User talk:Yopie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Zaolzie
Hi, I have reverted your recent edit to Zaolzie, because it seemed the arguments used are difficult to understand. If you feel your edit was right, please feel free to explain it further and please try to support it with sources. Thanks. --Wojsyl (talk) 23:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
Any attempts to implement nationalist Czech views and deleting/altering sourced and cited information will be reverted. Also if you will continue to do this you can be blocked. - Darwinek 22:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK. I will leave it then but scratched, so readers can realize it is no longer valid. Btw do you speak Czech? I suppose you do. I bet you are from Ostrava or some place near/in Silesia. I also suppose you are proud nationalist and doesn't like minorities, especially my kind. Am I right? - Darwinek 12:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Darwinek, I´m happy, that we can talk. Yes I can speak Czech, but I´m not from Ostrava and I´m no nationalist. My mother is Polish orgin herbu Abdank, my wife is Slovak speaking, but from very old Moravian family and thus I´m family connected with Piastids and other dukes in Silesia. My family roots are Czech, Polish, German (Bayern, not Silesia), Slovak and Hungarian. So, for me is virtually impossible to be against any minority. I only dont like in encyclopedia words as "agression", "invasion" etc. for me, as lawyer is subjective. For example, in POLISH Wiky is history of Těšín/Cieszyn more objective than in En ("Czeski Cieszyn powstał w 1920 roku w wyniku podziału dawnego Księstwa Cieszyńskiego pomiędzy Polskę i Czechosłowację." - nothing about "invasion" etc.) My opinion is, that we can translate Polish article in En a thus you must agree that is objective. Best regards Yopie 14:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am happy you are not a nationalist. Yes, 1920 division wasn't decided by some military means but by politicians and diplomats. This division was, as you know, controversial and led to the events of 1938. But on 23 January 1919 Czech side really did kind of invasion thus breaking a treaty signed with Polish part in November 1918. You know when you take three armed divisions and drive through the whole Cieszyn Silesia to the Wisła River near Skoczów, it is an invasion (small, but still it is). Argument of taking "our lands" according to "our Historické státní právo" is one-sided as was the Polish argument of taking "our lands" in 1938 and the similar German Sudetenland argument. Point is that I am researching this issue now more deeply as I live there and doing kind of essay at my university. All related articles should look better after few weeks. Still, in my opinion invaded looks maybe better than attacked, which is an option too. You know we have here articles like French invasion of Russia or Invasion of Poland (1939) so in my opinion it isn't problem. And you can see my additions to Zaolzie-related articles are sourced and properly cited. Maybe some sentence like "Czech side argued that..." could be added but again sourced and cited as WP:CITE is very important rule here. - Darwinek 17:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
