User talk:Tino Cannst: Difference between revisions

Line 173: Line 173:

Please keep this in mind moving forward and thanks for understanding. [[Special:Contributions/5.173.210.156|5.173.210.156]] ([[User talk:5.173.210.156|talk]]) 21:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, understood. WP:DISRUPTIVE is not justified, as am stopping this. The content I added should go to general [[Ostsiedlung]]. –[[User:Tino Cannst|Tino Cannst]] ([[User talk:Tino Cannst#top|talk]]) 17:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

This you? Volunteer Marek 18:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. The Kaiser and late 19th century is who started destroying Germany and Poland, just as a remark. —Tino Cannst (talk)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of place names of German origin in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Żuławy Wiślane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Werder.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VikingDrummer (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting! Can you please post at Talk:Piast Canal relevant quotations from the sources^[1]^[2] you added? A quote in German is also good, also Musekamp should probably be cited as Zwischen Stettin und Szczecin: Metamorphosen einer Stadt von 1945 bis 2005, because I am assuming you are citing the German book (I don’t see an English translation).VikingDrummer (talk) 07:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Peter Oliver Loew (2006). Recovered History on the Appropriation of the Past in the Interstices of Central Europe. Harrassowitz. pp. 300–309.
^ Jan Musekamp (2010). Between Szczecin and Szczecin, Metamorphoses of a City from 1945 to 2005. Harrassowitz Verlag.

I requested at Talk:Lubusz Land#Quote request that you provide a quotation from the source and clearer attribution, as it is raised on the article history page.VikingDrummer (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VikingDrummer: will do by end of this week —Tino Cannst (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate.VikingDrummer (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Riga State Gymnasium No.1, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages German and Russian.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Polonization of Eastern Germany (1945–1990) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polonization of Eastern Germany (1945–1990) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why many of your edits, which are also properly cited, are kept being removed under the guise of POV, such as this one, which is WP:BABY, also your article, Polonization of Eastern Germany (1945–1990) was deleted, even though it was an impressively cited article. Someone claimed they couldn’t find anybody named Siebel-Achenbach, but a single internet search, titles “Siebel-Achenbach” (I use DuckDuckGo, but that doesn’t make any difference), revealed the top 3 links to be in order for top to bottom his profile at the University of Waterloo, the book you were likely citing and a review of the book in The American Historical Review. Admittedly, you forgot to include him in the literature section, but you could’ve added that during the deletion request. Also, everyone claimed POV but didn’t give any examples, and called it forks of smaller article sections. Although I have a few suggestions for you, 1. How about full citations or SFNs? 2. Change the article’s name from Polonization of the Former Eastern Germany (1918-1990), the former change to stop any confusion between the DDR and the Former Eastern Germany, and the change in the timeline because Poloinzation of German areas also took place during Interwar Poland, there’s an excellent book about it The German Minority in Interwar Poland by Winson Chu. I would like to collaborate with you on the recreation of the article, if you let me edit your page User:Tino Cannst/Polonization of Eastern Germany (1945-1990). Crainsaw (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated!! Yes, let’s collaborate on this. The delete discussion was clearly biased, but I will look into the particularly objected statements and provide e.g. more context for the statements; and I will start using full citations and SFNs – this will take time here, I have only few of the references in digital and OCR’ed version. Tino Cannst (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you need more references, you can use the Wikipedia Library, if you have more than 6 months of editing and more than 500 edits you can use it to access all kinds of publishers from De Gruyter to Brill, Oxford and Cambridge publishing. And if you want a free OCR software, you can use your phone to photograph the pages, and then OCR them through the Google Lens mobile app. Crainsaw (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you make this edit? Crainsaw (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, clearly that was not me! Tino Cannst (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the User:Tino Cannst/Polonization of the Former Eastern Germany (1918-1990) to Draft:Polonization of the Former Eastern Germany (1918-1990) so more editors can see and edit it, and when it’s ready we’ll move it into article mainspace. Crainsaw (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, perfect! Tino Cannst (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your edit. The footnote is about the name of the town, not about the inhabitants. Viriditas (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I corrected that transferred “back” to Poland must be removed since this is biased wording! Tino Cannst (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tino Cannst. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, “Polonization of the Former Eastern Germany“.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’ve noticed that recently you have been mass adding identical text into multiple articles about small Polish towns and villages. Since the provided by you reference does not mention those specific towns and villages at all, it comes across as if it were a kind of “territorial marking,” almost like suggesting German claims to areas that are now again in Poland. Could you please explain the purpose of these edits? Thanks. 216.250.210.120 (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,
I’ve noticed that you’ve been repeatedly adding the same passage about Ostsiedlung and German place-name suffixes into multiple village articles.
I believe this is becoming a concern because it conflicts with several Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as:

WP:UNDUE – you are giving undue weight to general information not specific to the article.

WP:COPYPASTE – you are mass copy-pasting the same content across articles.

WP:V – material must be directly supported by reliable sources that mention the specific subject.

WP:DISRUPTIVE – repeating the same contested additions across many articles despite concerns.

If you have reliable sources that explicitly connect this information to a given village, please provide them so it can be included appropriately. Otherwise, this text should remain in the broader topic articles (Ostsiedlung, German place names).
Please keep this in mind moving forward and thanks for understanding. 5.173.210.156 (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, understood. WP:DISRUPTIVE is not justified, as am stopping this. The content I added should go to general Ostsiedlung. —Tino Cannst (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply