User talk:Lysy/Archive 2008

Move of Scottish kings
There is a proposed move of Scottish kings at Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland that I thought I'd bring to your attention. I think you have had things to say on this subject in the past. Probably won't be successful, but that's wiki for you. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lysy's back?
That would be a great XMAS gift... can this be true? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not really. --Lysytalk 23:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)



has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Welcome back :)  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 11:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Gross
Hope you are not offended by my remarks on talk page of J.T. Gross. I just cannot stand this gentleman and his shallow way of explaining history, therefore I will refrain from editing his bio, as my edits would be too biased. Greets Tymek (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

reference help
The book I used was already in use in the article, so I didn't cite it the way I usually do and instead copied the template or whatever it is. I don't know how to make the page number appear, but it is on page 176, if you can get it to work correctly. Thanks, Ostap 21:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, you are too fast. Ostap 21:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Gross
If Gontarczyk is controversial because someone criticises him, then Gross is also controversial (plenty of people criticise him - have a look at Polish version - good article, no judgments, only information who said what and when), right? But you did not want that word in article (and you were right) There is simple way to provide information about who Gontarczyk is - you can create Piotr Gontarczyk and put all the critics there. If you want to do it properly you should put there only facts and citations (translated if neccessary) from reliable sources. Saying that someone is "controversial" or "the best" or "ugly", without proper citation with clear information WHOSE opinion it is, breakes this rule: WP:WEASEL. Regards 84.201.223.19 (talk) 10:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you looked closer, you'd notice the reference supporting that. Gontarczyk is known for his attitude towards Gross, he criticized his Neighbors in exactly the same manned before. --Lysytalk 11:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Pogroms in Poland
Perhaps such an article should be created from the off-topic material found at the bottom of the Kraków pogrom article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. It would be really difficult to write a good article with such title. And then, what would be its purpose ? --Lysytalk 19:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the off topic information should be moved somewhere. In other news, see this proposal.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd also appreciate your comment on Armia_Krajowa - see Talk:Armia_Krajowa.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Krokhnalyuk
You can read it here Jo0doe (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've found it. I simply do not have the time now ... --Lysytalk 10:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Minority names
Hi, Lysy. I saw your comment on the talkpage of article Gyöngyös‎. We put the other names for the toponyms in the article, where else it should be (besides the specialized article Placenames in other languages in Europe). That info is related directly to that article. For the same reason, e.g. the cities Virovitica, Bjelovar have that info also. That's simple explanation. Bye, Kamarad Walter (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Abraham Gancwajch
An editor has nominated Abraham Gancwajch, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not restore the unacceptable source to the article Abraham Gancwajch. Repeated violations of wikipedia policy may result in measures being taken to protect the project. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.jewishtribalreview.org is not a reliable source either. Please stop. -- Avi (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You are welcome to add sources that would be more appropriate. --Lysytalk

It does not matter what you call it, it fails WP:V and WP:RS and may not be used as a source. The same holds for jewishtribalreview. You have been here long enough to know what sourcing requirements are. Please stick to them. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A minor point
"But would the Germans propose to make one?" I noticed this comment of yours, well I certainly know you are good at history, they were efforts to recruit Poles by Germany in WW2 into various paramilitary and military units, and as you know they faced mass desertions and were a failure. I agree with your last remarks in the post, and frankly I wouldn't be surprised that the category you made will be put for VfD soon, since it is so controversial and will bring emotons to some people perhaps.--Molobo (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, I specifically meant SS, not other German units. On the other hand I don't expect Germans would have succeeded with Polish SS even if they tried. --Lysytalk 23:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian collaborators
Check out the Wikipedia definition of collaborators in the sense you seem to apply the term:

"Collaborationism, as a pejorative term, can describe the treason of cooperating with enemy forces occupying one's country. As such it implies criminal deeds in the service of the occupying power, including complicity with the occupying power in murder, persecutions, pillage, and economic exploitation as well as participation in a puppet government.

The use of "collaboration" to mean "traitorous cooperation with the enemy," dates from 1940, originally in reference to the Vichy Regime in France, and other French people who helped Nazi Germany. Since then, the words collaboration and collaborateur possibly have this very pejorative meaning in French (the shortened form collabo only has this pejorative meaning).

The OUN worked with Germany (even in their case, however, the close ooperation mostly ocurred before Germany occupied western Ukraine) although they probably meet the definition due to having their members within the German police. This wasn't the case with UPA. Their cooperation with the Germans was generally limited and not in the service of the occupying power. They seemed to have served themselves.Faustian (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that depends on the period. The UPA collaborated mostly towards the end of the war. --Lysytalk 06:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Is cooperation equivalent to collaboration? It seems to me that generally collaboration refers to serving the occupying power. The police meet this criterium, as did the OUN and the 14th SS Division.  UPA cooperated with the Germans in limited ways towards the end, but they didn't seem to have placed themselves at the Germans' command or authority.Faustian (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Adam Michnik
I don't know if it is of interest to you, but an academic I know recently told me that this article contains several errors, is unbalanced and rather non-neutral.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

?!
What is this ?! :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jan_T._Gross&diff=189625631&oldid=189622452

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please use reliable sources. Thanks. --Lysytalk 00:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, the work of Polish proffesors is not a "reliable source" ?!

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't know if it's original, it's not published on a personal webpage at geocities.com, not a credible website. Even if the texts are original, the amateur translations are not authorised. --Lysytalk 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Intresting info
http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/1941-1945/IV/index.php?1 http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/VISLA/ Jo0doe (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Holodomor
Hello comrade, the source you added to Holodomor has been removed as "fringe" and un-scholarly. Could you clear this up? Thanks, Ostap 19:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

New naming convention
A new naming convention for places in Slovakia is being discussed at User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment. Your input will be greatly appreciated. Since these new rules might be later regarded as a precedent by non-involved editors (remember the Danzig/Gdansk case?), I think you will find this ongoing discussion and a poll interesting. Tankred (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fear
Check new article: Fear - Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz - needs serious work.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Starka_boxopen_640.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Starka_boxopen_640.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. 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? Rettetast (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Vadim Brodski
I stumbled at the article by accident and had been surprised by number of questionnable statements there. He's declared son of the guy who died in 1929. How is it possible? Also, what makes him "Polish" musician? From quick googling he seems to be a Jewish Russophone, born in Kiev and raised in "USSR" (educated in Moscow, etc.). That begs the question what makes him "Ukrainian" too, but this is more complicated. You seem to know more than me about the guy, could you please improve the article or move it to your userspace unless it is ready. 206.186.8.130 (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oborki
Hi Lysy, where did you find info that massacre in Oborki was perpetrated by the Germans? Look here and here. I hope you have no doubts and you will restore it. Tymek (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. First of all, allow me for a general comment on the article: I'm sure you'll agree that with such a sensitive issue, we have to be very careful with the selection of sources. Recent research and publications bring new developments and it's important to remember that the opinions expressed 20 years ago may be negated by recent findings. Generally, the article suffers from poor sources selection, web pages, press articles, older or politically motivated publications. I think we should try to stick to recent publications of professional historians where possible.
 * Back to Obórki pacification, first let me note that both links you provide confirm that the action was conducted by Ukrainian police, not by UPA. Ukrainian police was under German command, even the webpage of wachowscy.com that you provided confirms that the action was "commanded by a German". It also does not states whether the actual shooting was done by Germans or Ukrainians but says: "jeden z oprawców strzelał ofierze w tył głowy". As for Piotrowski, while I generally value his works, in this case he does not provide a detailed account of what happened, and only generally mentions the incident. On the other hand Polish historians such as Grzegorz Motyka of IPN or Andrzej Sowa of Jagiellonian University state that not only the action was commanded by Germans but also Germans personally murdered the Poles. This is confirmed by Feliks Trusiewicz. You may note, that the villagers were herded and murdered in Trusiewicz's barn. I'll add relevant references to the article. Here is e.g. what Sowa writes: "W historiografii polskiej winą za większość z tych represji obciążano nacjonalistów ukraińskich", and: "Tak też było w wypadku mordu, dokonanego 13 i 14 listopada 1942 r. na 53 osobach w Obórkach w pow. łuckim, gdzie pacyfikacja przeprowadzana była przez policję ukraińską, ale egzekucji osobiście dokonywali nadzorujący ją Niemcy". I hope that explains the situation. --Lysytalk 10:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I fully trust you and Faustian, and I believe that you guys will improve the article in a proper way. Tymek (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you are engaged in the article now, perhaps you would like to look at this page . Tymek (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this my computer or has half of this article disappeared somehow? Tymek (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, you've removed large part of the article with this edit. --Lysytalk 00:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I have totally messed it up. I keep on telling myself not to edit any articles while my sons are not asleep, yet it happens and this is the result. Lysy, can you fix it? I do not want to do any more mess. Thanks in advance. Tymek (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --Lysytalk 19:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Tymek (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I added source on pro-Nazi attitude being reason for population transfer
I added an article from German historian that part of the reason for population transfer was pro-Nazi attitude of local population.--Molobo (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans article
Last night, Molobo edited the article in a way that interfered with the reference section format. I had to set the article back to the last version with an intact ref section, thereby dumping the edits following Molobo. Since you were the last of the few editors active last night and most of these few edits seemed to be of a revertwarlike kind, you overlook best if something you like to have in the article is missing following my action. I created a section on the articles talk page for that. Thank you Skäpperöd (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Kulmerland
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a different title by copying its content and pasting it into. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen.

Keith D (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Back. You were missed during your long wikiholiday! PS. You may want to archive the older thread on your talkpage. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good idea to archive the talk that accumulated in the meantime. --Lysytalk 23:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Np. Here', have a gadget for archives :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No, I don't want it :) --Lysytalk 00:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But if your archives are not linked, it's hard to find them... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are search engines for that :) --Lysytalk 00:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What?
So Wozniak of Apple is Polish, and Czolkosz the assassin isn't? Why? More concistency please. Actually I got your argument, and tend to agree with you, so your help me in cleaning the mess that this article is would be welcomed. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy note
You have been made the subject of a thread at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Your input there may be helpful. Best, AGK ( talk ◊ contact ) 12:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)