User talk:Tomeasy/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello, Tomeasy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

meco 22:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Serbian borders

I think we should respect the borders accepted by the UN. Also there is always a possible compromise; for an example Serbia borders....Albania through region of Kosovo....--Avala (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope your opponents will appreciate your compromise as such by :-)Tomeasy (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well done!; "bordering Albania via the breakaway province of Kosovo" is at least much better than just ignoring what is currently going on in Kosovo because the UN Security Council is unable to reach unanimity. And Tomeasy: Thanks for correcting my mistake. ;) --Camptown (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

German and Uk economies

I am sorry I thought that the person commenting on the talk page was right, maybe he was confused to! Harland1 (^t/_c) 16:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Europe

Hi, just an explanation. I undid Polscience's changes as a temporary solution, as it is clear that he added more than what was discussed (maps, renaming sections as Europe extending into Asia) etc. I don't disagree with adding the full population of transcontinental countries, however this should be done with a clean slate (prior to Polscience) and with more time (perhaps give the editors who contributed to the article/table in 2006-2007, such as Corticopia a few days to respond). Also, I was concerned about the timeframe as it seemed you, Husond and JdeJ were in the middle of discussing possible solutions when the sockpuppets started appearing (Husond was considering removing Armenia but leaving all others as partial, which is also a possibility). Also, please note that Armenia was added recently (February 2008) so it was a relatively new addition, resulting in the inconsistency in the 2006-2007 version (I believe Corticopia added most of the figures for the transcontinental countries). Kesälauantait (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, it is clear this only became a controversial, emotional and heavy issue after Polscience : ) Kesälauantait (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I can not believe that I got into Husonds evil trap again, How smart! just because those people were in favor does not mean that I created them and sock puppeting or whatever was the reason. I posted several post on the caucasus forum and asked people to express their opinion. to do that they created an account and they were accused of sock puppeting. the ONLY proof was that all of them had posted on the European forum only and therefore were sock puppets. OFCOURSE they did not post on anything else as they were not the regular users and even if they wanted to post on something else, they could NOT because they were blocked immediately ! there were other people who were in favor of those changes. Stop making me look like I am stupid. If I wanted sock puppeting I would somehow wait a little and make them edit completely different articles. I'am not as NAIVE as some of the people in here might think or might want me to be.

after I was blocked, COMPLETELY EVERYTHING was reverted, even what was made under concensus which signifies that some user in here could not WAIT to ban me in order to implement their evil and biased plans on this website who they thinks belongs to them and several others, and do things like "european "portion population that GOD knows where they took from and they dont even count it as a flaw. Double standards... now I know that it is "better to break your head, than to break your name" because who will believe a "silly" student like me after me trying to make someone "LOOK" european..... they will always believe Husond (a proud european) and the likes. Thanks god that they are so "powerful" only in wikipedia and have different worthless awards. they dont have a real knowledge about "real" life.... when he was making up those "European portion" numbers under some unexisting consensus , he was very active, where is he now???! why does not he do anything to fix it ? banning me is not gonna fix it is it ? but he likes it because everything will be the way HE wants it, and who cares if its wrong. (except several people like Tomeasy and etc.) Husond - your reign is over.You may ban whoever or whatever you want... it is not gonna help, the problem is still here and the problem is created artificially by people like you, who dont like the truth. SHAMEFUL....--Polscience (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be complete. Here the confirmed evidence for Husond's accusation you were sock puppeting.

Then to your concern that everything has been reverted. This is not the case. Your most important point not to show arbitrarily chosen partial figures referring to undefined European fractions of the respective countries has been accounted for—though probably not because of your infamous lobbing for this. Tomeasy (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Liechtenstein

Well, I am glad there is a consensus reached. I personally consider the CIA Factbook being wrong on the subject, but until it corrects the mistake, people will always come to Wikipedia and edit the article and quote the Factbook. So the current formula is best. Russoswiss (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The interesting development I wanted to hint you is that Copysan wrote an e-mail to the Swiss embassy and they confirmed that there is no agreement. Tomeasy (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, this is good indeed. Now I wonder how come I have not thought of this earlier. They have an Embassy in Bern, after all :O Russoswiss (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It appears everything is settled now. Grinkov (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. Polscience

Hello Tomeasy. I abandoned the discussion because I thought I had provide all the feedback I could. I couldn't think of a clear solution for the data regarding the transcontinental countries. As for your new sock suspicions, I share them too. Not because of the "--" which is a regular component of a user's signature if they click the signature button instead of typing four tildes manually. But because I found some other familiar features hinting at renewed sockpuppetry. It shall be resolved soon enough. Regards, Húsönd 21:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Europe rv

Yesterday you undid a edit of mine to the economy section of europe, you said that some text was removed and the ref did not work, it would be nice if you had fixed the ref and asked me why I removed the text, as I would have told you that I removed the text following an agreement between Mathsci and myself here that it was encyclopaedic. If you disagree would you please state your reasons. Cheers. Harland1 (^t/_c) 11:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine I should have stated that there was an agreement, and I shouldn't have expected you to look at every talk page were I might have come to an agreement. Harland1 (^t/_c) 13:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you think then/ Should I remove the information from the FT or not? Harland1 (^t/_c) 17:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not altogether sure that I should be the one to decide as a resident of the UK but I as you've asked me to this is my suggestion: The United Kingdom comprises the region's second largest national economy and the fifth largest globally. However the economy of France is of a very similar size ($2.515 trillion (2007 est.)) to that of the UK ($2.756 trillion (2007 est.)). And as recently the Euro has been strong against the Pound the UK economy when compared by Pound to Euro as opposed to Euro to Dollar and pound to Dollar is worth less than that of France I would however question your statement that the Italian economy is of similar size. Was that too wordy? Harland1 (^t/_c) 19:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am slightly confused by your argument. It may of course be that I do not know enough, but you said that if the Pound goes down against the Euro then the Euro-Dollar ratio will go up against the Pound-Dollar ratio. But if the Pound goes up against the Dollar (as it has been) and down against the Euro (as it has been), then your statement earlier is not true. It does however depend on whether the Euro has gone up against the Dollar more than the pound, but even so there ared surely not the same? (Apologies for being ignorant) Harland1 (^t/_c) 13:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK your suggested text is better and more concise than mine - i will put it in. However my misunderstanding comes from the fact that I thought that if the Euro strengthened against the Poundn that didn't necessarily follow that that it should strengthen against the Dollar, but I suppose that you're right it probably would. Harland1 (^t/_c) 14:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In deed this is not the case. However, I did never claim so. Please cite with more care. What I said is that from the two statements: (1) Pound weakens against Euro and (2) Pound strengthens against Dollar, a third statement can be derived, which is not independent from two earlier ones: (3) The Euro strengthens against the Dollar. Please make sure you observe the difference between this and your citation. I would like to motivate you to understand this, since it makes life much simpler than the ideas that you've had previously. I think you imagined the whole stuff to be very complex and then you tried to formulate precisely. Where it went wrong is that, actually, it is not a complex issue. Could I help?

Do you understand now, why the ranking of economy sizes is independent from the currency used to measure the volume? I have just imagined a nice analogy. I hope you like it: If you are taller than I, then this is independent whether we measure height in feet or meters. Now, you may wonder, why then the whole fuzz about France overtaking the UK due to exchange rate changes. Therefore, if you allow, I have to strain the analogy a little bit. Imagine you are 6 ft tall, no matter what the length of a feet is in meters and I am 1.8 m tall. Imagine further that the exchange rate between feet and meter is changing daily. Now, you will be taller than I as long as the foot is stronger than 0.3 m. I would be glad, if I had helped you with this example. Please, hit me back in any case.Tomeasy (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my stupidity I didn't understand 'till I saw it set out in your logical 1,2,3 manner. I understood how the xchange rate bit worked, but thanks for your analogy. Harland1 (^t/_c) 15:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Your question about pictures

You posted a question on my user page about how to deal with problems relating to pictures on Wikipedia. The easiest part first: Captions are edited on the pages that utilize an image, so if you are unhappy with an image's caption, you must address that on the article talk page of the article where the image is applied. If several pages use the same image, you will have to address caption grievances on each separate talk page (or if you feel bold. go ahead and make the changes in the image markup ( [[Image:Image name|thumb|250px|This captoin needs copyediting]] ).

Images are stored centrally, usually on Commons. Commons.wikimedia.org is the media hub or central storage location of media files for all Wikimedia projects, i.e. the different Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, Wikisources, etc. When you click directly on an image, you see the media page for that image. As I mentioned, most images are stored on Commons, and if this is the case, a banner notifying users of this will be displayed on the media page. On that banner there's a wikilink which reads "description page there" which you then click to go to the image page proper, at Commons. The page on Wikipedia, which appears to be more or less identical is merely a mirror of the Commons page. Image pages have their separate talk pages, just as article pages and user pages do (and all other kinds of pages), and you can address issues relating to the image there.

Making comments on the image talk page is often not the best approach, however, because not very many people notice what is being written on those pages. For common queries, such as proposals to have an image removed, or perhaps having the licence information reviewed if you believe it to be incorrect, there are designated forums for this both on Commons and here on Wikipedia. Without knowing what particular kind of issue you might be having with an image, the best general suggestion I can give you about where to address your query, is to go to Help:Images and find the best way from there. __meco (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Europe, POV tag for regional grouping

Hello fellow wikipedian i see you may be new to wiki, you do not have the authority to remove a tag,what you did could be misconstrued as vandalism,one or two people is not a consensus though i did remove the tag from the top of the article and moved it to the regions sections where i am disputeing the neutrality,because it only labels one opinion of the classifications of european regions namely only the u.n's but leaves out others whether it be unesco or namely the C.I.A world fact book if you click the follwing portal Western Europe it has both cia world factbook regions for europe and the united nations whichs makes it neutral,please reconsider your opinion if you strive for neutrality poor grammar is not a basis enough to dismiss somebodys claims--Wikiscribe (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Mwai Kibaki

Hey, I noticed that you deleted my contribution of the photo with Mwai Kibaki in it. I think you may have confused left and right which I stated. The picture is certainly Mwai Kibaki (although I do admit the scan from the original is a bit darker than the original). You may look at the photo again here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kenyan_Leaders.jpg

Also, you stated that the man was white, but ironically, none of the men in that picture are white. Its the three africans and various asian leaders of Kenya (the most important being Zafrud Deen, sitting in the middle with Kenyatta). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omaster (talk • contribs) 19:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[1], as you can see, you stated Kibaki would be standing left! So it was not me confusing the sides, but your image caption. When you reverted me back, you even stated this in the summary [2].

As to white, black, Asian. I admit, it was not wise from my side to introduce the term white man in the summary referring to an Indian (who is standing back left). In any case he is not African and therefore clearly not Kibaki and thus your caption was wrong. Since i was not 100% sure who would be Kibaki in this picture, I could not mend the caption and therefore removed the picture.

I see that you have fixed the caption [3], well done. This way, I think it can stay. However, i also want to tell you that your claim I was confusing left and right, whereas you have made both edits, was very irritating for me. Tomeasy (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to apologise for what I said, in a sense we were both confused. I initially stated back left as it would have been from the point of view of those in the picture. The later I realised that many would be confused as they were looking at the picture, so I changed it to back right to avoid confusion. Sorry for the mix up. -Omaster

Nobel laureates by country

Why do you repeatedly undo my revision?

The official Nobel website mentions Taiwan as Lee's birth place, not his nation. Taiwan is not a recognized country. If you categorize Lee as a Laureate from Republic of China, that would be acceptable. And it should be merged to China where there are two subsections of PRC and ROC respectively if you are willing to do so. Nobuts (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As is stated right at the beginning of Nobel laureates by country the list follows simply what is stated at the official website. This is in order to prevent any kind of edit warring that people might indulge for reasons just like you mention. You are probably aware that there are many similar difficulties pending in the world and the list Nobel laureates by country absolutely wants to avoid such discussions on its site.

Btw, Lee is neither categorized as a Chinese nor a Taiwanese laureate. He is correctly categorized as a US laureate. One correction that I have made after he was grouped under China. He appears in the Taiwan list simply because this is the country of birth as mentioned at his official award website. So please, if you would like to discuss whether Taiwan is a country or not or whether it is a correct term for a country that does exist / does not exist, go to the pages that are more explicit on this issue. Here's not the place for that. Tomeasy (talk) 07:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

what the official site refers is the region of birthplace, not explicitly indicating the "country". let's put it in this way, suppose there's nobel laureate who was born in Hong Kong, where I live, do you categorize that person under China or Hong Kong or something else?

Please, sign your comments with the 4 tildes.

Where did you get it from that the nobel website uses the format <city, region> to state the birth place of an awardee? If you follow the link that I gave you above you will find b. 1936 (in Hsinchu, Taiwan). Comparing that to all other cases mentioned on the official website it would be the first time that what follows after the comma is not the respective country. Therefore, what is stated after the comma is what the official website recognizes as a country. Since we take the official website as the absolute authority for the list, we have to accept its stance also in controversial matters as the one we are talking about. Please, pardon me for not feeling like discussing the issue of whether Taiwan is a state or just a region anymore. There are better place to have your say. Tomeasy (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivia facts about "communism" in Cyprus

I don't think that it should be included in the first paragraph. I think it's just a trivia fact.

Also Cyprus having a communist leader doesn't mean that it's like USSR, China or does it have communism. I never herd of anyone getting food with coupons and also as far as I know I still own my house and have all my bank accounts and Cyprus always and even now has capitalism. Moreover according to the EU statistics people in Cyprus believe in God more that people in any other EU countries (even Greece, Malta and Poland) and the "communist" leader of Cyprus every Sunday is at the church, so as far of what I see he doesnt sound like a real communist. Anyway if you really want to include this trivia fact (the only country in EU with a communist leader) put it the section politics in Cyprus or make a new trivia facts about Cyprus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankateif (talk • contribs) 06:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ankateif. I agree with you that this piece of information was misplaced in the lead of the article. About trivia sections you might be interested in taking a look on WP: trivia section.

You made many statements to what Cyprus is not and to which I certainly agree. However, the piece that we are talking about did not make such claims. Therefore, let me recall what the article stated before you removed it.

Cyprus is, at present, one of only two countries in the world to have a democratically elected communist government (the other being Moldova), and is the only European Union member state currently under communist leadership.

As you can see, nothing has been said that Cypurs would be like the USSR, China or nonreligious. Quite the contrary, it is stated that the government was democratically elected. Please be more careful in the future, when you oppose something. Make sure that your opposition does not go out of bounds and that you do not imply things that have never been said. Tomeasy (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not opposed of having this fact, but having it at the beginning of the article gives you the impression that communism is something that is very important for Cyprus and it's one of the main characteristics the country, which is not. I mean nothing really changed with the new president (in the sense of capitalism and communism), the same parties that are in this goverment are the same with the previous goverment, just the president is a communism. Thank you for your understanting and for moving that sentance to a more proper place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.198.25 (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Also in the leading paragraph you want to read about Cyprus, the article is arleady really big. I don't think that learning that Moldova is the other country with a voted communist leader is so important about Cyprus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.198.25 (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Straw poll

My concern is that Wikipedia is not a democracy and voting is not a substitute for discussion. I think the strength of argument for a UK map was better and stronger than lists of numbers who have a preference, that's why I was "reluctant".

However, I didn't abstain, I cast a vote. I think we've probably exhausted some other options and so this straw poll can contribute towards a way forwards. Finger's crossed :) --Jza84 |  Talk  16:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation for Scotland article

As an agreement between editors at Scotland seems ever more unlikely, some users have decided to contact mediation. However, mediation require the acceptance of all involved parties. Would you be willing to accept? Thanks for your compliance...--Cameron (t|p|c) 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

New map on Germany

Hi,
I saw the new map you added. The subtitle says Location of Germany (dark green) – on the European continent (light green & dark grey) – in the European Union (light green) — Legend, but they´re not green in your map. How about a change? Best greetings, --Joachim Weckermann (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling. Have just fixed it. Tomeasy (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

List of countries by GDP nominal per capita

The calculation method is explain in a footnote in the article. Please read it :-) ☆ CieloEstrellado 16:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the formula, right. However, there is more than that involved in the case of France. Please have a look on Change CIA data for France on Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita. Tomeasy (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:14

Thanks! You've made me feel so much better. :) Tell that to the annoying ageists on WP. :)) I was feeling a bit down over all the critcism. Partly becouse Mathsci has been rather harsh on me when I tried to point out that some of edit summaries/comments are hurtful. *moan over*. However the comments on the Europe article were much nicer. Most of the concerns were legitimate, and i think that I will either leave Europe or be much more careful about what I do. I don't think I will start any more discussions with Mathsci. Harland1 (^t/_c) 09:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for being so nice to me when I was down and managing to find a compliment to pay me after I'd just made a whole host of mistakes. Harland1 (t/c) 14:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes everyone can award them see WP:BARN. :) Harland1 (^t/_c) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of countries in Europe

I posted this message on the Europe discussions as well . I hope it will help you out a little bit.

I know that Council of Europe which has more members than any other european organization says there are 47. thats because Belarus is excluded as it is not the member because of their dictatorial regime. so I think it should be 48. I dont think that we should worry too much about unrecognized or autonomous states that someone mentioned before. I also went to the European Union website and found this: Member and Non-member European states

http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/others/index_en.htm

even as a professional geographer I am not sure where the border goes either, as practically they dont exist and it is one continent, Eurasia. but if we dont do it according to the EU version, than I dont know according to what we should do it. I thought the EU was most well known authoritative european organization.I dont think there is a any factual error or something.I hope this website will make things clearer and good luck.--Regina Bremer (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh* That was Polscience. New sock, now with new gender. Húsönd 02:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the information, Husond. You saved me a lot of time. Tomeasy (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at this. Looks like you were about to be impersonated by one of Polscience's sockies. See if you can find which one, there's almost one hundred of 'em. :-) Regards, Húsönd 10:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Incredible this Polscience. Thanks again for saving us from his disruption. Tomeasy (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nation brand answer

See the talk pages... all the best Lear 21 (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"The six key verticals/ indicators studied include: exports, governance, investment and immigration, culture and heritage, people and tourism." [4] & [5] & [6] Lear 21 (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Map on European Union

Why did I abandon the discussion? It is quite simple. Nobody cared or liked my idea. They prefer a SMALL SVG over a detailed PNG. I simply gave up and just moved on. That's the story of my life. You like the map? Well it's nice to find somebody who likes it. Can you answer me a question? Why is SVG being treated like a king? What is wrong with PNG? — NuclearVacuum 00:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Number of Countries

Hi Tomeasy. Could you explain why is the chart on Europe page showing that there are nearly 59 countries in Europe and the info box at the beginning of the article says circa 50? I am asking you because I saw the discussion page and I was a little confused.

Also why is Russia in BOTH transcontinental countries box and Eastern Europe box ?

I am not editing wikipedia at all but I needed it for my research and I just could not find an information here that was not contradicting other parts of the same article.I dont know what to do. Can you at least give me the list of countries that re included in that circa 50?

--Dssc (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Polscience's socks, on the other hand, go waaaay over 50. Húsönd 03:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Guten tag, Yes, I know what an edit summary is, but I somehow always forget it. I will try to think about it next time! Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Reference on Amsterdam

The article were the reference leads to states that this building is the first stock exchange of Amsterdam and that it was built in 1607. Therefore it is the oldest ongoing stock exchange in the world. But I will correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massimo Catarinella (talk • contribs) 17:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

We state in the article that Amsterdam's stock exchange was the first to trade continuously. And this is not at all backed by your reference. Even worse, readers will think that this reference (which most will be unable to read, since it is in Dutch) does back our claim. So it might be interpreted that we are manipulative. I suggest that we assume measures to avoid such interpretation. One way could be to state when this thing was built, and there you might add then your reference. Do you get the point? Tomeasy_talk 17:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

He Tom, The reason why most of my references are in Dutch, is because I can't find a good one in English. I am doing what I can to find English references however. Greetings Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't noticed that you wrote that. Yes, I know what you mean by it, but were can I fill that in? This is about the publisher btw. Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Plea to revert changes

Could you please refert the changes made by Krator? He deleted a large part of worthy information, which I want back in the article. Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC):

I was talking about the part on tourism. It's fine now, but he just threw out a whole piece from the article without even mentioning it. Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Volume

Hi, you're not using the word volume correctly in the context of economics. You are using it as a synonym for quantity which it can be used for in terms of imports but we don't use it to talk about the size of economies, terms normally used are: national income, national output, size, GDP, GNP. thanks Tom (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Europe, religion section

The religious section was long established, unfortunately it was very bad! Not in summary style as noted on the talk page in the GA Fail section. Even if something has been there a long time it does not always mean that it is good. I'd recommend adding references to the article to get it up in quality. good luck Tom (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not express that the section was well written. Actually, I agree with you that there was ample room for improvement. Still it is not good style to remove such huge parts of prose that have been established by many editors over a very long time without putting a notice on the talk page first. That is all I wanted to comment on your talk page.

Why did you remove my comment from your talk page. Another bad style? Tomeasy_talk 21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Europe, list of countries

My idea was something similar just seperate tables,but the idea you have came up with would work just fine and is fantastic,i think your paranoid feeling may be justified--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes i will add the cia part to the sandbox to complete it--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for note and doing table, personally my main concerns are stylistic and thereby making the article look good. If we are going change to this and have two end columns, do you think it would be possible to make them the same size for symmetry? My own personal preferences are also for having statistics to 2 or 3 significant figures. Where I'm coming from on all this, was getting the article up to wp:GA standard and removing pov tag would be a good start as you've noted. You've also reasonably pointed-out that if we are to change tables we don't want to take-up a lot of space. GA was also why I've made the other edits so far, particularly after comments on the last GA assessment on the talk page. On the economy section, my first intention had been to tidy-up and condense as I feel strongly it's unnecessary to make the size of the economies controversial. Everyone agrees Germany's the biggest and I was condensing down to say France and UK are roughly the same size and joint second in Europe. It was when checking on the world league table that I went through to the nominal and PPP tables and then made the next change regarding using PPP instead of nominal. so there we go. I think the major thing needed for the article are citations particularly from geography to biology where there's only 5 inline citations, so please let any other editors know. You used 'exemplify' on my talk page when I think 'show' is normally used. cheers Tom (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

i will try to find a map for the the cia region portion but what if we cant find one--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Significant figures like decimal places, in relation to population and area stats. Tom (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Re. Polscience

Hello Tomeasy and thank you for contacting me. I have blocked User:Coniatis. I am not a checkuser but I can block socks when they're obvious such as this one. Sadly for Polscience, after so many socks they're quite easy to identify. I don't know why does he insist. Again, thank you. Please report any further socks you see around. Best regards, Húsönd 22:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I figured that guy was dodgy, that's why I stopped replying. You can delete that section on the Talk:Europe page if you like, I'm not fussed. MorganaFiolett (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Re. Very early suspicion

Hello again Tomeasy. Your very early suspicion is probably very early right. I'd say there's a 90% chance that user is Polscience again. Yet, since I'm not 100% sure, I won't block yet. But it will likely be caught soon along with a fresh batch of sockies. Please report any further evidence of this user being connected to Polscience. Any new similarities will cast away any doubts. Thank you for your work. Best regards, Húsönd 13:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, that was one of his best, but still an obvious User:Polscience's socky. Thanks for reporting, Tomeasy! Best regards, Húsönd 11:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

CIA Regions map

  Northern Europe

  Western Europe

  Central Europe

  Southern Europe

  Southeastern Europe

  Southwestern Europe

  Eastern Europe

  Southwestern Asia

  Northern Asia

  Central Asia

  Middle East

Hey.I finished the CIA Regions map. The problem is that those legends did not let me to put it in the article without creating a huge space. I dont know if you can figure that out. Cheers --Geographyfanatic (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would make it appear on the image itself but it seems impossible because of the large number of classifications that they have.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Great work. Perhaps, you can leave the legend out completely. The name of the grouping is secondary, in my opinion. See the UN grouping map, which also has no legend. Anyway, congratulation! I find this a great contribution. Tomeasy_talk 19:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Thats what I though I had to do. Sad that I had to look for all those colors for the legends. : -)--Geographyfanatic (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the map works fine on the article as it is now -- without legend.

I tried really hard to find some flaws in the map and almost did not find any. However, I think Andorra's color is wrong. If I see correctly it is green for Southern Europe, but should have the same color as Spain. And at last, if I want to be very, very picky I would say that some islands between Poland and Germany have the wrong color and that some Scottish islands are not well colored. I do not consider this criticism extremely important, but once you have the time, you could correct these things. Tomeasy_talk 22:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You are tight. I'll fix those.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I just saw your message on the Europe talk page saying that you want to remove the two columns from the chart. As all the maps seem to be ready, if you wish to get rid of those columns - which I believe kind of overcrowd the entire page - I think you may proceed. I have nothing against it.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I saw what you said on the Europe talk page.I Agree that without legends one will have to just guess. But I think I came up with solution. I put the legends Inside the image page rather then outside just like in case on the UN map.Take a look[7]If someone is really interested in details they should click the map anyway.Tell me what you think.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I find that a great solution! Tomeasy_talk 08:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Europe according to EU

EU,EU candidates, Other European Countries

European Union member's and candidates.

I finished the second map which I made according to the EU website. I think that is the last map that sections needed so far --Geographyfanatic (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Similarly small flaws here: Andorra is missing completely and should be dark blue. Dar blue is also the color that should be assigned to San Marino, Monaco, and Vatican. I do not now if the resolution is so high that the Isle of Man, Jersey, and Guernsey have received a color at all, but if this is the case, then they should also be dark blue. Anyway, also for this map I want to state that I consider it an improvement to the Europe page. Tomeasy_talk 22:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did you actually replace the map on the right by the left one? Tomeasy_talk 22:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the map because it had almost the same information as the map that I made.The one that I made is more complete.You can keep that one too if you dont think that the page will be overcrowded. However, on the map that I made I regret that showing those mini countries will not be possible as it is a very low resolution map. The map that was there previously had all those countries probably because initially it was a large map and then made small to be put on wikipedia. I fixed the CIA map and colored Andorra.I think you missed Liechtenstein, it had to be in central Europe. I fixed that too.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not see much difference between the left and the right. Definitely, the article should only display one of the two. I just wanted to know about your motivation. However, there should be a circle for Andorra in dark blue indicating that it is not part of the EU. Since you have circles for Vatican, Monaco, and San Marino. As it is now, the country Andorra has simply been forgotten by the map. Tomeasy_talk 22:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My primary motivation was that the old map did not say according to what it was made or at least did not communicate the information it had to communicate if it was about the EU. I do not believe that a separate map would be necessary especially when all the information can be placed on just one.

It was a terrible mistake that I left Andorra out. I fixed it and I believe now map looks fine.I hope other editors will follow my example and whenever they place a map, make sure that it is a Complete Map and nothing is left out; even things that might not be Important to us--Geographyfanatic (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

i would really not call it a terrible mistake and in deed you proof a lot of responsibility in correcting everything immediately. About the old map: we could have simply added the reference in the caption of this map. Tomeasy_talk 23:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

After the CIA classification map captions on the bottom started making huge spaces and gaps on the page and did not let me to put it there, I think it will be better if it will stay the way it is - without captions and legends. I never could understand why it was doing that though.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are talking about placing the legends on the map itself, I dont think there is enough space - at least if we want it to be clearly visible- unless we place it over Russia which does not seem fair to me and believe Europe's Greatest nation would not appreciate it either.We could also place it over Iceland but you know, it is very important that we dont leave people out or in this case Cover them up--Geographyfanatic (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not talk about legends. As I stated earlier, I think it's fine like it is now.I was talking about the caption of the old map on Europe where we could have placed the reference to the European Commission website. So a complete different thing.Tomeasy_talk 23:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)#Informal_mediation

Hi - you're invited to join in a discussion on the inclusion of the EU in the List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) article. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 23:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your encouraging words!

Hello, Tomeasy. My name is Nick, a native Californian and a relatively new Wikipedian. I was very pleasantly surprised to find your generous message to me this morning. Yes, I had a contentious episode with User: Rollosmokes, and yes, it was frustrating enough to seek guidance from experienced editors. The reponse I have received has been gratifying and uplifting. I must say, without boring you with details, that the edits that we disagreed over were minor, and I did, I have to admit, originally respond to this user's quick and (I believed) rather condescending reversions with some unpleasant actions of my own. But my labors to apologize and come to friendly terms with this editor did not meet much success...I began to wonder if this was standard Wikipedia practice and if this was an every-editor-for-himself community. That was where the likes of you came in; I am reassured that this was the exception rather than the rule, and the support I have received and the new friendships I have made in the last few days have gratified me. All of you, having reviewed my experiences, have conferred on me a great deal of advice and direction, both regarding the nuts-and-bolts of editing AND the process of dealing with other users. All of your messsages will help to make me a smarter editor. And I also realized that I want no part of arguing or "warring" with others; I am embarassed at myself to some degree. I am learning, and I again want to thank you for your welcomed words. By all means, if our editing paths may cross, or even if they don't, do not hesitate to keep in touch. Thank you again, Lantana11 (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Tomeasy, good evening. Thanks again for communicating with me. My editing interests may meet with yours regarding politics and geography--although engineering and the mathematical aspects of economics are doubtless beyond my grasp! I knew at an early school age that the humanities rather than the sciences was where I could apply my intelligence--what there is of it. Otherwise my focus would be on world and American history, media, sports, culture and the arts, as well as world literature and philosophy. I hate to belabor you, but you have taken an interest in my unpleasant interactions with User: Rollosmokes. I am grateful, and there is one other thing you might know. I had sent my earlier message to you originally signed with my IP address (67.180.135.133)--ten minutes or so later I realized that I forgot to log in to Wikipedia under my username (I had been quickly moving back and forth between Web pages and had logged myself out); I then edited my message to show my "Lantana11" identity. I shortly noticed a notice of concern about "sock puppetry" on the 67.180.135.133 user page. A look at Rollosmokes' contribution page shows that he put it there. He had apparently been noting my own contributions. In fact I have actually sent other messages in the last few days (in a hurry) having forgotten to log in, but quickly made them right. I plan to protest this SSP template. My alternating was entirely inadvertent. I feel that this is an extremely uncomfortable situation that I should not have to deal with. Again, I am very sorry to bother you with such a silly matter, but you are experienced and I have been grateful for you support. Sincerely, Lantana11 (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

EU Map

The discussion I was looking at was the one at Image_talk:Location_European_Union.svg, where I and several others had clearly pointed out the inappropriateness of the Mercator map, to zero response. Slac speak up! 21:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've undone my edits, but as I read it there is a consensus in favour of change of the map, so this will need to be addressed somehow. Have also posted on the talk page. Slac speak up! 02:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

EU edits

Simply forgot to put the comments, will open a section in the talk page in an hour or so, rushing to work right now. Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done my best to keep the EU in the GDP list, but we will need support in the Mediation Cabal article in order to keep it. The complainer is obviously an American, so I understand his anger ;) Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

WWI map

With all due respect, I had to revert your edits concerning WWI map. I do understand what you said and that there might be a mistake in naming the file but the problem is that map ITSELF shows 1914 with Huge digits. Until that will be changed I do not believe that we should put end in the captions, it will confuse people - People who know nothing about history will buy it but I dont. Feel free to remove the map and put another one.But I still belive that it shows the start rather then the end--Geographyfanatic (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right. It's also a problem like it was. The bigger problem however is to state something that we know for sure is wrong just because the map says so. I hope we can agree that any map showing Italy and Romania as Entente in 1914 is simply wrong. Since we do not agree on how to deal with it, I would propose to remove it until the flaw is fixed. Or what do you think about a caption like Contrarily to the displayed date, the map shows WWI military alliances of the years 1916-18.Tomeasy_talk 16:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that its at the end of the war? then I guess I will take it and change that 1914 to 1918 if you have nothing aganist it.I'll show it to you later--Geographyfanatic (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

File:WWI end.jpg

What do you think about it, should I proceed?

To answer your question: The map shows is correct with respect to the alliances between 1916 and the end of WWI in 1918. I hope we did not violate any copyrights by this action. I would be happy, if you upload your version with an appropriate caption. You might also change the file used on Serbia. Well done! Tomeasy_talk 17:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed the copyright information to the one of that previous map. It is saying who made the map and also that it is in public domain as the person who made it was working for the United States federal government. Take a look, I dont think anyone will have any problems.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

EU and GDP

Thanks for your message. I don't see a need for a rank as the CIA doesn't rank the EU, it's an alphabetical list. AT least the link we have there. That's why this, for me, is rather simple. The CIA doesn't have a rank, the second source lists it with "world" and the third omits the EU. So, the lists should stand as they are (omitting the EU GDP from the WB). Canada Jack (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me that link. But I think your concern is over-stated on the rank list as #1 is clearly not a country by any definition, however contrived - the world. It would make little sense to put #1 the world on our list. I think we are on pretty firm ground here if we omit the EU from the rank.

As for the other lists, it is interesting to note that the world bank actually ranks "economies," thus listing Hong Kong and Macua as "economies" rather than nations, while omitting the EU. The IMF lists alphabetically "countries," while including Hong Kong. The EU on a separate "country group" list along with the world.

IOW, there is no consistency here at all. I think the only issue here is what we reproduce - either we omit data or we don't. I say we don't, so to do so with some consistency, we list the actual countries which appear in the ranking, and note that distinctions between "countries" and other economic entities is not consistently applied. Which would mean, in the end, reproducing the rank as they exist from the data presented, putting the world/eu figures at top where existing (and to do so with the CIA is okay because "world" isn't reasonably seen to be a "country," and to be consistent within the lists as to which countries are not "countries." IOW, all we really need to do here is omit the one offending EU listing, and to note that the sources aren't consistent on what are "countries" or "economies" and several choose to list the EU as a separate entity, while one does not. Canada Jack (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I am sorry, but I need to take his/her latest offensive words with some sort of humor, so please forgive my sarcasms ;) Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Europe map

im sandboxing it now. sorry for the inconvenience Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

User: Geographyfanatic sockpuppet

I do not know what the policy is about reporting sock puppets appearing in a mediation case, but I can imagine that you are not happy with the fact that I posted this message at Husond's page and not at yours. I hope I did not violate any rule with doing so. The reason is that, together with Husond I have a long history of tracking this guy and and Husond (who was perhaps the first victim of his personal attacks) is familiar with the identification of Polscience. There have been more than 100 so far. Since I found my request this time quite delicate, I wanted to spare a lengthly explanation as to who this Polscience is and simply get a technical check conducted. I hope you are not offended. Sorry, also that I waited so long, which caused a lot of dramas on the talk page that might have been avoided. I just did not want to make a wrong accusation. Tomeasy_talk 12:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine - you did the appropriate thing. Sockpuppets are a nuisance, but I tend to listen to what people have to say rather than how many times they say it in different voices or HOW LOUD THEY SHOUT, so they have less of an impact on discussions than they think they do! Irrational ideas are irrational ideas no matter how many times they are repeated - and most sockpuppets tend to pursue rather odd agendas that tend not to get consensus, which is probably why they create another user (or two) who will then support their ideas - nobody else will! Regards SilkTork *^YES! 14:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

dash

(he served from 1939 to 1941, not he served from 1939–1941)

• You don't complement "from" as a spelt-out word with a dash. "His service during the 1939–41 campaign" would be fine. TONY (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)#Conclusion

The Mediation discussion regarding the inclusion of the EU in List of countries by GDP (nominal) has come to a conclusion with the following result:

• The EU to remain in List of countries by GDP (nominal).
• The EU to be positioned according to GDP rank between World and USA.
• No consensus on the EU appearing in all three charts. By convention this means the situation would remain as current - that is the EU remains on all three charts.
• Data for the EU on each chart to only be given if sourced, otherwise a dash to replace the data.
• Explanation to be placed in the lead section for the appearance of the EU and other non-countries. Possible wording: "Several economies which are not normally considered to be countries are included in the list because they appear in the sources. These economies are not ranked in the charts here, but are listed in sequence by GDP for comparison."
• The List retains the current name.
• A suggestion by Tomeasy that I feel should be carried out is that the sister articles are given the same treatment as agreed above.

Unless there are significant disagreements within the next 48 hours I will be closing the Mediation. Any questions, please get in touch. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Re. Suspected Sockpuppetry

Yep, Polscience again. Thank you for reporting, you saved me a few minutes of investigation. Best regards, Húsönd 23:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll send you an e-mail shortly. :-) Regards, Húsönd 23:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I can't. You haven't enabled e-mail in your preferences. Please consider doing so, there's some info I could share with you. Regards, Húsönd 23:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Liechtenstein

Yes, this is tricky. Clearly, the CIA figure is off by an order of magnitude, so perhaps we should as you suggest insert a number closer to the proper figure, say 3.50, and have it in italics, and then insert the footnote. My point about 3.63 is we have no basis for that figure other than guessing the error was a misplaced decimal. "3.50" gets around that by being a round figure, by being in the probable right area, and if we italicize it, or bold it or something, that will indicate that the footnote should be consulted. And, the footnote needs to be revisited as some of the figures there don't seem to add up as I noted. Canada Jack (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Got your note, sounds good to me. Why not suggest what we have discussed and try to get the footnote figures cleaned up. The footnote should start by saying something like: "This is an approximate figure inserted for the sake of comparison with other economies. Given large discrepancies between the CIA stated figure of xx and other data assumed to be accurate, the CIA figure is presumed to be erroneous by an about an order of magnitude. Elsewhere, L's per capita GDP is stated as..." and then we'd insert some of the specific figures. Cheers. Canada Jack (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Have a look

Updated Nation Brand Data !!! Anholt Nation Brands Index Summary Data Q4 2007 all the best Lear 21 (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice work!

Hello. Just wanted to drop you a friendly note saying that I like the nice work you have been doing on the Arab League article! Kudos to you, sir! --Kralizec! (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Though I have to say that it was not much work. I just hope the issues with the GDP map, which I removed, can be fixed. That might really involve some substantial work. BTW, what language is Kudos. Tomeasy_talk 13:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars 'R' U

		The Hidden Page Barnstar
		I award you one for finding Trekphiler's page for people who always think that "new message" bar is real. Aren't you glad you checked your mail? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source for Image:AL size.png

Thanks for uploading Image:AL size.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 20:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Userboxes container

For the most part, elements of my userpage and talkpage were scrounged from various other wikipedians, so feel free to copy whatever you like. I am afraid I know too little of html to tell you how to change them in the way you require, but I would recommend asking at WP:VPT.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your question about Jews in Wrocław

It is untrue that they were expelled-they were mass murdered during WW2: [8] I gave the answer here: [9] --Molobo (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It won't be a problem to find a detailed study about murder of Jews in Wrocław. I know one exists and can find it if you wish. In any case the statement of Nazi Census of "100% Germans" is of course false--Molobo (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, I agree that 100% can only be wrong. I think many people have mentioned that there was a (small) percentage of Poles living there. So, that is nothing you have to convince me of. Also, you do not have to show me "a detailed study about murder of Jews in Wrocław". I do not question it's a fact.

The thing I am after, what I want to learn/find out is what the policy of the Polish government was with respect to the survivors of the holocaust—German Jews on now Polish administered territory. Hope you understand now what exactly I am looking for. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The US State Department 1945 Population map, and related issues

Note that some sources below can be more reliable in their numbers than others...

That the map uses 1939 census total population numbers for the German areas but uses a variety of censuses (1914, 1925, 1939) to determine ethnicity proportions. This despite the fact that the 1939 census was quite exhaustive

As to the Poles in Germany, This is a good source on the Polish minority in Germany and their ambivalence towards Poland.

The Jewish minority in Germany

The Jews were clearly identified as racially Jews in the 1939 census, so either the U.S. chose to ignore the Nazi definition (Jew) as irrelevant to their purposes with the map, or there were not enough Jews left in Lower Silesia by 1939 to make an impact on the map.

I think the former is true, because I don't think they were expecting the German Jews stay in a "new country". Think about yourself in that situation. If your home town suddenly became Russian, all your friends and neighbors and colleagues were replaced with Russian people, all texts; newspapers, street signs were suddenly in Russian with Cyrillic writing, and everybody is speaking Russian, would that be a city you would be comfortable staying in? Would your friends expect you to stay since it is "your" city? Would you make the effort to learn the new language, the new cultural rules, and get a job under the new rule?

Some data I've gathered:

• In 1933 Jews represented 0.75% of the population in Germany, 505,000 people, of which roughly 400,000 were German Jews and the rest mostly Polish Jews. In Breslau they were roughly 20,000.

• By 1939 between 270,00 and 300,000 of the Jews in Germany had already left[10]

  that would mean that the German average for any given territory would be maybe 0.35% Jews, although higher if you have a big city like Berlin close by, lower if it is mainly agricultural regions. A figure that is not really worth mentioning and easily rounded down to zero.

• Considering that there were roughly 10,000 Jews left in Breslau in the 1939 census, and that even at their peak they represented less than 1 percent of the German population, and especially considering that the segment of the map where Breslau is located covers a large area with 2,700,000 people; then the Jewish contribution to the census must be negligible as Jews were mainly concentrated to large cities. (Say 660,000 inhabitants in Breslau, of which 10,000 are Jewish in 1939 => 1.5% of the population of the city itself.
• Looking at the area that the 100% statement covers we have a population of 2,721,512 people and of whose cities only Liegnitz and Breslau seem large enough to mention. That give 0.35% Jews in the whole area, possibly even less than that if it is more agricultural than average Germany. And as i said above, easily rounded down to zero in the case that the U.S. didn't simply count them as Germans, (which most were, simply Germans of a minority religion next to the Catholics, Protestants and whatever).

• What Happened To Them in Breslau?

• By 1939 there were roughly 10,000 Jews left, (and the Polish minority had dwindled to almost nothing). Of those roughly 10,000 who had remained in 1939 only 160 survived the holocaust.according to this source This source states that almost 8,000 had been killed, implying that there were fewer that 10,000 in Breslau when the Holocaust started, or that there were far more survivors than 160.

• After the War, in 1945 1946, - before the proper organized mass expulsions - Breslau was still filled with large remnants of its original population, including people who had fled before the Red army and then returned home. the city presumably also contained the Jewish survivors; but..... "antisemitism grew as Poles began to accuse resettled Jewish Holocaust survivors of dominating the black market"[11]

• Here is another version of the fate of holocaust survivors in general at the mercy of the Poles:

"But in this strongly sourced work, another fear emerges. It is that felt by Jews, not during Poland's occupation by the Nazis, but afterward, even as the country was being liberated by the Red Army. Based on official documents as well as numerous testimonies, Fear recounts events as they unfolded in 1945-46. The most heinous and outrageous cruelties, it appears, were inflicted by civilians, soldiers and policemen on a benighted population of Jewish survivors from hells near and far, who were returning sick, poor, wounded -- orphans beyond hope. To put it clearly: Like many of us, they had thought all too naively that antisemitism, discredited 6 million times over, had died at Auschwitz with its victims. They were wrong. Only the dead perished at Birkenau; antisemitism itself survived in most places, and mostly in Poland. This is, in sum, what Jan Gross reveals in a style that is at once sober and overwhelming in its very bluntness. There were manhunts, public humiliations, insane acts of brutality. The rare escapees who thought themselves fortunate to return home found their property occupied by strangers who chased them away with scornful cries: "What, you're still in this world?" Eventually, they were made to regret their very survival. Trapping a Jew was reason enough to beat him senseless. Discover another, and pelt him with stones.[12]

• After the war Breslau became filled with 70,000 Jewish Immigrants from Poland proper and from the Soviet Union, but Polish antisemitism gradually forced them out so they were practically all gone by 1968.[13]

Essentially the Polish and Soviet Jews were expelled just like the Germans, just in partly separate expulsion waves[14]

• My tentative guess is that the few German Jews surviving in Breslau, and any German Jews returning from abroad in 1945 - 1946 were kicked out together with and in the same manner as the Germans. The expulsions were not exactly carefully orchestrated[15], it was probably enough to look German to get raped by Polish soldiers.

Remember the mass rapes that the Russians committed? Then contemplate this:...

"Even the Soviets expressed shock at the Poles’ behaviour. Polish soldiers, stated one report, 'relate to German women as to free booty'."(see this page and the next).

• If not kicked out together with the christian Germans, as I think they were, then the Jews were definitively kicked out later in the other Polish expulsions that targeted Jews specifically.

Thank you for providing sources that indeed 100% Germans is wrong. Mind you that equal reports exist of German prostitutes harassing Soviet soldiers in hordes and can easly be quoted, so this is not a black an white picture as you try to present. As to "Fear" highly controversial book and criticised by Jewish Historical Institute researcher Antoni Grabski who claims that Communist authorities were much supportive of Jewis institutions. Also you continue your practise of using selective quotes and sentences taken out of the context to push forward a synthesis and a personal claims that constitutes OR. --Molobo (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Poles

As stated above, by the Census year of 1939 the Slavic part of Breslau was virtually nothing.[16], thus the map might be accurate for the 2,700,000 people strong area that contains the Breslau.

For upper Silesia the map states that 43% of the population was non-German (proportions from 1914). That makes for 660,000 non-Germans. In the southern half of East Prussia 6.2% (proportions from 1925) provides for roughly 160,000 Non-Germans. So give and take a few thousand according to what can be inferred from the map there were roughly 820,000 non-Germans in the affected areas in 1939.

According to the (Pre-Nazi) 1925 census, when combining bi-linguals, Poles and Masurians only a total of 674,000 "Poles" in all of Germany is reached.[17]

That number of Poles is pretty much equal to what the map indicates lives in Upper Silesia alone in 1939 (which of course is an overestimation based on 1914 proportion data, and 1939 gross numbers data.

From this I would say that I would tend to trust the map probably is not far wrong when it states 100% Germans in some areas based on the 1939 census. Since other areas use older census (such as 1914) for estimating population proportions I would guess that in reality by 1939 the percentage of Germans should have been higher than stated in those areas (such as in Upper-Silesia). Remember that by 1939 half the German population in the territories ceded to Poland at Versailles had left Poland, and I don't see why there should not have been similar emigration pressure in Germany. So to sum it up, the map is not perfect, but it was used by the US when figuring out which border proposals they should support, and if it is wrong it probably is in underestimating the percentage of Germans in some places. Of course, by 1945 Germany was full of Polish, Czech, French, Russian etc Forced laborers, but I don't see that they count since most went home as soon as they could after the war, and you also had German refugees from cities like Lodz and other parts of eastern Europe inflating the population--Stor stark7 ^Speak 21:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Stark, please use normal sources. Wikipedia isn't based on synthesis and original researchr as presented above and few selective quotest and statements lke "what can be inferred" which again constitute OR. Also Masurians and Poles have the same language, you should be aware of the fact that Masurians have a dialect, not a seperate language. --Molobo (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsens

That wasn't nonsense, it is an investigation (investigation != poll). I'm talking about the comment in Talk:English language, that you removed. I have previously edited on Wikipedia under various IP addresses. I'm asking for the legal definition of these words, not the general-purpose definition. (By the way, you probably didn't know that "nonsens" is actually a Swedish word) Thank you. Officeworld (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Then please make yourself understood. As you can see, it's not just me who thinks your comment is misplaced. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar for table fixing

Thanks! Gary King (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you very much for you intervention and encouragemt in a contentious episode I had with a particularly malevolent user in June. This editor continued in his ways and has this week seen them lead him into an unpleasant corner; he has been indefinitely blocked for persistant warring with others and, for now, has vowed to leave Wikipedia. It is always encouraging to see collaboration and good manners prevail. Nick Lantana11 (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Sorry for the clutter. And I don't know why I chose Russian, I could have chosen Japanese or any language, perhaps I was thinking of the people in Kaliningrad for some reason. As for sharing my research the answer must be no, I no longer have much patience left with that particular individual. See for example this. Quite frankly I'm amazed that he managed to talk his way out of his recent permanent block, but at least he now edits here under strict rules of conduct and - I hope - careful supervision by the powers that be.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 22:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Postwar treatment of Jewish survivors by Polish state

August Grabski from Jewish Historical Institute in his review of Gross work which I posess has some information on administrative and law adjustments. If you wish I can summarize. --Molobo (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Peter Gaehtgens

A tag has been placed on Peter Gaehtgens requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Leonard^(Bloom) 17:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the "jumping of the gun". Admittedly though, it would of been easier to tell the article had plans if "{{underconstruction}}" had been there, but, I acted too quickly. Sorry, and much appreciated. Leonard^(Bloom) 18:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If he is has notable as you say, then it will not be deleted by me. Leonard^(Bloom) 18:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Germany

Sorry, I didn't actually notice your edits, I don't really know what happened there. I think I started my response before you responded, but I didn't save until after you'd saved, although in that case your text should have disappeared. Whatever it was that caused this, it wasn't intentional.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 15:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I just hope we can convince Lear at one point that there is no harm changing the map. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)