me an ultra nationalist. Doesn't even have the decency of coming to my Talk page and explain his opinion on me, but without any explanation he goes on another page and starts name calling to discredit somebody else's intentions. Think about it before you post crap on my Talk page. Space Cadet 10:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I had no idea of your good relationship with Sca, not even now (see, I only saw messages like [10]. Glad to know I missed some updates, didn't I?). If you felt I sat in judgment over you with the comment, sorry, I did not intend to judge you for the sake of judging you, rather to be able to refer the next matter to someone else. Sciurinæ 11:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC), what? Space Cadet 21:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
What what? (Btw: thanks for this) Sciurinæ 22:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)



I just noticed you fixed some vandalism to my userpage 5 days ago. Thanks! Here's a flower for your efforts. - Mgm|(talk) 15:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans after World War II[edit]

Hi, I think there is an interesting and possibly positive development going on at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II. I wonder if you'd spare a minute to take a look at it before the discussion gets too long and difficult to follow. If you can, try to read starting from the "Thoughts about future directions for this article" section to see what's it about. Your help/comments would be appreciated. --Lysytalk 19:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm not sure whether I'll have enough time for that now and in the next few days or so because it looks like some knowledge about merging, moving and naming of content should be aquired first. Sciurinæ 14:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure, there's no rush (but can't promise it will wait for you either). --Lysytalk 14:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


There was an attack against you here. I already warned the user of NPA, but since you already warned him, you might want to report him. But I'll leave that up for you to decide.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The user was blocked. Here's a Barnstar!--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Purple Star.png The Purple Star
For enduring all of the vandalism and NPA on your userpage while keeping a cool head =). --Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Slashdoc[edit] isn't a reputable website but was reported to contain "scholarly essays." I came upon this website when doing research on Brave New World and was appalled at the quality of the "essays" contained on the site. The website allows anyone to post anything that they want, with very few, if any, cited references, and there is nothing scholarly about it. It was formally known at A+ Essays and seems to be a site that people would use to plagiarize school reports or papers. I plan to take down the rest of the links when I have the time. Although there may be some quality information contained on the website, this is mixed in with too much misinformation and conjecture by amateurs without citing to be linked with a Wikipedia article. This site can be very misleading to those who do not know much about the work in question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Torisuna (talkcontribs) 19:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Merry Christmas[edit]

Merry Christmas, and may it be a white one also, up here in Canada I think I am having my first ever green christmas, and it aint fun.

--Jadger 20:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You do not like my reverts?[edit]

You do not like my reverts? Look for my comments. You do not want discussion do step in matter. Any way, my enters are stepped to avoid changes which I accepted. Let me know how I can have some administrator who will restrict you friend Jadger. Is not you friend? Maybe, he always call you. AS> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC). __________________ And I do not agree with this: "Though no international judicial body has considered the issue, the deportations could be considered a crime against humanity under international law as the International Criminal Court applies it today." Because it intentionally magnifies accidental deaths and mob revenges crimes without pointing to the source of expulsion i.e. Nazi savagery and total (means against civilians too) war. Most important, blame Nazis to spark off the war hell. See “The Black Fox” documentary movie for example. You can borrow it from Public library. Any way I am Polish. I was born in Poland. My father and grandfather remembered the WW II war very well, not mention they lost close relatives - civilians. I mean during occupation not at front. And I think that Jadger doing the hell of job. - I would understand descend of some expelled German. Really, I would do - for same extend. You know what I mean? So, I ask you to leave me alone. AS>


check this out, and leave your comments and perhaps your own additions. user:jadger/draft_expulsions the first edit of that article in the history is a direct copy of the Expulsions article as it stands now, so you can compare it to the original to see all the changes that have been made.

--Jadger 15:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

thank you for defending me on my userpage.
--Jadger 17:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[edit]

user: is the ip address of an entire high school--I would recommend blocking it since anyone who has something productive to do could just register. (Ideally i would recommend banning but I know that is a lot of fuss, and isn't done very often--I think that should be done to anyone who vandalizes twice, but thats just me)TrevorLSciAct 20:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Jan Dzierzon 09Feb2007[edit]

You have messages at: [11]


Greetings! Have you given any thought to adding an email address to your account? If you are concerned about privacy, people sending emails through the Wiki system do not see your address unless you choose to respond to them. Cheers, Olessi 15:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm ... I had always thought this thing was activated. ... kind of embarrassing. But why? The address is right ... but there's a box in Preferences saying something about the official email authentication in March 2006 or whatever and a new(?) tick box
("Your e-mail address was authenticated on 23:07, 7 March 2006.
Enable e-mail from other users [ ]")
that I must have overlooked that they added this. D'oh! That would explain a bit about my email influx from Wikipedia (or lack of it). ;-) If only I had written myself more often... ;-) Thanks for telling me Sciurinæ 15:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


It would seem a certain user(Serafin) is just begging to be blocked indefinitly. What i mean is ... Special:Contributions/Deszcz -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 00:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Historical Eastern Germany[edit]

Perhaps you'd be interested in this:Talk:Historical_Eastern_Germany#Requested_move. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 04:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


Stupidity make the discussions worst not a personal attacks.-- 01:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Serafin[edit]

Huh. Those both seem to fit the pattern -- especially that they're both tag-teaming with each other. Blocked both for now. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I've just started User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin, which may prove useful here. If they keep up, I may consider a rangeblock. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeeeah. That's even quicker than I'm used to people coming back, heh. Put up a little roadblock, that should keep them at bay for a little while. But do feel free to let me know if they come back or slip through. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
hey, I just asked for a community ban on Serafin, so he shouldn't bother us anymore (hopefully). numerous admins had told me to do so, so I'm betting he will be banned.
--Jadger 06:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:America's Army1.jpg[edit]

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:America's Army1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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.Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 06:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


I can serve you for court of law for falsification of fact in article Nicolaus Copernicus. Everywhere it's known, that Kopernik was Polish. He was serve for Poland, there was bishop of Polish land. Kopernik was one of main Polish strategist in wars of Poland with Germany and other Polish wars. So, don't falsify obvious facts. And you make it consciously.--Mahal11 17:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Nicolaus Copernicus[edit]

Page is now fully protected to avoid an edit-war. There is a dispution about this article, please add your opinion here consensus dispution. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 15:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


I have tagged Image:ArmyNascarAD.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Rlest 11:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


I saw your warning on, he did a small vandalism to the vodka page, so I thought I'd tell you. Fephisto 20:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I've reported him. Another IP,, has to do with him, too. Sciurinæ 20:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never gone onto the Dilley Texas Page, Sciurinæ, you have the wrong user. Please stop sending me threatening merssages as those edits are nothing to do with me. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:08, 8 August 2007

That was just how to deal with vandalism. Vandalism came from your IP ([12] [13]) and warnings followed soon after ([14] [15] respectively). It certainly was another user who did this and if you want to make sure not to receive any further warnings, you may like to consider creating an account. Sciurinæ 16:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:AA War-dinsky.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:AA War-dinsky.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. effeietsanders 12:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

request for usage[edit]

Hi Sciurinæ,

thank you for your email, requesting for release under GFDL of [16]. Could you please forward the email with the headers to the OTRS team and add the ticket number afterwards to the image? That way the email can be stored safely. Thank you for your help. effeietsanders 20:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Five years of disruption[edit]

That's a lot, seriously. Let me take a WIKI break, rethink my life and come back as a new person. Thank You, Space Cadet 03:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Back from the break, feeling great. Space Cadet 22:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe soon I'll go on another one. Space Cadet 22:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't following you[edit]

I wasn't following you. As to German Empire-I changed a highly POV edit by anon which was very biased and basically tried to portay situation of Poles as positive. --Molobo 22:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Charges of sockpuppetry[edit]

Hi! :) Given the seriousness of the charges you've explained at Molobo's talk page, I suggest you file a report at Requests for Checkuser, providing all the information you detailed there. If the results prove that this editor indeed evaded his block, the appropriate course of action would be to reset his block to one year. Let me know of the outcome of this procedure, should you choose to pursue it. Best regards, Phaedriel - 23:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Phaedriel, checkuser is based on Wikipedia:Recent changes and only works about 30 days back. That's the problem. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I thought the problems were a little more recent than that. In that case, all I can suggest is, keep vigilant - and let me know if you detect any possible sockpuppetry in order to notify the Checkusers as soon as you spot it. Have a beautiful weekend! Phaedriel - 21:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

re: votestacking[edit]

Well, I didn't know it is against policy, but nobody of them responded, I think they have wikibreak. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


Imagine such situation some family moved from England to Germany and their daughter married a German citizen. Her son was born in Germany and educated on the best German university. He also studied in Italy and returned to Germany. Finally he become great economist, scholar, he was also German army engineer. He received many distinctions fighting against British and American invasion in Germany in 1945. After the WW II he worked extensively in mathematic research and received Nobel price. Would you name him as English scientist?--Buggo1 01:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The story with this army engineer goes on, so swallow this: Five hundred years after his death, in the year 2468, people are defined by what they eat. No, I'm serial. His then modern name will be Coopernicus (Meatish: Coopaflash, Veggish: Koopaleaf). On the one side, there is the Vegetarian Alliance and on the other the We-Eat-Meat Union. The Vegs Alliance has discovered a garden of the family and the mother is known to have grown cabbage and carrots. The eating habits of his father are unknown, but it is widely accepted that the mother did the cooking. They also claim that Coopernicus had joined an animal welfare society. He lived in Meatington (Vegtown). But it is said that Coopernicus once called his town jokingly crab apple. There are many statues of him in flesh, but there is not a single compost pile.
The meat union argued that he had a dog, a type of animal that ate flesh. This is why Coopernicus was all in favour of letting a being feed on the meat of another. It cannot be denied, however, that this Nobel prize winner once wrote a book about the use of plants as medicine and that there is not a single book or letter about meat. The meaties are unimpressed and point out that the whole planet was dominated by meat-eaters and ruled by one, to which the other side could only reply that the town was rural and boasted many fields and apple trees. The encyclopaedias Utopia and Marsiana provide his eating habits as "meaty", of course. In the year 2525, Mikipedia solved the problem of Coopernicus's eating habits by calling him a homo sapiens (at that time there are also cyborgs, androids, and Marsians). Most recently, his corpse has been rediscovered. Sadly, his teeth give no indication of what he ate, other than that he had caries. Sciurinæ 16:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not for you, Serafin. I will not condone any more input from you on my talk page. My comment above is to point out the absurdity of the actual case of Copernicus's nationality by continuing the fallacious thought of putting Copernicus five centuries closer to us (though there is also much added spin on the first presentation). Considering another great leap in time, instead of the advent of nationalism in Copernicus's future, in Coopernicus's future, there will be the advent of eaticism, today still in its infancy. I partially drew on the facts and argumentation of Copernicus's nationality as described in Wikipedia in an absurd way. In five hundred years' time, we'll know for sure. "So very far away, maybe it's only yesterday." Sciurinæ 22:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Copernicus #2[edit]

Well since you are one of the editors that watches the topic a fair bit, I was wondering if a consensus on calling him Polish was reached, as it is in the article now. I'm hesitant to revert to a neutral version without more info. Thanks, Saturday Contribs 20:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for repair my fault, I didn't notice Spanish was twice there. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


I suggest you read more on Voltaire before commenting.--Molobo 20:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not commenting. I just don't think that Voltaire is such a corrupt and infatuated guy that WP:SYN can be ignored ([17]). Sciurinæ 20:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
You don't consider a person calling for extermination of Poles and wanting to become a murderer a corrupt and infatuated guy.--Molobo 20:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, come on! Take your grievances about Voltaire elsewhere. I'm not discussing him. WP:SYN is part of the No original research policy and means that you need to find a source about the Execution at Thorn that discusses Voltaire's statements and then weakens them pointing out the alleged "anti-polish stance" of Voltaire. But since "every serious scholar notes his anti-polish stance", as you claimed, you won't have problems finding that - or will you? Sciurinæ 21:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Voltaire's anti-polish stance is well researched and presented in links I already gave, and can't be disconnected from his sentences about Poland. But then again you argued that Kulturkampf had nothing to do with Poles, so perhaps I am wasting my time here.--Molobo 21:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
What part of the following sentences didn't you understand? "WP:SYN is part of the No original research policy and means that you need to find a source about the Execution at Thorn that discusses Voltaire's statements and then weakens them pointing out the alleged "anti-polish stance" of Voltaire. But since "every serious scholar notes his anti-polish stance", as you claimed, you won't have problems finding that - or will you?" All right. Anyway. If you like to personally attack Voltaire, I do feel honoured to be your next target. Sciurinæ 21:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
"I do feel honoured to be your next target" Voltaire wrote that he wants to become a murder and called for extermination of nations Sciurinæ...Are you sure he is your idol ?--Molobo 21:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, you had your fun. Any further trollish remark will be removed. Sciurinæ 21:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked several editors[edit]

I asked several editors with long record of edits nterested in German history, atrocities and genocide to formulate opinon on the article and expand it if possible.--Molobo (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I asked several editors[edit]

I asked several editors with long record of edits nterested in German history, atrocities and genocide to formulate opinon on the article about Polish children being kidnapped by Germans and expand it if possible, I hope you don't mind. In the past they managed to expand several issues and helped with many articles--Molobo (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


If You put German name to Warta as so important, why did other german-speaking people so many times removed slavic name from Peene, also important because it explains etymology? Isn't it strange? Mayby for now better is keep Odra/Oder-Neisse/Nysa line for those names? As long as Poles and Germans do not accept that comons history has lands between Kaliningrad and Elbe/Łaba. Other axamples are: Wolgast (Wołogoszcz), Uecker (Wkra) and so on... Radomil talk 22:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand anything you're saying and the more I read the less I understand. If you'd be so kind as to offer some apolitical kind of rational why the Latin name, which neither alphabetically nor by frequency of usage in English ("Warta river", 361 "Warthe river", 134, "Varta river", 19) comes before the German one should still be before it, that would be more helpful than whatever you're suggesting. I don't believe that there's been a Roman annexation lately that I missed, either. How would your revert war at Peene, in which you successfully fought in the Polish name for a river in Germany without so much as an explanation - or dialogue, for that matter - , justify your actions now at Warta River? Yes, that's strange. Sciurinæ (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
And please don't you ever say that again. Sciurinæ (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent comment on my talk page[edit]

Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks per WP:NPA. Thanks. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 19:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In what way did I not assume good faith (!) or not focus on the relevant content regarding this issue? I've made very sure not to describe your character, but your actions, which were the topic. Even if you consider that a personal attack, you'd have to consider your message here a personal attack as well. Sciurinæ (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
You are pulling out my contributions that some of them are more then six months old, one for year to comment barnstar I got. You are also pulling out my block from March 2007. Of course I assume it as a personal attack. I do not hesitate to call it trolling and very unwikipedian behavior from you. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 19:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I have only pulled out the diffs of incivil behaviour of this month (along with evidence that you knew very well it was) for an admin who has recently sought to fight on incivility in Eastern European waters but had made an unwise decision towards incivility on your part which he might like to revise. I don't mind you getting a barnstar on principle, but not for that. Sciurinæ (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Sciurinæ, while I respect your opinion that the barnstar was unjustified, I'm going to have to disagree with it. Unless you contend that none of Tulkolahten's contributions to Wikipedia have ever been worth merit (in which case I suggest you file an RFC), I can't understand why you would object to it. I agree that some of Tulkolahten's edits have been problematic (which can be addressed at the appropriate place, if you feel), as some of anyone's likely are, but I chose to recognize him for his positive contributions. In other words, the barnstar was given not as some sort of indulgence, but rather as thanks for fixing my userpage and recognition for contributions going back over a year now. In no way does it serve to absolve Tulkolahten for past or potentially future transgressions, but it does recognize good contributions, which I personally feel should be recognized in every case. Is that not reasonable? Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, he certainly has positive contributions as well. Just let me respectfully disagree about whether it looks like a wholesale thumbs up for his work (especially regarding 'vandalism'), or a differentiated one. Anyway, have a good day. Sciurinæ (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AA InterviewE3.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:AA InterviewE3.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) 04:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AA InterviewE3.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:AA InterviewE3.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) 18:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Who are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AA US-OpFor.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:AA US-OpFor.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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 Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AA spawn.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:AA spawn.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AA violence.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:AA violence.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A barnstar[edit]

Barnstar of Reversion2.png The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
In recognition of your dedicated removal of vandalism. Olessi (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed! Sciurinæ (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Great user name![edit]

"Sciurine" is one of my favourite words. (Not that there are many opportunities to use it.) Nice pic too! :-) Jayen466 15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. :-) Wow, I admire the quantity of languages you can speak. Sciurinæ (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


I’m disappointed with your determination to try to present me in a bad light. The IP edits you listed on my Talk page are sometimes three days apart, so please take a closer look at the actual dates next time. All I see is a lot of effort on your part for no apparent reason. Naturally, not always do we want our Usernames to be listed. Wiki identities similar to real identities can trigger emotional responses regardless of how innocent our edits are. Editing contentious articles riddled with POVs is bad enough so please give me some credit. --Poeticbent talk 03:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

MedCab comments[edit]

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Somehow Prom3th3an had mistakenly concluded (like some others in that mediation) that I had initiated the mediation in order to be a punching bag for a group of editors, rather than to discuss content issues that needed attention. I appreciate your helping to disabuse him of that entirely inappropriate notion. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I Agree with boodles on one thing and this is to thankyou for those inspiring words.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused[edit]

I received a message that read

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Malaysia, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sciurinæ (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Now... i've never made a post especially not on Malaysia. So i'm wondering why i'm being messaged. I've heard of in the past that AOL users have linked IP addresses, however, I am not a AOL Client nor do I have dialup at all. I just dont want to get in trouble over something i'm not doing. I'm also the only one with access to this computer so there is no way someone made an edit from here cause i'm the only one that lives here lol. Any idea's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, don't worry. As far as I know, it's common that IP's frequently change hands and your current IP (but not your computer) had apparently been used by someone else several months ago. Sciurinæ (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about your, er, peeps[edit]

Hey, S, you seem like you might know this - is chocolate toxic to squirrels? It's very cold out and the leftover cake could be a fine food source... Best, Novickas (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've done some research, but couldn't find a definite answer on the Internet. This authoritative page, for example, has a lot to say about how to raise squirrels and mentions that cookies should go without chocolate even though they would love it. From what I've read, I gather they wouldn't die from it but it might not be too good for them, either. I've also had the opportunity to ask a vet this question and he said about the same - that chocolate might not be good for them because it could contain toxic elements - though I don't think he treats many squirrels and the "better not" advice was the best he offered, not willing to be held responsible. Sorry I can't answer if it would be better than nothing.
According to the page, grown-up squirrels could be fed walnuts, hazelnuts, sunflower seeds, strawberries, huckleberries, blackberries and raspberries. As fruits, they can eat apples, pears, nectarines, kiwis, grapes and melons. They can also eat salad, carrots, courgette, corncobs, raisins, rusks, oats, spinach (who would have thought?) and crispbread. I hope that helps.
Anyhow, I wish you a Happy New Year. Sciurinæ (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, sorry I missed your reply, thanks. Happy New Year to you too. We did put a small piece out. He/she has been back since, so it couldn't have been too toxic :) Novickas (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please trim your statement on requests for arbitration[edit]

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. MBisanz talk 03:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The work of deleting IP vandalism on chem element pages[edit]

Since you're involved, I wonder if you'd like to comment on this discussion on semi-protection for element articles: Thanks! SBHarris 23:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice: SPI request[edit]

Your name was mentioned in this SPI request. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I very much appreciated your comment, unfortunately, I could not make use of the information you have. I very much hope that someone cares who can. Grüße nach Berlin, war gerade da (zum arbeiten, nicht zum Steinewerfen...) Skäpperöd (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

user:AdjustShift is taking on the case. You'd probably best forward your evidence to him. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you in contact with user:AdjustShift yet? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

SPI case[edit]

 Clerk note: In my note to the case, I made it clear that (amongst other things), the mudslinging must cease. I cannot help but characterise your latest addition to the page in which you describe another user's comments as "inflamatory" as being mudslinging. As such, per SPI procedures, I must ask you to cease contributing to the case. Mayalld (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Sciurinæ. You have new messages at Mayalld's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mayalld (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo[edit]

Dear Sciurinæ,

Avraham has closed the SPI case. You can see the result. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Good work. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) Sciurinæ (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


Hey Sciurinæ, how are you doing these days? Can we work together to ameliorate German-related articles here? If you are interested, give me a ping on my talk page. Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Request - moral support and/or tips for filing a sockpuppetry check?[edit]

Hi Sciurinae - Would you be willing to look into this? I've been trying to edit Jan Dzierzon, but have been reverted. Another editor has expressed concerns that some of the conflict may have been created by a sockpuppet of Serafin. A quick look at the Dzierzon article shows that many IPs in the 131.104.... range have edited it. [18]. I think some confirmed sps too. That's the same range as many of Serafin's sockpuppets. I've never filed a sockpuppet request before, so...could probably file it, but if you could offer moral support and tips? Of course the list of Serafin's sockpuppets is pretty amazing - almost 200? - but what else can we do. I like beekeeping and would like to add a few things to J.D.'s article, but it's a discouraging environment.

Assorted compliments and thanks. I really, really admire your anti-vandalism work. Regards, Novickas (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the analysis and tips. I'm falling behind on other committments, so probably won't get to it soon. It looks as tho most of the material at Dzierzon contested by the sock has been successfully restored. BTW, maybe you know something about this- seems to me a long time ago I saw a tool that came up with some sort of Venn diagram of editors working on the same articles. Like % of article edit concordance. Does that ring a bell? Novickas (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


Nice to hear from u! :-)

I'm busy with an article; Skäpperöd helped me with the translation.

I'll try to ameliorate German-related articles here on en.wikipedia; we can do it together. :-)

Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You've got mail. AdjustShift (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sciurinæ, you've got another mail. You and I haven't worked on any article so far. I've started a stub on Fritz Neumayer. He was a German politician. Can you help me with translation? Here is a link: [19]. German Wikipedia has a nice article on him. See [20]. But, source is lacking on de.wikipedia. You can use Google to find sources.[21] AdjustShift (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sciurinæ, you are not active these days. I've asked Skäpperöd for translation. It will fun if you were more active on en.wikipedia. AdjustShift (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you back. :-) Thanks for this, and you have got mail. AdjustShift (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User making many Vandalisms[edit] is making many vandal edits. I am tired of reverting them! --Srinivas 15:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


Re [22]. I suggest you continue the conversation on the anon's talk page. I'm sympathetic to the idea of unblocking, but not while he does nothing but revert without talking William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Sciurinæ, would be so kind to convince this Anon on his talk page to stop removing Polish names from all Polish-Lithuanian related articles? That would be great, thanks again.--Jacurek (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You may want also to get familiar with this discussions about the problem going on here[[23]].--Jacurek (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User Jacurek[edit]

I have seen at User_talk:Thatcher#Edit_warring_by_Jacurek that you also seem to have noticed the troublesome behaviour of this user. Please take a look at this article as well - Bombing of Wieluń - it is the same happening everywhere. Kurfürst (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

He's also editing London Victory Parade of 1946, inserting statements which are precisely the opposite of the actually content of the source he claims it is from, and using the discussion page for the article to call me a troll.Varsovian (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

@ Varsovian : Never did call you a troll. Please go your own way and stop harassing me on my talk page and other pages. I also left you a message on your talk page. Thank you--Jacurek (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
This is getting more and more interesting, the "new user" Varsovian even knows of Sciurinae and that Kurfust made previous complain here. Loosmark (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Jacurek: you posted "[24]--Jacurek (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)" under my comment but claim you didn't call me a troll? OK. By the way, I am not harassing you and never have made any attempt to do so: I am attempting to engage you in discussion about the article so that we can resolve the dispute about it. If you prefer conflict to discussion&resolution, WP may not be the right place for you.
Loosmark: I've already explained precisely how I found out about Sciurinae. But let's clear something up right now if we can: when you say "the "new user" Varsovian" do you in any way, shape or form wish to state or imply that I am lying about being a new user? It is fairly easy to infer from your usage of quote marks that you do not believe that I am telling the truth when I say that I am a new user. To avoid any feeling of conflict, I would like to politely request that you strikethrough the quotation marks above in "new user". Thank you in advance.Varsovian (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
No, you have not "explained precisely" how you found out about Sciurinae, in fact you have not explained it at all. And no you aren't a new user, you have by your own admission edited as an IP before. Loosmark (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I haven't explained at all? User talk:Varsovian "As for Scurinae, I was wondering why you and Jacurek are so incivil to me and why you both used the word 'troll' in connection with me, so I did a search for Jacurek. Found some interesting reading. I must admit that I don't know who Kurfust is or what the complaint was but I'll be sure to check it out, thanks for the tip.Varsovian (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)" And you know I have explained it because you replied to that particular post "You did a "search for Jacurek". How? Loosmark (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)". Would you care to strikeout your comment which clearly implies that I was lying when I said that I've already explained precisely how I found out about Sciurinae?Varsovian (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not striking out absolutely anything, you said you did a "search for Jacurek". This is no precise explaination, in fact it's so vague it's no explaination at all. If you didn't know who is Kurfust how did you even know that he made a comment on Jacurek on this talk page months ago? Loosmark (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Why would you say that? I explained on my talk page precisely what I meant by a "search for Jacurek" "By using the cunning plan of typing his username into the search box and clicking on "Go"! On the next page it says "Did you mean: javůrek" but there's a button marked "Everything" Click that and you get 330 hits. Try it for yourself.Varsovian (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)" Would you like me to believe that you didn't read that post? Now that this is clearly explained for the second time, would you care to strikeout your comment which clearly implies that I was lying when I said that I've already explained precisely how I found out about Sciurinae?Varsovian (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I am on wikipedia for 2 years and I was unaware of this method but you as a "new user" already know it... as mr.Spock would put it: fascinating. Now explain one more thing, there are 330 hits for Jacurek how have you examined all 330 of them to find this obscure little comment that Kurfust made? Loosmark (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
If it never occured to you in two years that you can use the 'search' box to search for a user, that really is not my fault, is it?Varsovian (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Well you know, some people are here to build encyclopedia rather than to analyse what other people do.. Now about those 330 hits, just curious, have you examined all of them? Loosmark (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


Poll: Lists of Republic of China "diplomatic missions"[edit]

At Category talk:Lists of diplomatic missions by sending country, a poll is going on about whether to list certain "offices" in Taipei as "diplomatic missions" even where no diplomatic relations exist. For example, France has no diplomatic relations with the RoC but a group of editors wish to disregard this and pretend that France's office in Taipei is a diplomatic mission. The logic of this standpoint is that "unofficial relations" should be regarded as "diplomatic relations". This relates to all of the "List of diplomatic missions of Country XXX" article pages. Go ahead and express your view if you are intersted in the outcome. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The above message is being posted on country pages and foreign relations pages because countries send diplomatic missions...It is not spam. Every country has an interest in the outcome of the poll. It needs to be widened. Thank you for your understanding. I would encourage you too to get involved in the poll. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are wrong. It is spam, and I've reverted it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for your anti-vandalism work, and contributions to multiple EU-related articles. AdjustShift (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this is a school computer —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You've got mail. AdjustShift (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparent Vandalism[edit]

Sorry but I just received a message from you saying I vandalised the page on "Neon". As far as I'm aware I've never even been to the page on Neon let alone edited. Just wanted to let you know in case my IP address has been tagged as a trouble maker or something. (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Move of Szeczzecin Lagoon to Oder Lagoon[edit]

I requested a move again after seeing that 28 articles link to Szezzcein Lagoon and 244 link to Oder Lagoon. Could you come decide on where to move it? Thanks! -- Hroþberht (gespraec) 09:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger of symbolic computation with computer algebra system[edit]

You may be interested in Talk:Symbolic computation#Merger with computer algebra system. Yaris678 (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

File:AA War-dinsky.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AA War-dinsky.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Name mention[edit]

As a courtesy note I informing that I mentioned your name. M.K. (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)