User talk:Forseti

Hello Marcin, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Angela 07:45, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry if I listed Akashic Brotherhood or Celestial Chorus as copyvios. My intention was to list only articles which were copyvios posted by a particular anonymous user, so I was looking at the edit history for that IP address. Perhaps he or she edited your articles and I accidentally caught them that way - I admit that after the first 10 or so I was no longer actually doing a google search each time to find the original text.

By the way, I've noticed that you linked to Tradition from your text, which isn't what you want. You might like to know that Mage: The Ascension links to Traditions (Mage: The Ascension) instead - you can do this using the wikitext [[Traditions (Mage: The Ascension)|Tradition]]. However, that article doesn't exist yet: these things always seem to create more work the longer you look at them! ~~~~

I'll rework it in spare time, but now I'm concentrated more on Werewolf: The Apocalypse Forseti 11:17, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Before you edit any of Polish-German-related articles, could you be so kind as to take a look at the discussion page? At times automatic edition might destroy a hard-worked compromise...(Expulsion of Germans after World War II)Halibutt 16:40, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It wasn't automatic - see Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II on my arguments Forseti 11:16, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies please vote to keep it. Cautious 20:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Done, but please provide some outline how could it be expanded at its Talk page. Forseti 08:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Forseti, nice idea, but i bet such article will be source of endless revert wars. But the idea itself is nice :) Szopen

Adam Carr and others, must have an idea, what Poles think about their beloved leaders. I do not require them to agree, but bitter awareness is the part of the process of including Polish historical awareness into main stream of historical awareness. Cautious 18:28, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Marcin

Re: 'Poland's betrayal...' etc. No panic or insult intended. Poles have excellent brains of their own. What I wrote was the end of a process where I was trying to persuade Cautious to talk about arriving at an acceptable form of words. See you around. DJ Clayworth 14:17, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, I know, just've been kidding in the morning ;) -- Forseti 14:27, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No email from you, sorry. Cautious 18:28, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, did you provided correct adress in preferences? Anyway, my GG is 7000398, give me a clue how to contact you.

I don't use IRC.Halibutt 16:51, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello, Forseti,

I think you might like to combine Soviet ethnic cleansing of East Prussia with Prussian people. You seem to have the neutrality needed, especially since you come from Poland. However, it seems Cautious automatically deletes entire postings which he/she disagrees with.

Just an idea. :-)

Sincerely,
--Wighson 04:04, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC)

== Germans not only as the first victims of the Nazis,
but as the last victims of THEIR victims ==

What I didn't write on the Expulsion-talk page:

It would be stupid of me to try to claim that I do not defend German interests, but that is however almost my claim! To make a very brief personal detour, I have spent almost half of my life abroad, and I would agree that I've tried to improve the justificably bad image of Germans in France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and to lesser degree in the US. But one of the chief effects on me (contrary to many other ex-pats) is that I believe to have become less of a patriot. Although I'm not always in the position to argue authoritatively and effectively, I have again and again found myself in the position of trying to put reason to nationalist prejudices: against Muslims (and Germans) in France, against Somalis in Denmark and Finland, against Finns and Muslims in Sweden, and against Poles and "Turks" in Berlin.

So, when you directly or indirectly tell me that my chief motivation should be to restore the reputation of the Germans, ...well, maybe you really factually are right — but emotionally, all of my soul revolts against such an "accusation" :->

(With regard to User:Gdansk, I don't wish to make a list, but be convinced that plenty of pro-Polish (and fewer pro-Czech) editors could be mentioned as more moderate followers. It is NOT a matter of one single person, but of a tendency in Polish world view which I also have personal RL experience of.)

Nico and Space Cadet are, quite simply (in my view), exponents or agents for existing views in Europe, and with the expansion of EU approaching it's more important than ever to communicate rather than continue World War II with other means.

I am convinced that you don't have to think long to put yourself in the position of the Germans. Similarly to how the Cold War influenced the Poles, also in the both Germanys there existed plenty of subjects which couldn't be discussed publicly, unless you were to be labled as a political extremist.

The horror stories connected to the post-war "population transfer" belonged to these topics. I remember from family reunion parties in the 1990s how still then, the old aunts only when they had become quite intoxicated dared to start wisper over their memories from 1945-48-56. My own great aunt, who is the relative I emotionally feel closest attached to, has staunchly refused to answer any question or speak more than single short sentences on the evacuation from Wroclaw or how she ended up in Berlin before 1956.

...so, the lift of the unspoken ban against public mentioning of atrocities (particularly them commited by civilians, by neighbours) in Poland and Czechoslovakia has filled a great vacuum, not the least for the younger generations, and it represents a need to see our grand-parents not only as perpetrators (which was hard to embrace) but also as victims. Most of all, it illustrates the thesis that Germans are not per se more evil (or at least not much more evil) than other peoples, which the recent tragedies in ex-Yugoslavia and Rwanda also have expressed.

I do (of course!) not advocate making Wikipedia to a vehicle for these feelings, but I ask for some understanding, which might (or might not) make it easier to relate to the excesses. Also if we leve Nico aside, I think some other pro-German contributors are suffering from sever need to rehabilitate the Germans by emphasizing atrocities done by others.

--Ruhrjung 11:01, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ruhrjung, sorry for not answering. I've read it and appreciate your stance but I'm nearly out-of-net now and unable to engage in extended writing.

Forseti 10:35, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite suprised by your name, Forseti = President in icelandic, is this a coincidence? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:14, 2004 May 7 (UTC)

I was quite surprised that office of Icelandic president is named after a Norse god of justice :) But it has upsides too - I can always forward annoying trolls to forseti@forseti.is ;>

Seriously, I've taken this nick after Forseti son of Baldr, god of justice and divine arbiter. It is a kind of personal reminder for me and should not be taken as sign of megalomania or something, however :)

Forseti 10:35, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Edit attribution

Hi, Forseti. The edits from your IP have now been reattributed to you. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 03:33, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

Wakacje

A gdzieś się Waść podziewał przez ostatnie kilka miesięcy, jeśli wolno spytać? [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 20:45, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

German articles

Hi. I saw your comment at the Village Pump and thought I might be able to help. I've been at Wikipedia for 3 years, and I'm good at working with other contributors to turn messes into clear, straightforward articles. My specialty is controversial subjects where it's difficult to distinguish between "objective truth" and "whatever I myself personally happen to believe". On the other hand, I am Jewish and lost relatives to Hitler's concentration camps, so I might have an anti-Nazi bias (I'll try to squelch this while editing). --user:Ed Poor (talk) 18:22, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your help. However, I have no idea how to fix it. Overview of situation: some revisionist propaganda -> edits -> revert war -> administrative action. With fork somewhere in the middle - as an attempt to force POV elsewhere or force NPOV when it is impossible in original. I fear that subsequent edits with new persons will only perpetuate the conflict where it came to attrition.

I feel that the problem here is degree of freedom one has with expressing his views - even extremist, fanatical and marginal. We tolerate persons with long history of conflicts, vandalism and POV-pushing and our policies are ineffective because they are slow and aimed at cooperative persons. There is total freedom in editing and many constraints on supervision.

Perhaps we need a system of control or review of submitted content that will clearly show extent of acceptance the community has for extremists. I've suggested some system of review and flagging at Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards but this doesn't solve problem of splinter articles. So perhaps we need a system of hard-set hierarchical topic groups with supervisor for each node of hierarchy?

I don't know what to do. I feel that just solving this one case isn't enough (if it is possible under current conditions in first place) and some general mechanism must be introduced to WP so that this won't happen again and again. I have too little experience with community workings and too little time to gain acceptance for above ideas. Especially that some people perceive WP's democratic model far more important over content quality. I'd rather really work on some article constructively and not engage in pointless wars or gaining enough clout to pass my ideas. You say you have much experience so maybe you would be able to provide some advice on how to fix this systemic problem.

You have identified all the problems clearly. Yes, we're too tolerant of trouble-makers; I'm running for the Arbitration Committee hoping to be able to crack down on them. And I've led some discussions about a review system. Let's keep trying. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 17:04, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

OK, so you have my vote :) As for Polish-German matters do you think there is any sense to begin any work on it (risking another war) or wait for system-wide change of rules like review system? However, I'm not sure what will emerge from discussion on this review. For my version see [1] and [2] but it appears that they aren't too popular. -- Forseti 19:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template:Fictional Setting

I'm not sure the template Fictional Setting you've created is all that useful. See Template talk:Fictional Setting for the discussion I've tried to create on this point. Though I will say, you've done a great job of making the template (with CSS classes and so on); I just don't believe it's useful. I'd be very interested to read your thoughts on the subject, though. — OwenBlacker 19:22, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Poll on portal page replacement

As Rossami just told me: "It's a wiki. Be bold." But thank you for your courtesy in asking my opinion. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 01:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think your portal page rework is excellent, and should be rolled out immediately. It keeps the spirit of the alternative design proposal (things around a globe) whilst avoiding all of the CSS/browser problems, and looks clean and crisp. -- The Anome 12:44, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I like it too (though I'd prefer my original proposal). But nonetheless, I think that there would be another poll needed so as not to attract community wrath. Forseti 13:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Gdansk/Vote#VOTE:_Cross-Naming_Gdansk.2FDanzig

You voted "Agree". I'm not sure you realize what you're voting for.

Consider List of cities in Poland. You have voted for putting "Danzig" next to Gdansk on this page.

Consider Lechia Gdansk. You have voted for putting "Danzig" next to Gdansk on this page.

Every page that mentions Gdansk will also have to mention Danzig.

A page about Lech Walesa will have to mention: he worked at the shipyard in Gdansk (Danzig). The word Danzig must appear in the page.

This is what you have voted for. -- Curps 11:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sigh, so I made a note. Actually, I complained about the vote because I'd like to vote half-way :( This is also why I don't believe it would change anything -- Forseti 11:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gdańsk/Danzig inine discussion

- - I thought it's pretty straightforward: if there is Danzig we link it to Gdańsk as it is present name. At Gdansk in 1st paragraph there is Danzig mentioned. So connection should be pretty obvious the other way. Let's stick to correctness as sticking to pleasing everyone would be bad to our credibility. IMHO all the questions after that about historical period are so imprecise (should have more options) that really could be used to undermine the sense of the first ones. Forseti 08:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Yes, the Gdansk article should mention "Danzig". However, what people are agreeing to here is that every article that mentions Gdansk must mention Danzig at least once. Including articles on current events and topics where there is no German cultural or historical connection (such as articles on Polish political parties or biographies of Poles who were born in recent decades). As for the rest of your comment I'm afraid I don't understand... can you clarify? -- Curps 10:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - As for factual correctness: There is only one location called at present Gdańsk and formerly Danzig and so there should be only one designation for current use. For talks about past, past names could/should be used but link to present should be maintained so that it would be obvious there is only one such entity. Trying to keep using German name in spite of fact it is Polish for 60 years is clinging to the past verging post-war world order revisionism.
      - As for notes about the poll: it seems to me that this poll would be void as sound arguments from naming according to historical periods would be undermined by loopholes of bibliografy cases, political-correct mentions of old Danzig in modern-time articles and so on until nobody would think seriously about this policy not to mention upholding it. Mentioned options should include questions like: is Danzig should be mentioned? is Gdańsk should be mentioned? and so on. If everybody is full of dissent now they wouldn't be less after the vote. -- Forseti 11:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        I don't mean this as a personal attack, but I really don't think you understood what you voted in favor of, below. -- Curps 11:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        OK, I don't mind. I understand writen text it's just I'm unsure how to deal with situation. In normal situation (as in [[m:Talk:Www.wikipedia.org_portal|this vote] case) the voter's comments would be taken into consideration and perhaps second, more sound poll would be carried. Unfortunately, since I voted limits of absurdity have been pushed so far I don't believe that anything would be reconsidered. If such John K accounts every vote appaently to bar some people right to vote effectively then any resulting policy would be held with a sigh of relief. So, how to vote if you strongly want to vote for one half of question but strongly agaist the other one half? Forseti 21:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        I agree that the question should have been asked better. Most of the questions were split up according to time periods, and this question should have been split up that way too. Anyway, to answer your question, sorry I don't use IRC. -- Curps 23:01, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me if this is naive...but has anyone considered splitting Danzig and Gdansk into separate articles...referencing each other, but the Danzig article emphasizing its history as a Prussian/Germanic city until the close of WWII, and Gdansk emphasizing its role in post-WWII Poland? -- ExplorerCDT

Wikimedia meetup Central and Eastern Europe

Hi there! I thought you might be intrested in helping out a bit with the organization of this meetup. The actual idea of a CEE Meetup was proposed by Ronline from Romania but, as it turned out, there were 3 people from Romania willing to participate and close to 20 form Poland (see Meta:Wikimedia meetup Central and Eastern Europe for details).

So... Now we're taking matters into our own hands. ;) Take a look at Meta:Wikimedia meetup Central and Eastern Europe/Poland if you find the time. All sugestions and ideas welcome. Cheers, TOR 08:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) P.S. Good God, it felt strange to write to a Pole in English... Didn't want to mess your talk page up, though. :P

Play.png and Search.png

I'd like to change the search form at meta:Www.wikipedia.org template/temp to use your design, but I can't find the "Play.png" and "Search.png" images referred to by meta:Www.wikipedia.org template/Forseti. Please could you upload them, or let me know where you have already uploaded them. —AlanBarrett 19:44, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Foreigner

I've taken on the task of spliting the Foreigner page, which mostly dealt with the band Foreigner. Many other pages link to the now disambig page. I have been going through the pages and unlinking any uses of foreigner that mean stranger. I have no problem with this as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, I didn't want to unlink foreigner in the Mediation (culture) page as it would weaken the page. You appear to be the only editor of this page, so I'm leaving this note in your Talk page. Any ideas? Your dear friend Acjelen 23:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Polish Wikipedians' notice board

Shortcut

WP:WNBP

zapraszam.--Witkacy 13:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick note

I rmember you were rahter active here with the WoD content... the people from Wolfspoor have started a White Wolf wiki that is in pretty dire need of extra submissions... So in case you do have the time to tag in and help check http://whitewolf.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page --Asmodai June 29, 2005 16:51 (UTC)

Sacrum

Hi Forseti,

I see you haven't edited for some time so I guess this is a long shot, but in case you see this message, an editor raised a question at Talk:Midnight#Sacrum concerning material you added. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

Not sure how often you check Wikipedia these days, but I'm just letting you know a couple of contributors have requested clarification regarding the cultural meanings of midnight section; see this edit and the pre-existing tags. It looks to me like really valuable content, especially if it's not described in any English source, but its utility would be much greater if it could be made a little more specific. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:New-wikipedia-article-layout.jpg needs authorship information

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:New-wikipedia-article-layout.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: {{subst:usernameexpand|Forseti}} will produce an appropriate expansion,
or use the {{own}} template.

If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mediation (magic)

The article Mediation (magic) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Totally fails WP:NOR, WP:CITE, and WP:NPOV. If fixed, would still be more appropriate as a section in the main meditation article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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