User talk:Dr. Dan/Archive 3

Kościuszko była kobietą
Just so you know, that is a cult movie line from Sexmission, one of the greatest science-fiction comedies of all time. Still, it definitely did not add anything to the discussion, so it should have been removed. The moron comment might be seen as a bit harsh though. Balcer 15:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't know about Sexmission. Thought it was a vandal, and I consider all vandals to be morons. No harshness about it. In any case it wasn't true, made no sense, and survived too long. For our non-Polish speakers, the line means Kościuszko was a woman. And that he was not! Dr. Dan 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Correction, it's not the exact quote of the line, but the idea is the same. For more, see Polish Wikiquote page. Balcer 23:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Balcer drogi, don't leave the impression that my translation of the line is incorrect, just that you are approximating or paraphrasing the movie line. O.K.? Dr. Dan 23:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just joking! Dr. Dan 23:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Dan, but this chatter is a waste of time. I asked you why do you insist on labelling the prosecutors' office as Communist. You responded with a zillion of fancy stories, yet not a single concrete argument. So, it seems to me that your line of reasoning was more or less like this: ''I don't like the idea or do not believe it happened, but it seems I'm pretty alone in that and won't find sources to back my stance up. So I'll just label those who oppose my views as Commies, in order to make their stance less credible''. Am I wrong?

As to personal remarks, beware of such accusations in the future, people here are extremely touchy when it comes to accusing their relatives of collaboration - and especially so in the families of people who have spent some time as political prisoners and where there was not a single party member.

The rest of your story could be used as a pretty good example on why do I question your tactics of mixing ideology with facts for some obscure reasons. You are of course a Ku-Klux-Klanist American historian, right? If we chose some ideology of some of the locals - out of the blue - and apply it to the entire people, then why not this particularly interesting part of American history? So, let's go forward and paraphrase your comment. You are a KKK historian (or McCarthyist, or Imperialist, or... pick any adjective you like). You, dear Dan, were born after that criminality was on the ropes and the writing of that inevitable fact was on the wall. Your perspective is somewhat tainted by the fact that you probably had many relatives that held prominent positions in the Ku-Klux-Klan (McCarthy's commission, whatever; please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that I am). (...) Don't kid yourself listening to some nostagia from the revisionists, of what it was.

Tit for tat?

I was born early enough to know all what you describe, which however does not explain why do you believe that everything here in Poland (even a foreign tourist with bucks in his pocket such as yourself) was communist. So, you shared the fate of the rest of the people and ate frankfurters or black pudding instead of schabowy. Does it explain why do you believe the black pudding was communist? Nope. I enjoyed reading your fancy stories, but it seems it's an art for itself - and a waste of time.  // Halibutt 06:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Jim Colosimo
I saw an editor apparently randomly changing dates; don't really know any more about this other than what Britannica says. Gimmetrow 03:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Dievas
I've rewritten Dievas (Lithuanian god) completely, but it needs a good copyediting. Your help is always welcomed in this. Thanks. Linas Lituanus 13:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Polish-Lithuanian Union
I believe you already know it, but your Lublin corrections suggest you used to believe that Lithuanian was the officail languge of Lithuania. It wasn't, it was Ruthenian, ie. pre-Byelorussian language, sometimes called Lithuanian. Xx236 08:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to write to me. I generally do not respond to anonymous contributors. Perhaps we can discuss this sometime in the future when I know who you are, Xx236. Dr. Dan 02:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dr. Dan, Xx236 is a registered user, and his first edit was 10 days before yours. He is no more anonymous than you are :-) --Lysytalk 12:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Xx236 10:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm writing about historical facts, which you seem to not know when you were writing your older contributions, not about me.
 * You can read my contributions, if you want to know, who I am. I don't think that my age or color of eyes make me more or less reliable.


 * Xx236, Sorry for jumping the gun about your anonymity. Lysy, thank you for sticking your nose into this matter to "clear it up" for me. Although his user name is in red, and he or she has told us nothing about who he or she is, and what he or she is about, where he or she is from, or anything else about themselves on their user page, I guess we're both equally no more anonymous than any other contributor on Wikipedia. You would be correct to say that such information is not required to contribute on WK. Where I come, from and Wikipedia was created, free thought and expression are something that we are very proud of. I've lived in societies where this was not possible. Xx236, you are making no sense to me at all. What did I write about Lublin that refers to anything about the Ruthenian language vs. the Lithuanian language? Add the historical facts that you mentioned and you write about so proudly, if you bother to do so. While you are at it btw, what does your age and eye color have to do with Rome or the Crimea? And if you have some difficulty answering my questions, maybe Lysy can "help you out", a little. Dr. Dan 03:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your contribution was: Lublin is situated hundreds kilometers from ethnic Lithuania. Rather its Ukrainian name should be included. Xx236 13:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Lithuanian: Liublinas
 * ??? What in the world are you talking about??? Dr. Dan 13:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your contribution was:
 * Lithuanian: Liublinas

Explain me the logic of your contribution rather than expressing your emotions. Xx236 11:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you confused? I've clicked on the same two links that you claim I made a contribution to, twice. I do not recall making a contribution there, nor does the history of the aricle show that I ever did. I've read a lot of your contributions, and at first thought your weak ability to communicate in English, was responsible for a lot of the nonsense that you have written. I'm now beginning to doubt, that that's the problem. My emotions, however are in check. Once again, and for the last time, where did you come up with the Lithuanian language, Lublin, and the connection to Ruthenian language, as it concerns my contributions regarding them. Otherwise don't waste my time. And thanks for letting me know the proximity of Ukraine to Lublin, as opposed to Lithuania's proximity to Lublin. Especially since it probably, in your mind, has some relevancy to a contribution that I never made. Why don't you get involved in editing the articles about Rome and the Crimea, like in "Gdzie Rzym, gdzie Krym!". Dr. Dan 12:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Xx236
Several days have passed and I have heard nothing from Xx236, concerning his "potshots" at me. If you are going to make nonsensical statements on my talk page as you did above, please have the courtesy to respond to my question about what you are referring to. What did my "Lublin corrections" have to do with the Ruthenian language? If you won't or can't respond, please do not darken my towels again as Groucho once said, by making such remarks regardless of what your age is, or what the color of your eyes are. It would be your your inability to do so, that would make you less reliable, bubba! Nothing else. Dr. Dan 06:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Vote
There is a vote going on at Talk:Cináed I of Scotland to move loads of early Scottish kings to anachronistic English names which are going out of favour in English language publications. People supporting the move have no knowledge or contribution history in the area, yet the wiki pop voting will nevertheless result in a victory unless they are opposed. Regards. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Discretion blocks by admins
Hi Dan,

in a followup, so to speak, to my earlier post at WP:AN that you commended I would like to draw your attention to this Requests for comment/Discretion blocks by admins.

Since you were interested in the subject, I thought you might want to take a look. Feel free to write an outside opinion on the matter and/or cosign others' statements. Regards, --Irpen 23:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

N* Heaven
I'm not familiar with the word, and it doesn't seem closely related to "peanut gallery," except as another word that was sometimes used for the same or a similar thing (therefore why do more than just mention it?). I don't care that much about it either. I'm thinking a good way to handle it is to leave the "citation needed" tag in there, and let nature take its course. Probably somebody will find a citation, or somebody will delete the mention of N* Heaven.

BTW, I was interested to see all the meanings of "peanut gallery." Prior to seeing the article, I knew of it only in the Howdy Doody sense. Lou Sander 03:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Druskininkai
Dear Dr. Dan. This edit of yours troubles me. Look, if you are annoyed by names in languages other than Lithuanian in the lead of the article, move them down somewhere, maybe to the history section. But don't just obliterate them. If names in other languages can be given for say, Białystok, Sejny, Suwałki, Augustów, then why not for Druskininkai. Balcer 22:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Szanowny Balcer, Shall I assume that you have changed your earlier position, and that the Lithuanian names of Polish cities should be incorporated into the leads of their articles? I hope not. My position remains very simple, these emotionally charged attempts to aggravate peoples sensibilites are not necessary. They are insignificant and need not be included in the leads. They usually have links in the other languages. Perfect example, Rome. If someone needs to know the Polish name of Rome, all they have to do is click on the Polish link to Rome and presto, they have Rzym. As a more objective editor than some, doesn't that seem logical to you? Please understand that under the present circumstances, this remains the better option for all sides. Do we need the Japanese name for Lublin in the lead of it's article? Should our little group become the laughing stocks of this project? I think not. Don't allow yourself to be duped that the basis for these inclusions, is historical importance and notability. Anyksciai? Come on. Dr. Dan 01:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am fine with not incorporating names from other languages into leads. Clearly, this seems to be very annoying to many editors and I can understand that.  Still, I think it is something else altogether to simply obliterate names in other languages that are clearly relevant.  Do you really see no way of incorporating the Polish name for Druskininkai somewhere in the text?  Maybe in the section which mentions that the town was part of Poland between the wars?


 * Just as an exercise, check out Polish Wikipedia sometime. You might be surprised to find that articles about every single Polish city that ever used to be part of Germany prominently feature the German name in the lead (of course I can't check them all, but spot checks show this consistently).  Now, if nasty, fanatical, nationalistic Poles can manage to be that enlightened about the multilingual history of their cities, why can't other people? (Not meaning this literally, of course).  Balcer 02:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Marija Gimbutas
Dan, since you appreciate little provocations, I thought you'd enjoy this one. Do you think Marija Gimbutas was born in Wilno of Vilnius ? --Lysytalk 14:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I always enjoy little provocations from you, Lysy. By then the Zeligowski-Pilsudski manoeuver had taken place. So yes. However, let me say that I consider Gimbutas, lucky to have been born later than Laurynas Gucevicius and Antanas Baranauskas, otherwise I'd be hearing the argument that she was a Pole, too. Dr. Dan 15:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Jagna Marczułajtis
History of this page shows it was not edited on 17th September and never edited by you or Halibutt...?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So if Balcer fixed it, what's the problem? Edit conflicts happen every so often, unless you suggest the removal of your edit was intentional?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Recognition
Hey, I thought you should finally be recognized for some of your hard work on wikipedia

--Jadger 03:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

edit to DG to include Good Sam hospital
Dear Dr. Dan - It was a great idea to include Good Sam, but trauma center levels are not well-known. Level 1 implies lowest in most measurement scales, whereas it seems to me that it's actually the highest. Could you include some reference to this level? Sincerely, Novickas 16:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki links and names
Your argument that interwiki links are enough and that they make the inclusion of names in other languages unnecessary has a serious flaw. Those links are usually visible only on the Wikipedia website, but they are typically not carried over to Wikipedia mirrors, where many people get their Wiki-content from. Thus this page on Šilutė on answers.com does not carry interwiki links. So, quite simply, if you really believe that names in other languages should be mentioned somewhere so that the reader can easily find out what they are, the only place to achieve that consistently is through putting them inside the article text. Balcer 14:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My issue has always been about including these names in the leads of articles, followed by relevancy. Is the Polish name for this tiny town relevant? Should the Polish name for Munich be placed in it's lead too? Dr. Dan 16:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, for this particular town the Polish name can be left out, but the German name should be included. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that your argument "(has German and Polish link)" is problematic, that's all.  Balcer 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * On that point, the "problematic" one, I agree. It's impossible to have one's cake and eat it too. There will always be glitches and exceptions to every situation. Now what about Munich? Dr. Dan 16:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Do I really have to answer all your rhetorical questions? Just assume I gave the obvious answer. Balcer 16:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The question was not rhetorical, and was as serious as a heart attack (God forbid either of us should have one over this matter). This particular town Munich, has no unique immumity from having it's Polish name placed in the lead of its article than any other town that we are talking about. And once again, I do not object to the areas in the Republic of Central Lithuania having these toponyms added. However tact and prudence to not include them, would be a noble gesture from Polish editors for the time being, until the matter cools down a bit, or some kind of modus vivendi can be reached. Dr. Dan 01:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Err, why do you pick on Munich, it has no special connection with Poland, so asking whether it should have a Polish name is purely rhetorical question (i.e. one that does not require an answer). Dresden might be a more interesting case, since it was by some standards a Polish capital in the 18th century.  Anyway, I would tend to agree that Lithuanian towns which were not within Polish borders in the interwar period do not really need Polish names included, but that's just my opinion.
 * My general take on names is this. I must say I was a little bit ticked off when I first started editing (in the bygone days of 2004) that many Polish towns had German names in the leads, even towns like Poznan which retained a very strong Polish community for the past thousand years.  This was especially annoying since other mainstream encylopedias like Britannica did not go to such lengths.  Over time, however, my perspective on these things has changed, though I still have my limits (Lublin etc.).  The fact that Polish Wikipedia, dominated by Polish POV by definition, has decided to include German names for any town which was within German/Prussian borders for a few decades (though not going to extremes, like counting the shortlived 1795-1807 period when Prussia/Austria owned just about all of today's Poland) really made me rethink the issue.  My position now is that the bar for including an additional name should be fairly low, but without going too far and including names which have no use whatsoever in English publications.
 * Furthermore, I believe a lot of these problems will have a technological solution eventually, by for example making it possible to set the naming policy in the Wikipedia preferences.  Thus there will be an option which displays only the current, modern name and nothing else, and then another option which will display all historical names in a given language.  Ideally, one should be able to set Polish, Lithuanian, or German POV with a single click of the mouse.
 * Of course, I am not being entirely serious here, but who knows what the future holds? Wikipedia has only barely started to explore the possibilities that moving away from printed paper offers.  Since I am not in a serious mood, let me share this feeling by suggesting you check out Uncyclopedia, the parody of Wikipedia.  Start with Poland and Lithuania. Balcer 01:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

piece of information about prince Gui converting to christianity
Just saw your question in

please excuse my poor english and wiki skills; as follows:


 * Is there any truth to the assertion that he "converted" to Christianity, in oder to bolster support from the West, in his struggles with the Qing? Dr. Dan 18:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * just stumbled over the same question. According to Kaminski, Gerd; Unterrieder, Else: Von Österreichern und Chinesen. Wien 1980. (= About Austrians and Chinese), a fairly reliable publication, the story goes like this:

Some jesuit missionary of Austrian origin named Andreas Koffler (1603-1651) was introduced to the "emperor" (most possibly Guiwang (桂王) but the name is never mentioned) by a converted General with the christioned name "Lukas" and the chancellor "Pan", christioned name "Achilles". The first meeting happened on a ship (but no location), which the "emperor" at that time did not dare to leave, because he was afraid of the ghosts he imagened to be on land. Kofflers explanation was, that the emperor "from time to time was quite crazy in his brains" (sounds like Guiwang ;-) The emperor was deeply impressed by the gifts (a round mirror, some mathematical instruments, a picture of holy Mary and her child and a picture of saint John) Koffler gave to the emperor. When the empress saw the picture of holy Mary and her child, she screamed, that she saw the baby boy in her dreams and was threatened by it. After some discussions about the procedures Koffler baptized the empress and the empress-mother, but could not convince the emperor himself to get baptized (especially because it would have ment, that the emperor would have to give up his concubines). Koffler managed to become more influential at the emperors court and when the empress bore a boy-child he baptized it on the name of "Konstantin"; under the condition that that child will just be allowed to marry one wife in future. Obviousely the emperor also sent a embassy of christian officials to the Jesuit mission in Macao (on chinese boats with a christian cross painted on their sails!). He even planned another embassy to the pope in Rome (which was never realized). Luck was not on the emperors side and instead of reestablishing Ming-dynasty he had to retreat from Manchu-power and finally got killed. Koffler was killed by a Manchu-captain on 12. 12. 1651 near the city "Thien-tscheu" (somewhere in Guangxi province).

The whole story was originally reported in ''Berichte des Pater Michael Boym vom Jahre 1653, welchen er in Rom abgestattet hat, in: Weltbott Nr.13. Teil eins und zwei'' (= Reports of father Michael Boym in the year 1653, which he made in Rome. In: Weltbott Nb. 13, Part one and two).

Well, the major goal of Jesuit mission was to turn high officials (and ideally the emperor himself) into christians. So when the Manchu started to invade china the jesuit missionaries split up into three groups: some fled with the troups of Zhang Xuanzhong, some with the princes of the Ming-dynasty, and the third group (among which was the influentual Johann Adam Schall von Bell) stayed in Beijing and established good contacts to the Manchu court. Consequently no matter which power should prove to control China in the future, there always will be Jesuit missionarys close to that power. In some regards Andreas Koffler was one of chinas most successful missionaries by managing to baptize the son of an emperor (the possible future emperor!).

If you have further information on this topic please let me know. --Pepolo 16:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Mój Powrót Odwrotny
After a month of a self imposed "moratorium" (as I suggested others should consider regarding certain topics), I return to help build an Encyclopedia. It was my hope to also offer an olive branch towards the contentious participants that caused me to make my departure, and to try to make a small point to them as well. It seems this was delusional on my part, and it will be extremely difficult for me to do so now. I say this considering the very dissapointing response and the continuing hostilies and twisting missinterpretations conveyed by elements who wish to provoke and insult other contributors in WP. Therefore no "Olive Branch", but my visor remains open. Dr. Dan 02:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka
Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate your comments, am still in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! --Elonka 19:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. The result was very regrettable, and WP's loss, for now. Dr. Dan 00:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Why?
Dear Space, we've never really talked one on one. So what is your rationale for adding the Polish name of Biržai to English WP? Maybe you have a reason, so I ask you sincerely and without an ulterior motive. No animosity or accusations intended. What say you, Space Cadet? Dr. Dan 02:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think mostly consistency. We usually add alternative names or synonyms in the lead. Most of Polish cities have German names mentioned. And the cities of Troki and Birże were after all part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with a Polish majority and Polish as the official language. Space Cadet 11:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The question pertains to Biržai (which today has less than 16,000 inhabitants). I assume it had less than that during the PLC, and was probably a village. What is your basis for saying that the majority of its inhabitants were Polish?

Panevėžys
Apparently, you haven't read the lead of Liublino unija. Krakow has the same solution for names as Vilnius. There is also - theoretically much more controversial  - Breslau example where you have German name in the lead. And I would promptly revert any removal attempt. Apparently, wikipedia is not very consistent... As for Lublin and Panevėžys, it seems that it was discussed. It happens that I share views (polish nationalist?). On the other hand, I have impression that you agreed to put national versions there in the text, so I follow this solution (even if I feel that WP:NC(GN) suggests something else). I hope this will fix the problem in this particular case. --Beaumont (@)  20:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)



Why? Why? Why?
Recently the most esteemed Prokonsul of Wikipedia from Poland (yes, the same one that recently awarded me the medal on the right, although I was hoping for the The Polish Barnstar of National Merit 1st class, instead), Piotrus, queried me on the Jogaila talk page (see: Thoughts on the Title), and asked me why I have removed foreign names from many of the leads of Lithuanian cities and towns in Wikipedia. He also commented that he didn't understand why Lithuanian cities are the only European cities without important names in other languages. Prokonsul Piotrus also implied that he has asked me many times for an answer, and mentioned that he is still waiting for a reply and something of an almost plaintive "Why, Why, Why"? I feel your pain! I have heard you, and promised you a reply. Here it is.

I have to begin by telling you that your premises are fallacious, because first, Lithuanian cities are not the only European cities without important names in other languages. And although you'll never acknowledge it, and will obfuscate around the issue with some blather about Germany and Belarus, let's be honest, what you really mean is Polish names, rather than important names. This is what you are really after. A definitely tough one to admit, I'm sure. And this relentless effort by some to add these Polish names in the leads, has nothing to do with "educating" our readers, but more of a desire to continue "mental possession" of something that is not theirs. Secondly, I have stated my reasons on the issue on numerous occasions, on the talk pages and edit summaries. So that is why I was remiss in getting back to you, since I felt you read quite a bit of my imput with the rest of our little club. I guess I was mistaken. You also gave three "random" examples, Strasbourg, Cieszyn, and Kamianets-Podilskyi, which I personally felt to be piss-poor examples, as the first two are border towns, and the third example doesn't support your position at all. But even with better examples from you, it's a moot point. Let's take the example of the article about Poland. Should the lead of the article include the "important" Latin name: Polonia, or the German name: Polen, or the Lithuanian name: Lenkija, or the Latvian name: Polija? I think not. This logic needs to be applied the leads of the cities and towns of Lithuania as well. So that you understand this a little better, I am not against the expansion of knowledge in either Wikipedia or anywhere else. If and when, an article benefits from the inclusion into the article, of the Polish geographical toponym in question, I don't see why there should be an objection to this. My problem as stated on many occassions is the Lead, followed by relevance. When you have someone flying around in a spaceship on their user: Space Cadet, user page, telling me that the reason that Birzai needs its Polish toponym in the lead of its article is because Polish was the official language of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (an entity that ceased to exist in the 18th century), that to me is funnier than the ridiculous article Polish plait. Oh yes, Space Cadet also stated the majority of Birzai's inhabitants were Polish. This "fact" allows me to believe that Space Cadet or just Spacey are are appropriately named. Then we have Lysy, good old objective and neutral Lysy, who only wants the Polish name in the lead of a town where he believes there is a significant percentage of Poles living there today. When recently asked for proof of this, I think he left it as everbody knows (the old "it's common knowledge" gambit). A source Lysy, please. As for User: Halibutt, he offers the best attempt at reaching a consensus on the issue or a modus vivendi with Lithuanian editors as he likes to call it. Not only is Halibutt so kind as to let us know what the Polish toponym for a Lithuanian city is in the lead of an article , but takes every opportunity he can to remove the corresponding Lithuanian toponym throughout Wikipedia and replace it with anything that's not the Lithuanian toponym, (he tells us the basis for this is that he wants historical consistency). The true bottom line is that a Polo-Centric Wikipedia is not what is important in WP's English version. If you want to call aspirin, "polopiryna",  that's fine, just do it Poland  (you'll find it in Polish Wikipedia under aspirin). Rzym is the Polish toponym for Rome, and Monachium for Munich, and on and on. These so-called important names do not need to go into the leads of the articles in English Wikipedia (what a mess it could become). Keep these toponyms in Polish Wikipedia, or link them (which is highly appreciated and appropriate) with the "in other languages" section and the problem is solved. Lastly, Poles who have a beautiful culture and history (some which is shared with Lithuania), need to have a greater sensitivity to the national pride of it's North-Eastern neighbor, a mere 3.5 million people in a world of 6.5 billion people. Especially since Polish identity and things that are sensitive to Polish pride are very often attacked and denigrated by its enemies. Lithuania is not, I repeat, not Poland's enemy. So finally, if you truly, dear Piotrus want to create the harmony between these editors that you claim, don't just talk the talk, walk the walk. Sorry, but putting Polish toponyms in the leads of Lithuanian cities, towns, and in some cases villages, is not walking the walk, and is not necessary. Dr. Dan 02:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm it is very strange - there are no voices, which argues about placment of Kłajpeda to Klaipėda any more. M.K. 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This was a very interesting read. Thanks for the lengthy explanation. It gives a good idea for the roots of this whole naming conflict.  Quite simply, you believe that when Polish editors (let me use this shorthand expression) add Polish names in the leads of articles about Lithuanian cities, this stems from, and here I quote you: a desire to continue "mental possession" of something that is not theirs.  Of course Polish editors would loudly protest that this is not their motivation at all, but of course you know perfectly well that they are deluding themselves.  The real motivation is perfectly clear to you, even though the Polish editors are blind to it.


 * Now as far as I am concerned, you might be right. Our subconscious is after all a mystery to us, and we as human beings might be guided by motives which we would never admit openly to others and even to ourselves. Still, your certainty about this issue seems somewhat exaggerated: how can you be so certain about what really motivates us?  Do you have some professional credentials in this field?  Can you really divine our true motivations without ever meeting any of us face to face, and relying on Wikipedia contributions alone?


 * Finally, does it really matter what the motivation is behind our edits? Should not our edits be judged on their own merits, without consideration of what was the motive for making them?


 * Still, after looking at all these conflicts I believe that the only solution is for the Poles (and other non-Lithuanians) to stay away from editing the leads of articles about Lithuanian cities. I do hope however that in time the Lithuanian editors will join the general trend on Wikipedia, and start to proudly highlight the multicultural history of their cities by including their names in the languages of the communities which once inhabited them. For examples of this trend on Polish wikipedia, please check: Lublin, Łódź, Białystok etc. Balcer 00:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me throw in my explanation as well. Many English books, articles and other sources, for whatever reasons, use Polish name for Lithuanian cities. Sometimes it is over a half of the sources, sometimes it is a very small amount. This is much less common 'the other way around' - i.e. it is much less likely that a Polish city (even one like Suwałki) will have a Lithuanian name in an English source. Thus I believe that many English users may benefit from seeing a Polish name in Vilnius, Kaunas, Trakai and other places, simply because it is highly probable that they had seen it somewhere and they might be expecting it ('oh, I remember that...'). I don't mind if in the spirit of equivalent exchange, good will or whatever Lithuanian names are added to cities like Suwałki or Augustów or other that are related to Lithuanian history; even if in most cases this is much less useful for most English readers out there; and it will mostly only benefit a small number of Lithuanian editors using English Wikipedia, that's fine with me. I don't fill that adding Suvalkai to Suwałki diminishes Polish culture; on the other hand, I fill it adds a valuable tidbit of info and shows the multicultural history of that region. Because of that I cannot understand why our Lithuanian friends tend to assume bad faith and think that we try to polonize their articles or enforce some Polish imperialism by asking for the Polish name; for me it is all about a piece of encyclopedic info (old name) found in many sources and showing that in the past many cultures interacted there (often German, Russian or other names are relevant as well). As for the usage in the articles, I believe that if it is crystal clear the article is connected to only one of the cultures, use one name, if not, use both. Nonetheless if you are so sure that my 'real' reason is because I want to show those cities are really Polish or something like this, I cannot convince you otherwise no matter what I say I do, I am afraid.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, Be Not Afraid, and mind your colons. Dr. Dan 05:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Soviet invasion talk
hi, please DO NOT edit other users' talk, even if it's erraneous/ungrammatical. Rather add your own comments. Thanks. Constanz - Talk 08:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Colon
Dr. Dan, I am enjoying conversing with you on the RFC. However, could you please take care to properly indent your comments? Just use one more colon than the person you're responding to. Appleseed (Talk) 04:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The beauty of Colon Etiquette is its simplicity. There's only one rule, the one I mentioned above.  Succumb to it.  Let the zen of the colon consume you. Appleseed (Talk) 15:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you were very much in the right. Cheers, Appleseed (Talk) 04:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

no personal attack warning
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
 * forgotten reason   and the signature --Beaumont  (@)  12:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The preceeding beautiful piece was written anonymously by user: Beaumont. How nice that you should care. Actually not "really" written by him, but it obviously made an "impression" on him. Care to send it around to anyone else? I'll be checking up on it. Dr. Dan 23:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, I am not in Dr. Dan's fan club and I don't think it exists but if someone is lazy to click on the link, I would like to note that there is nothing even remotely close to a personal attack. This is not a new phenomenon to present the disagreements on content or users as a civility issue. I commented on this trend earlier and not once and I find it very unproductive. Let's stick to the issues that cause this all, rather than try to deflect discussions from the topic to the civility. Unless there are truly serious civility problems, discussing the manners should be reserved for fora, such as alt.fan.miss-manners and alt.parenting.solutions. --Irpen 04:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I raised these questions directly in the involved Piotrus' RfC , no answer till now. M.K. 13:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Irpen, I know that I didn't make anything remotely close to a personal attack, so I didn't bother to respond to the charge itself, just to the foolishness of his making the charge. And as a side note, you'll have to agree the "club" that Beaumont has joined ever since he "got off the tramway" of neutrality, is always making these kinds of charges and threats. I suspect it's a remnant of the totalitarian regimes that were into censorship and threats, that some of them came out of. As a side note, let me say my thoughts on the subject we're discussing is a reason that I dislike RfC's altogether (there's a quality of censorship that hovers or looms over them), and I try to sometimes "lighten things up a little" with my remarks. As I've often stated, there is a big difference between the articles and the talk pages. That's my spin on it, in short. Dr. Dan 22:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If this is not a personal attack on Lysy, I don't know what is. Plus, the RFC format is fairly strict and does not allow you to add pithy comments anywhere you like. Please tone this down and move it to a more appropriate place (Lysy's talk page would seem best, but the RFC talk page would also work). Balcer 04:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion
From: Talk page guidelines

Behavior that is unacceptable

Balcer 03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:
 * Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details). It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Never edit someone's words to change their meaning.


 * I came here to thank Dan for occasional copyediting of my talk page entries. I really appreciate it. Please continue doing so. That copyediting of my articles by the native speakers is always appreciated as well goes without saying. --Irpen 04:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Some people like corrections, some people don't. For me, errors on talk pages are part of their charm. It is lovely to see all the possible ways English can be twisted and mangled by people from all over the world, while the basic meaning is still conveyed. Anyway, if you don't have explicit permission, don't make corrections.  It's a guideline which makes good sense. Balcer 04:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is a bigger infamy to speak on other peoples' behalfs. As I understand this edit did not involve you, but Piotrus and Lastochka, who are not present here. They should be commenting here, and if necessary reverting the edits not you, Balcer. M.K. 13:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sure Dr. Dan would have reverted his edit himself once he realised that it violated an important Wikipedia guideline. I have simply saved him the trouble. Quick action here was good, since if other users had added comments in the meantime, it would have been more difficult to roll back the changes.  Balcer 15:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Balcer, I only copyedit people's remarks who I like, or have a high regard for. What you consider "charming" as a result of the twisting and mangling of the English language, I find distracting from the point that they are making, and it occasionally leaves an impression of stupidity, or at the very least, illiteracy. However anyone who specifically asks me to desist from doing so on their behalf, will receive my full cooperation. I'm surprised you take the position that you have, because it is not logical. It implies that one should not copyedit the encyclopedia either, and leave all of the grammatical, syntaxical, misspellings and other "charming" remnants of the graduates of the 4th grade intact, and preserved for all time. Anyway on a more serious note, I read and re-read my corrections and failed to see where I misrepresented people or what they were trying to say. Could you point out an example? Dr. Dan 22:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not my position, it is a Wikipedia guideline, which has presumably been drafted for good reasons. It only refers to discussion pages, obviously, and does not imply at all that one should not copyedit articles.  As the guideline makes clear, you are not supposed to edit the comments of others without their permission, period.  Even if you are only correcting grammar and spelling.  Hey, I don't make the rules, I only point them out. Obviously if you keep on doing it, I am not going to complain to anyone about it, but sooner or later you will encounter an editor who will not appreciate your corrections, even those made in good faith. Anyway, now you know about the guideline and so my job is done :). Balcer 22:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Balcer. Your job would be more done, if you could give me the example I asked for, i.e., the supposed misrepresentation. Dr. Dan 14:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I quoted the complete guideline, without implying that you broke every single part of it. So, for your peace of mind, let me assure you that I did not see you misrepresenting anyone when you edited their comments. Balcer 14:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, I could have sworn you were making a more specific accusation. Dr. Dan 14:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that this whole off-topic thread was started to deflect from real issues. I don't believe anyone was ever blocked for good-faith corrections of other people's English, even at the talk pages. Moreover, Dan has made it clear that he only corrects the English of those with who his overall interaction is positive. Personally, I would have minded if my opponents instead of discussing issues would be picking up on my imprefect English as I would not have seen this as friendly corrections. This is not the case here. I don't understand why Balcer even goes into this while the Piotrus' RfC in question raises much more serious issues than how well-mannered is to correct English at the talk pages. In fact, the entire part of that RfC that talks about manners and civillity is grossly off-topic. There are many much more real problems raised at that page. --Irpen 03:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. Dan, please correct my English here as well.
 * Not much work for me to do, Irpen, your English is pretty good. P.S. I make plenty of mistakes of my own. Dr. Dan 14:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind spellchecks by Dr. Dan, although it is a good practice to let others know you changed their posts, even in a minor way.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't it pretty obvious when that occurs, Piotrus? Dr. Dan 01:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not always. Wading through diffs is tedious, and virtually impossible on high traffic pages. Appleseed (Talk) 16:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Note on Vilnius
Once you're done with kissing and hugging certain editors :) could you help out with improving Vilnius? Please edit this workshop and not the article itself. Thanks! Renata 02:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're very observant today. I had the day off, and I truly did spend a lot of time "kissing and hugging", "old" friends and "new" friends today. Dr. Dan 02:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Polish Jews
Why pick on this list? There are only problems with it because one user is trying to disrupt it against the best efforts of several other editors. I hope that you, as a responsible editor, will help to prevent this. --20.138.246.89 10:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

MC
Dear Doctor, I am sending you my best wishes for Christmas too and wish you a good start for 2007. I will forward your wishes to Ann. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 17:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Taking your Advice
Honestly I have many, many better things to do then to deal with Ghirla's incivility towards others *where I don't see it* - I see enough of it anyway, as you are well aware (that said, we are making progress at mediation and maybe this entire sad saga will finally end). Anywaym you'd do better to ask Halibutt - I am sure he will provide you with a link; although I wouldn't be suprised if it would prove to be another misunderstanding - there is plenty of those around.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Dan, may I enquire why you have not commented on the death threat accusation by Ghirla I linked above - since you are most capable of commenting on Halibutt's sins when it is convenient to make some point?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But Dr. Dan, I thought you loved going off topic? Anyway, I gave you my answer in my first reply, now please, do something constructive for a change.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)