User talk:InanimateCarbonRod

"Hey what's that?" "It's an inanimate carbon rod!"

"Did you actually get to see the rod?"

Hello! I'm not usually the one to greet new people, but I thought your name was funny...I believe some advice we're supposed to give is to visit the Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers page. If you have any questions you can visit the Wikipedia:Village Pump. Other helpful pages include:

• Wikipedia:How does one edit a page
• Wikipedia:Manual of style
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions

Have fun! Adam Bishop 04:03, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"Shouldn't you be studying, Doug?" LOL! -- Cyan 05:08, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Danzig/ Gdansk

Why are you changing the names of all the edits of Danzig to Gdansk when Gdansk was a Part of Poland to Danzig(Which it wasnt officaly till after the Partitons) ?

I reverting your changes because in articles about historical figures, the historical name of the place should be used. When was Danzig part of Poland? There were times when it was a free-city, times when it was part of West Prussia, times when it was part of Germany (1939-1945), and there is today (1945-now) where it is part of Poland. Why do you keep insisting on making these anachronistic changes? InanimateCarbonRod 04:35, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Because it was a Part of Poland!! And it was called Gdansk.

997 - 1307 1466 - 1771 1945 - Present

Please show me why you bellive it was a part of Prussia(Which Didnt exist till 1800s)/Germany before you start making fictious changes. Kommiec

Danzig was a free city prior to becoming a part of West Prussia in 1793 (part of the Hanseatic League). Please stop changing Danzig to Gdansk. Most of the articles where you are changing it are clearly about German-speaking people who lived in Danzig. Danzig had a German culture and was populated by German merchants for centuries, all of whom called their city Danzig. If you have so much energy and clearly a Polish nationalist bent, why not add new articles about famous Poles instead of squabbling about how you want to re-write history. InanimateCarbonRod 04:47, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am changing whats right. The city was called Gdansk wethere they were german speaking or not dosent matter. Just because somebody is from holland and born in New York dosent give him the right to rename the city to New Amsterdam. Kommiec 04:54, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You are not changing it to what's right. You're changing it to what you want it to be. The city was known as Danzig, it's German language name through the majority of it's recent (last thousand years) history. This includes the time when it was a free city. The city was known as Danzig then, so kindly stop changing it. InanimateCarbonRod 04:57, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am changing it to what it was. It was known as Gdansk when it was a Part of Poland it wanst renamed to Gdansk till after the first partions. Gdansk was always a city full of nationalites and Germans werent the only ones there. It didnt have its german name for the majority of the last thousand years research your history please. So please stop.

And read up some http://www.gdansk.pl/um_green/hg_historia_gdanska/hg_us_historia_gdanska.asp

Kommiec 05:02, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm, let me see, consulting www.gdansk.PL to check whether or Poland thinks that Danzig/Gdansk should have been named by the Polish or German name. What an unbiased an accurate source you've found. Although Poland has spent huge amounts de-Germanizing the city, I'm sure they'll the fair and balanced account. Let me clarify, I have made no changes, I have only reverted the erroneouse changes you have made. InanimateCarbonRod 05:07, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Heres one about Farenhiet from the britannica: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=34155

Notice GDANSK,Poland.

Stop trying to rewrite history face the city was Polish. Your changes are errounes and you just demonstrated it. Kommiec 05:09, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

According to the first article you specified [1], it uses Danzig. That Britannica chose to use the modern is no proof of what the city was named. InanimateCarbonRod 05:13, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

According to you this must be wrong too ???? http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1300.htm Kommiec 05:15, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, they clearly mean today Polish. Most people are not familiar with the history Danzig, and therefore assume if a city is now in Poland, it was always in Poland making it appropriate to refer to historical figures as such. You're right, they made an error. InanimateCarbonRod

Show me a link any link that says that Gdansk was under German Control through out its history. It was under Polish Control During the following dates: 997 - 1307 1466 - 1771 1945 - Present

During those times the city should be called Gdansk not Danzig. I did mention the name Danzig in almost everyone of my edits. Kommiec 05:21, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think that this article [2] sums it up best:

If Gdansk is different from other Polish cities, that is partly because it has belonged entirely to Poland only since 1945. During the most important stage in its history - from the end of the rule of the Teutonic Knights in the mid-15th century until its annexation by Prussia at the end of the 18th - Danzig was a free city-state, though subject to taxation by the Polish monarch. Danzig also enjoyed a certain autonomy during the period between the two world wars. Because of its purely German population it was not attached to the restored Poland, but was a "free city" under the supervision of the League of Nations.

Hope this article helps you understand. InanimateCarbonRod 01:36, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Gdansk has had a very troubled history. In the 14th century the Teutonic Knights captured it from Poland. The Poles regained it in 1454. At the end of the 18th century, Gdansk became a possession of Prussia. After World War I, Gdansk was declared the Free City of Gdansk (Danzig) by the League of Nations. World War II began in Gdansk, when Germany attacked the city in 1939. In 1945 Gdansk was again a Polish city." http://www.newworld.krakow.pl/newworldagent/gdansk_eng.htm

As long as its a part of Poland its Gdansk. Kommiec 05:21, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It should be called what the people of the city called it. They called it Danzig. Please stop changing it for your own revisionist goals. InanimateCarbonRod 05:25, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

And we poles called it Gdansk, the French called it Dantzick, and by your logic all the posts about New York City should be renamed because of the high immigrant population or maybe it should go back to New Amsterdam ?? Kommiec 05:35, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

People in New York call their city "New York", just like residents of Danzig called their city "Danzig" (until they were removed following WWII and replaced with Poles). InanimateCarbonRod 05:38, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No, not all and I can see your bias. Now, You have shown me no proof why it should be Danzig when it was a Part of Poland.Kommiec 05:39, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

But people living in the New York area in the early 17th century called it New Amsterdam. We should use the term in use at the time. RickK 05:41, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why did you move Regained Territories (English) to Ziemie Odzyskane (non-English) - seems strange to me CC 06:29, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just a footnote: Danzig/Gdansk did had wide authonomy in Poland, but it was not free city. It was subject of Polish king, part of Polish crown, subject to Polish law. A lot of places in Poland had wide authonomy (Whole Royal Prussia until UoL had large authonomy) but it was part of Poland. Fahrenheit is good example, because while he was born in Danzig/Gdansk, there is signature of his in Netherlands which read "Fahrenheit POLONUS" or similar.

Also, Poles were always present in Danzig, although with time elite became completely German and Poles stayed only as part of lower classes. Do you call places in Wales by their Celtic names, or by Anglicised versions? Danzig is Germanised version of Gdansk. szopen