User talk:Volunteer Marek/Arch3

Incidentally
It sounded true to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it's true in the same sense as it's true that it is possible to win a game of tic tac toe against a 7 year old or against Homer "Good Ol' Rock" Simpson. And anyway - if it was possible to exploit "psychology" to win RPS then it would be useless as a means of determining outcomes in disputes. The fact that people still use it to decide stuff attests to the fact that they do in fact play (1/3)-strategies whether they "explicitly" randomize or not.radek (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:
The Hambach Festival of 1832 was one of the first occasions where the black-red-gold flag of Germany was shown. At the same time refugees fleeing Poland after the November Uprising took part and German and Polish flags were used as a symbol of democracy in Europe. This German stamp commemorates this event. Many "Polenvereine" (Poland Clubs) were established to support the insurgents, this might be something to tie on. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Is that image in public domain in the US (I know it is in Germany)? It would be sort of neat to take it and with some photoshop skills transform it into a "Wiki-stamp". Like the upper left corner could say "Wikipedia" instead of Deutschland, the left side could have the year, the right white bar could have the name of the award and the person. And do something with the number.radek (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me know if I could be of any help with this graphic guys, I can make any modifications needed.--Jacurek (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not an ideal image, I know. Maybe we could use only the section showing the flags/people. I'm on a wikibreak for a few days, I'll try to find something more about "Polenvereine" next week. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think focusing on the flags/people would illustrate the idea better (though I still think it would look neat if it looked like a stamp). Take your time with the Polenvereine, I'm busy too and weekends is about all I can muster.radek (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Heads up about an RfC
Please note that there's a new discussion at Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year. Roger talk 05:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:German Polish Barnstar
A very nice idea, please announce it on WP:POLAND and WP:GERMANY, and add it to their award listings. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I plan on doing that but wanted to finalize the Barnstar aesthetically. Waiting on input from Herkus too.radek (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Radeksz, I'm currently a little busy. The barnstar looks fine, I'm not sure how to mention the Hambach Festival, maybe something like ".. was awarded to ... in remembrance of the Polish-German friendship at the Hambach Festival", but that's just a first thought. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Revert
Sorry, don't mean to get into an edit war, just want to verify this since it's in total contrast to what I cited / was verified by Himka.--Львівське (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine but keep in mind that the article is still under 1RR, hence it would've been better if you discussed it first. Also, the proper thing to do in such a case would be to add a "verify" tag, rather than remove the sourced text and replace it with something else. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I forgot about the 1R...the Pawel arguments were a LONG time ago. I am discussing though....what should it be changed to, though? Both refs contradict eachother--Львівське (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna continue this at the article talk page. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, thought protocol was to PFD and then AFD afterwards to find consensus if necessary --Львівське (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually if you think someone will object, then go straight to AfD. Also, I'm not sure what the reason for removal of these categories is ? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Pawlokoma isn't in Volynhia...so why would it be under the category for massacres "in volhynia"?--Львівське (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see - where all these in Tarnopol? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There were a few in Tarnopol and a few (like this one) in subcarpathian voivodship. Also, the pawkloma one i realize now is a massacre of ukrainians...so why it was filed under "massacres of poles" is a double-no--Львівське (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

TFD
So do you recommend we just completely ignore him from here on? My only concern is in doing so, he and his cohorts like Petri would use the shift in participation to their advantage to push their fringe views.--Львівське (talk) 04:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's always the dilemma with these kinds of editors. You ignore them, you essentially legitimize them to some extent. You don't ignore them and engage them in honest discussion ... that legitimizes them as well. And admins and other Wikipedia dispute resolution processes are completely useless when it comes to dealing with people like that. The best you can do is to keep on pointing out what reliable sources actually say, don't let them ignore these reliable sources and keep pointing out in these discussions that they are willfully or not, obviously or not, ignoring these reliable sources. And don't let yourself be provoked (it's hard sometimes, I know). Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I got goaded into calling a disruptive editor a psycho on an admin's talk page yesterday....24hr ban...not the smartest move but it felt good at the time, lol --Львівське (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Controversy and Kuraś' diary
There is no controversy about Machejek's fabrication of the "diary". Machejek fabricated also his participation in the fights, so you need a source confirming that he was there. Xx236 (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I thought the article already said that. Machajek was UB chief in the region during the time - though he might have made up the fact that he participated in fights against Kuras directly. The controversy's more about Walach and over the interpretation of the documents from the UB archives (i.e. can they be trusted). Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Machejek was "przewodniczący rady narodowej" whatewer it was, not a UB head.Xx236 (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

TFD and Petri
It seems from Petri's recent comments about the Holodomor article "not being about the ACTUAL famine" but only the 'genocide myth of ukrainian nationalists', and from what I read earlier by TFD and one of his buddies....they are going to attempt to make a new article about the "actual famine" and make it so the Holodomor article is only about the Ukrainian narrative, so eventually they can propose to make "Ukrainian famine (1932-33)" a separate article, delegitimizing the Holodmor article in favor of the "Real truth"....so....looks like a war is brewing --Львівське (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like Petri has been trying to sabotage the article from within by inserting non-reliable source into it and then turning around and claiming that ... the article is based on non-reliable sources. I can't actually make out what TFD is saying in his comments since he just appears to say whatever's convenient at a particular point in time/discussion. I sincerely hope that Wikipedia's not messed up enough for outside editors to miss this kind of bullshit. But who knows. If it's messed up enough then there's no point to it. If it is not messed up enough then all you can do is just keep repeating what the sources say no matter what kind of nonsense gets thrown at you. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

attack of the Ingy...--Львівське (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about user subpage page
Hi. :) Are you done with User:Volunteer Marek/Economy of the Soviet Union? If so, I need to delete it, since it has copyright problems in its history. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's fine. Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * All right. I'll clean it up then. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Kuraś
Machejek "diary" (including "Kuraś' diary") is a total fake http://tygodnik.onet.pl/1,6945,druk.html, so no OR is needed.Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Lemkos
Sorry mate, I'm really out of Wikipedia these days and can't really remember much of my articles from the good ol' times.  // Halibutt 13:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant
Re: User:Volunteer Marek/ACE2010. Will you add this to ACE2010? Shame it will not get the recognition it deserves... (being late, and unmentioned in the Signpost report). PS. Isn't Shelly's alignment broken? And I think tally is wrong :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. jps (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've created ACE2010alt so that "unworthy" guides can be included. I encourage you to canvass inform interested parties that it can be used to replace the officially blessed ACE2010. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Done, I'm always up for some evil canvassing . Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for helping out with the flame war on the fractional reserve banking discussion page. Its actually an incredibly important issue. The non understanding of our money system by so many economists was a major contributor to the world economic crash. (http://www.goplusplus.com/book/) Reissgo (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ich bin Russian
I am half Russian. I hope that I will not be interpreted as biased against them.

Regardless, I removed the requested material

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism
Why are you voting to keep this article? You know that there is no literature to support the concept and even extremist sources do not use the term. TFD (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As I've explained on talk before, I am not supporting the "old" version of the article which did indeed contain a good bit of synthesis. Last time I reverted it was to Snowded or Ludwigs' limited version which is something I think we can work with. But I do think (and so does apparently Paul and Igny) that there is enough sources for a separate article on the topic. It would be much more limited in scope and if we limit it in that way a lot of the concerns about NPOV and SYNTH can be gotten rid off. I do very strongly object to deleting it or turning it into a disambiguation page. And Petri's hi-jinks in this regard are especially disruptive.


 * As an aside, Igny somewhere said that the main problem with the article is that it basically serves as a POV-pusher-magnet, and my sense of it is that, yup, that's indeed the case (on both sides). But that's not the fault of the article or topic itself - which deserves treatment on Wikipedia - but with particular editors and, more generally, the inadequacies of Wikipedia's DR process. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you hate Communism, would it not make more sense to explain the evils of Communism in articles rather than support the existence of articles that use terms that even anti-Communists do not use? TFD (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't hate. It's wrong. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Then you should be able to write articles explaining what is wrong with it rather than articles that use name-calling that even fringe sources avoid. I always thought that the anti-Communist spiel that they are fluouridating the water, infiltrating the PTA, killed John Kennedy and Robert Taft (through radioactivity in his chair) and control the banks is not very persuasive to thinking people.  TFD (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of your standard strawmen? Of course all those things are junk. But just because somebody somewhere said something stupid about communism once and you can show that somebody somewhere said something stupid about communism once doesn't in any way all of sudden make communism a respectable, mainstream, ideology (as you appear to think). It's also junk. Which IS the mainstream view of communism. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't using the terms "Communist terrorism" and "Communist genocide" just more junk? No sources use these terms.  A lot of the new anti-Communist writing reminds me of the old Communist literature - big on polemics, short on facts.  Very persuasive for believers but no one else.  TFD (talk) 04:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the term "Communist genocide". But "communist terrorist" is a legitimate term as indicated in sources. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Martin Amis's book, Korba the Dread, discusses Lenin's terrorism with the word "terrorism". So does any book about the Ukrainian genocide, beginning with Robert Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow, for example, which frequently uses "terror". These books have the string "communist terror*": The usage seems conventional. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Communist terror in Romania: Gheorghiu-Dej and the Police State, ... Dennis Deletant - 1999 - 351 sidor
 * Terror Survivors and Freedom Fighters Dominik George Nargele - 2008 - 216 sidor - CHAPTER 3 - COMMUNIST TERROR AGAINST FINLAND, LITHUANIA AND POLAND
 * Political terror in communist systems - Sida 142 Alexander Dallin, George W. Breslauer, American Council of Learned Societies. Planning Group on Comparative Communist Studies - 1970


 * This all actually began with the original "Communist genocide." As I recall, TFD was one of those advocating "no sources" even in the face of hundreds, and insisting on debating what constitutes "genocide" when all one had to do was look in sources. So, once again:
 * books.google.com
 * communist terrorism - 3,460 sources
 * communist genocide - 907 sources (as I recall the last time I looked this included genocide commited against communists as well)
 * stalinist terror - 13,700
 * (stalinist terrorism - 284)
 * scholar.google.com
 * communist terrorism - 264 sources
 * communist genocide - 86 sources
 * stalinist terror - 2,520
 * Unfortunately, everyone wanted to debate what the article lead should be so they could (judging by the result) kill the article as original research, synthesis, etc. No one was interested in surveying what scholarly sources stated with reference to "communist genocide," nor in presenting it as encyclopedic content. If you'd like to propose simply writing about what appears in scholarly sources, I'd certainly support such an endeavor. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 01:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Your guide...
Your guide is absurd, unprofessional, and unwieldy.

It's also hilarious, nerdy, and brought a smile to my face in the midst of this drama filled election. Thank you.

(And I'm a level 20 Chaotic Neutral Elven Mage with a special place in my heart for a well placed Evocation spell and a staunch desire to keep using 3.5 Edition manuals)

Cheers,  S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)



Re: Iron Bowl
The Drive is a commonly referenced title for 2010 game, multiple references from the media and UA coaching staff were made since the game calling it "The Drive". It was even called "The Drive" in the actual telecast. You'll have to be specific about any other game "title", they are all pretty commonly known. The standard is in place to prevent fans of either team from getting carried away. Rtr10 (talk)


 * Can you provide sources for that assertion? The 2010 Iron Bowl was in fact called "The Comeback" during the actual telecast. Your argument seems to be that that's not enough. What's good for the goose and all that. Either/or. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
I think, in fact I am certain, that I speak for all the candidates in the recent election in thanking you for your extremely kind and supportive words in your voter guide. I have spent the past few minutes thanking a number of other guide-writers for nice things they said about me, but yours was clearly the only guide whose contents brightened the days of every one of us.

I suppose it would be crass to cavil at any aspect whatsoever of such a kindhearted presentation, but since we're here, I might have preferred a different evaluation of my edit count. I am certain that you meant well when you described my edits as numbering "more than there are atoms in the ether", but as I was glowing with this praise I suddenly recalled that (a) there are no atoms in the ether, and (b) there is no ether. Still, it's the thought that counts, and your thoughts were very much appreciated. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I appreciate the appreciation. And I did say it was "more than" that. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Never wrestle with a pig for deletion
The article Never wrestle with a pig is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Never wrestle with a pig until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Fences &amp;  Windows  00:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry to do this, but I just don't think a workable encyclopedia article can be constructed out of passing references to this phrase. I do like the phrase, indeed I added some early uses to the Wiktionary entry. If you like recording uses of language then I'd encourage editing Wiktionary. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think AfDing it is fine - though obviously I'll oppose actual deletion. If discussion/consensus says redirect then so be it. BTW, I think the possible usage by Lincoln is important; can you add that to Wikitionary entry (I'm not familiar with that Wiki)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you provide the quote from Lincoln? I wasn't able to access the source or find the quote elsewhere. Wiktionary is quite easy to edit, but you do need to get used to the rules and entry layout. Start reading at wikt:Wiktionary:Welcome,_newcomers. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Campaignbox King Philip's War
Template:Campaignbox King Philip's War has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim
What's his story? They're actions are a bit suspicious. -- Piast 93  20:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would you think that? I know why I would, but I am curious why you would... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:POLAND and other projects
You may want to update your username in such places. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

IPBE
Hey Radek. Got your email earlier. Ok, checkuser shows what's going on with your IP block and for this reason, I'm granting IP Block Exemption which should allow you to edit through the block. Read the IPBE page above and understand the rulings re. no proxies, etc, etc. Given the nature of the rangeblock, though, I'm not going to be able to lift it, but this should allow you to edit away through it. Have fun! - A l is o n  ❤ 12:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks! Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Pic of Timothee Adamowski
Hi. I just came across a picture of Timothee Adamowski at this location: http://www.stokowski.org/Principal_Musicians_Boston_Symphony.htm

You can search for his name and will come across a pic. I don't know how or whether it is allowed to capture that pic and put it into the bio here on WP. I'd appreciate it if you could consider that and post his pic on WP if it's allowed. Thanks very much.~Mack2~ (talk) 06:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The webpage does not provide information as to the original source of the photograph. It might come from the 1914 work The Boston Symphony Orchestra by Mark Antony De Wolfe Howe listed in the Bibliography section. In this case it *could* be in public domain. Or, going by the first photo it could be from this work from 1956, which means that the original photo info would be found in that work. Maybe emailing the owner of the website could clarify the matter. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the de Wolfe Howe (1914) book on line (http://www.archive.org/stream/bostonsymphonyor00howe#page/n313/mode/2up). It does not contain that photo.~Mack2~ (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Unable to do math
This user claims that 80/20=5 in money creation for a reserve ratio of 20% is correct. This user claims that fixing the math in the article is original research. I find it offensive that you suggest that my suggestion that 80/20=4 is original research; when this user just obviously doesn't understand the difference between the reserve rate and the reserve ratio. Javalizard (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly the locus of dispute. Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're also misrepresenting the other user's edits. The number "80" does not appear anywhere in the version I restored, hence your point is moot. You know the dispute is about something else - the original research and the weird apparantly pulled out of thin air 419430400 number. Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

SMS Graudenz
Are you seriously asking for a source that SMS Graudenz was named after the town? There is no other Graudenz which could have been the namesake. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The entire paragraph is unsourced so I put the at the end of the paragraph. That just happens to be the last sentence. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, do you really think a 1912 source from the German empire is reliable here? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A) Please clarify which information needs a souce. You won't deny the town became Prussian after the partitions, would you? I don't see any dubious or unclear information in that section, please be specific.
 * B) Yes, I think the official German census is a reliable source. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A) Well, it'd be good if even uncontroversial info is sourced for completeness. I was trying to avoid a multiplicity of cn tags with just one at end of paragraph but ok.
 * B) Not from that itme and not for this question it isn't. Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You might use


 * HerkusMonte (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Prof A.
I was about to add a list of book publications to her article. Then I thought better of it, for reasons you'll appreciate. Still, I see numerous Polish and English books she authored or co-authored on Google Print that should prove her notability. I'd have given you a direct link but I am a bit paranoid now, so... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I'll have the time but I'll try to add them. Also I see somebody else already started doing so. Happy new year. Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Hallersarmy
Hi Ra Marek,

Thank you for trying to mediate the situation with User:Hallersarmy. I don't know, and frankly don't care, whether the editor is a sockpuppet of Loosmark, but I am concerned about the editor's tactics of removing sourced material and adding editorial comments.

Still, I'm sure we'll work it all out shortly.

Regards, — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If it is a new user then some understanding should be shown just because new users don't necessarily orient themselves well in Wikipedia policies, culture and etiquette. Now that s/he's been warned though hopefully s/he'll listen and adjust his/her behavior accordingly.  Volunteer Marek   05:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right, of course. I sometimes forget that new editors need time to become acclimated and learn the policies, etc. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Witam Marek,

Thank you for commenting on what is becoming a strained situtaion with your down-to-earth remarks. Somehow people are assuming I am someone else or someone's "sock puppet" what in H** is a sockpuppet in the world of Wiki? I have not a clue.

Yes I am new to he world of more major Wiki editing, but I am also quite aware of editors with their own agenda's. An editor is to be neutral and respect the views as presented. I guess I didn't do that at the beginning, but since then, I have added comments in a better way. But I also do not like having my comments criticized and removed for the exact same reasons I was accused of. Who is the ultimate editor in this case?

Is there a way to communicate with you directly?

Best regards,

Hallersarmy (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Marek,

Thank you for taking the time to teach me the intricacies of Wiki. I never realized so much went on in the background. I have already written to Dr. Hagen without an answer. I also have written to other University professors I know who may or may not have opinions on this matter. Time will tell.

As for the article you mention on Jews in Haller's Army, not only do I know it well, but I'm the source for locating the material which the author used. I am the one who discovered the Jewish Hallerczycy and asked for more feedback from both Poles and Jews. You can get my address from the site.

What I want to see are first hand writings published or not, by Jewish and Ukrainian participants who lived through this period. And closer to the timeframe is better. Writing about something which took place 60-80 years ago is surely different then 5-10 years after the event.

Even in some of the comments I received from Faustian and Malik Shabazz, there are obviuos holes in their reasoning and answers. You can see what I wrote to Shabazz today. He sends me a snippet of the article with incomplete source information so I cannot look it up for myself. As a researcher, that is not acceptable. Let me see all of the material, not just what you think I should see.

Hallersarmy (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, but let me emphasize again that Wikipedia is not about original research No original research which the interpretation of primary documents from 5-10 years after the event would involve. The proper avenue for such activity is to write a paper and get it published. What we use on Wikipedia is analysis of primary documents carried out by others.
 * Also, Malik's a good guy and his words are motivated primarily by the fact that it happens quite often that various users try to remove sourced content from articles simply because they don't like it, and it can be quite annoying to keep track of it, and it's not always obvious who's making changes in good faith and who's just trying to push some ideological POV. The proper response to such warnings is to take them to heart and initiate and engage in discussion on the relevant articles' talk pages. He most likely didn't quote the full article because it is simply too long. Like I said, if you want I can email you a copy of Hagen's article (I'm not sure which email address on the website is yours - you could just turn on your Wikipedia email, under the "My preferences" section on top right of your screen).  Volunteer Marek   00:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Please send copies of the article to the site where you found the żydowskich żołnierzy Hallerczycy. The email is at the bottom of the site's front page. I will get it from whom you send it. Hallersarmy (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Eastern Bloc economies
This article seems very close to GA, perhaps you could take a look? Hopefully soon we will get around to our Economy of the People's Republic of Poland article... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Taking a look at the talk page, I'm not sure how feasible GA status for that article is.  Volunteer Marek   18:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Gdanzig
The Gdanzig/Gdansk decision was an armistice between two irrational parties; it is superseded, except possibly on that city, by WP:NCGN. Nor does it defend your position: we use the name used (in English, preferably) in discussing the place and time concerned: in this case, eighteenth-century Silesia. It is not, and should not be used for, the it's ours too school of editing for either nationality concerned - nor to support bad writing.\

If you revert again, be prepared to explain yourself elsewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Huh? That's the first I hear of the D/G vote being "superseded" by anything. Can you provide a link to a discussion where this was decided? If it doesn't apply then should the templates be removed from the talk pages, along with various names that no longer apply? I also don't see anything in WP:NCGN which would address the issue. Note also that G/D guidelines are pretty specific: "The naming of many places in the region that share a history between Germany and Poland are also a source of edit wars. For these places, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin)." - how much more specific can it be?  Volunteer Marek   19:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, please drop the thinly veiled threats ("If you revert again, be prepared to explain yourself elsewhere.).  Volunteer Marek   19:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well. You claim to know nothing about the development of our practices in this area since 2005. You edit Silesian articles with the effect of making the polonizing case; you begin with an article which has long been a subject of ethnic strife. If you continue, I will propose Mediation, with the goal of removing an ethnic volunteer from this area of contention. That's not a threat; that's a promise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you appear to be incapable of discussion without making threats I am not sure if there's actually a point in continuing this. Rather than making false statements like "You claim to know nothing about the development of our practices in this area since 2005", how about you actually answer my question and show me exactly where the G/D vote was superseded. If this is indeed the case I would very much like to known, since the G/Dv has been extensively used to justify some sketchy insertions across a wide spectrum of articles. And let me remind you, that last time we had a disagreement I actually spoke up against a proposed block for you. But since you appear to insist on being belligerent in these kinds of disagreements, I doubt I'll make that kind of mistake twice.  Volunteer Marek  20:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that you had changed names. Do the other people you deal with know? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What business is that of yours? They obviously know since some of them stalk (and apparently record) my every edit. And please address the question - where exactly is the G/D vote superseded?  Volunteer Marek   20:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It was never intended to apply forever and without modification; it is noted as dated in the following language: It is sometimes common practice in English to use name forms from different language to indicate cultural or political dominance. For example, [[Szczecin is often written as Stettin (the German name) for the period before 1945, likewise Gdańsk is called Danzig (the detailed decisions at Talk:Gdansk/Vote apply to that dispute; they are older than this page). There are other cities for which policy is still debated, such as Vilnius, which in various contexts is referred to as Vilnius, Wilno or Vilna.]] Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ummm, that does not indicate that the vote was superseded. In fact it explicitly states: "the detailed decisions at Talk:Gdansk/Vote apply to that dispute". The statement that "they are older than this page" is not the same as "the vote no longer applies". To the extent that there is ANYTHING in NCGN which is applicable to "other places which share German and Polish history" it's that "It is sometimes common practice in English to use name forms from different language to indicate cultural or political dominance. For example, Szczecin is often written as Stettin (the German name) for the period before 1945". Hence, again, it should be "Waldenburg (Wałbrzych)". There's no disagreement or "superseding" between the GDv and current NCGN guidelines here.  Volunteer Marek   21:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of section: Useful work from energy (exergy) as a driver of growth
a single work should not have its own section unless it's groundbreaking, which this is not) (undo)

What is your familiarity with this work?

I have read countless books on economic growth and written much about the subject of economic history and productivity and have found this to be one of the most important factors. It will be restored with additional material and references added.


 * If you have additional sources which establish that this is a significant theory in the field of economic growth then of course you can put it back in. However, I am pretty familiar with the area and I'm pretty sure it's not.  Volunteer Marek   22:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ayres-Warr worked for the Institute of applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) have written extensively on energy and economics and have provided the best analysis I have seen. Another significant reasercher with IIASA is Cesare Marchetti who is known for using the logistic function for economic enalysis.


 * These people are engineers and physisists, etc. so they have a different insight on economics than the mainstream; however, they can explain Solow's residuial of non-capital non-labor growth that we call technological progress.


 * If you want to read their on line papers they are at links on Productivity improving technologies (historical) and Kondratiev wave, the latter exploring the deceleration of economic growth and the exhaustion of opportunities to improve productivity.


 * The earliest mention of energy as a driver of economic growth that I am familiar with is from David Ames Wells (1891), also noted in the previously cited Wikipedia articles.Phmoreno (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It'd probably be best to take this to WikiProject Economics. Similar issues have risen up before.  Volunteer Marek  23:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

DYKi
Zouaves of Death, Garibaldi Legion - nie zapominaj o kategoriach. Kilka zrodelek i juz bys mial nowe DYKi... why not? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe. Really busy here.  Volunteer Marek   01:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Zouaves I wanted to DYK together with an article on Rochebrune but I don't think I'll have the time.  Volunteer Marek   01:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like to help. Do you think I can? Should we ask somebody? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well it mostly just needs sourcing. Unfortunately I've left my Jasiennica book on JU during Holiday travels, and I'm not sure how much English language stuff there is. I (or you) can bring it up on WP:Poland. I think the general coverage of January Uprising on Wikipedia could use serious improvement.  Volunteer Marek   17:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ay, I don't think I'll have the time to do it. They're both nice subjects (Zuawi and Rochebrune) and I would love for readers to see articles on them featured on the main page. But I simply don't have time to put into making those articles well sourced and well written that I used to. And just dealing with folks like Dr. Dan and Skapperod and the rest is really wearing on me. I was hoping that someone somewhere really was interested in honest to goodness encyclopedic articles and I think I've done my best to accommodate all these .... uh .... individuals. But that ain't the way it works. I don't know, I got other shit to do, if I feel like I need a break from the daily routine I might pay some attention to it. But if not, then who cares, it's just a Wikipedia article.  Volunteer Marek   08:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Zouaves of Death is ready to be DYKed. Garibaldi Legion still needs expansion, will you work on it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, do you have a suggestion for the Zouaves hook? I doubt I'll have time to spend on Garibaldi Legion in the near future. Getting some time to even finish/ref Rochebrune's going to be hard by itself.  Volunteer Marek   20:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure. Just from the first sentences: "...that Zouaves of Death, a Polish military unit of the January Uprising, drew its traditions from the French Zouaves of the Crimean War?" I will see if I can do anything with the Garibaldi or Nullo in the coming days. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * While we're on the topic, any idea of what the copyright status is of photographs of exponents in the Muzeum Wojska Polskiego as found here (in particular, the photos of the uniforms)?   Volunteer Marek   01:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably copyrighted by the photographer, you'd have to get in touch with the article's author to ask for more information. PS. Please consider cc-ing your responses to my userpage so I can get the notification that you made them (or use the talkback template). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding stamps, I looked for a ruling once, and couldn't find it, nor did anybody I talked to knew the answer. If you can find me a proof that I can upload it to Commons, I'd dearly appreciate it.
 * Regarding recent Nullo edits, we had an edit conflict, and I am having some weird trouble importing your edits. Sorry about that, can you see if I missed something and import the changes from your edits? Weird... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Fresh start
Thank you for your message.

We would welcome more information on the Hochbergs; the article could use some. (The statue of Daisy belongs, I think, at Daisy, Princess of Pless; you will have to add it, since only you know what city it's from.)

I still do not think adding Polish names to every hamlet in nineteenth-century Silesia is helpful; the result looks, however it's intended, like a national claim, unhelpful to the anglophone reader - and a cost when it puts up a barricade of parentheses. (Consider what any article on Hellenistic history would look like if it insisted on giving modern names from Byzantium to Alexandria Eschate.) As far as I'm concerned, the Gdanzig armistice is an outer limit, not an entitlement; sometimes, as with biographical articles, it was too generous an outer limit. But actual information, which is not a click away from the article, is another matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, Walbrzych is a bit larger than a hamlet. On the other hand, every single village in Poland, no matter how small, that has some kind of connection to Germany does appear to have to have the German name in it. For example Wanikajmy, Turcz etc. etc. Polish editors have been extremely nice about the sprinkling of German names throughout Poland related articles, partly in fact because they believed the Gdanzig vote was applicable and that was the nature of the compromise. Contrast that with the situation with Lithuanian naming - trying to put a Polish name into any article on Lithuania, even if the connection with Poland is extremely strong, always generates tons of drama, reverting and all kinds of crazy accusations.


 * Personally I don't see any kind of problem with the use of parentheses. It solves the problem at the lowest possible cost. And I think it adds encyclopedic information to the article.


 * Your interpretation of the Gdanzig vote as an outer limit runs into the specific wording of that policy which does say that violations of the vote are to be treated as vandalism. I think you're forgetting the situation that existed before the vote, which was horrible. That is why the wording of the vote is so strong.


 * One particular thing which makes Gdanzig vote work is that it is symmetric and it treats everyone the same (i.e. "fair") - the same rules apply to German names in Polish articles as to Polish names in German articles etc. This is not something that should be messed with. Otherwise you'll have people removing names they don't like, and justifying it one way ("Gdanzig vote doesn't apply") and inserting names they like ("per Gdanzig vote") and all those edit wars and disputes that the Gdanzig vote disappeared are likely to come back.  Volunteer Marek   21:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at it one more time I see that the GDanzig vote rules have actually been included in present naming conventions: "English usage for places within the present borders of Poland is usually the present official name of the place in Polish, but there are exceptions, such as Warsaw, the Vistula and Silesia. When a city or other place is mentioned in a historical context, if there is no common English name for it in that historical period and context, use the appropriate historical name with the current Polish name in parentheses (if it is not the same word) the first time the place is mentioned.".   Volunteer Marek   21:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

EEML redux
Do not give the gutter snipers the luxury of your losing your temper, no matter how appropriate. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 04:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There are occasions where a loss of temper is completely justifiable and this is one of them. I know you're trying to do me a favor and all, but that was about the only rational response to the kind of stuff that Deacon has been pulling lately. Not going to ask you to restore it, but that sentiment is completely legitimate. How else would you put it?  Volunteer Marek   04:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Zouaves of Death
HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Useful work secondary sources
Ayres-Warr were sponsored separately and jointly on various publications by Insead and International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) IIASA publishes a journal.


 * Ok, but how about some journal articles where their model is cited?  Volunteer Marek   17:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please try not to engage in personal attacks against other editors. It is prohibited by Wikipedia policies. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Eh. The comments were in relation to content not any specific editors. If the content is problematic, and then, that reflects on the person in some way, that's not my fault, but the person of posting the content in the first place.  Volunteer Marek   02:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, just look at the original proposed hooks and tell me that's not either dumb-assery or just being sick. WP:SPADE and WP:IAR are still policies you know.  Volunteer Marek   02:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Marek seems right that he commented on the content, not the contributor: after all, he did write "run-of-the-mill dumbassery," rather than something like "you're a run-of-the-mill dumbass." I'm sure his future comments in the DYK thread, however, might take on a more elevated tone. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A nice display of peace-keeping skills, NYB. I would bet that if you would run for Arbcom, then you would get Marek's endorsement as the best candidate! Have you considered running? ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I always try to elevate myself but the milieu keeps dragging me down.  Volunteer Marek   02:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Graciela Chichilnisky: DYK
Hi Marek!

I reviewed the rules, and there's no problem with your completing the DYK nomination. You have no edits on the article, and your improving the hook was exactly what DYK scrutineers are supposed to do.

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right. I ticked it off.  Volunteer Marek   02:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your signature inspired me (and showed me how) to color my signature! Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz   00:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Unref hook problem
. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Added ref.  Volunteer Marek   16:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome
For some time, as far as creating new articles goes, my attitude is that I'll either just write a tiny stub that can be easily 5x-ed to a DYK, or a DYK - anything in between likely ruins the DYKability changes, and it's a shame. I'll try to work on Battle of Grochowiska; and perhaps Battle of Krzykawka. Could you see about the Battle of Miechów? I think you'd be in better position to expand that one than I. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure. Also Apolinary Kurowski might be next, if only because the photo's cool looking.  Volunteer Marek   18:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Takze Michał Heydenreich.  Volunteer Marek   18:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Chetnie pomoge, wspolne nominacje mi sie licza do WP:CUP. Skonczylem rozbudowywac Battle of Grochowiska, jest tu. Maybe an alt hook about the Saint? Can't figure out how to add it to the current one, which I like already... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The saint still needs a citation though that shouldn't be too hard. Nb, the other priest at the battle, from what I understand, was quite a character.  Volunteer Marek   20:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of DYKs, I might have mentioned this before, but you can still sign up for this year's CUP competition. It's easy! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

And on the subject of interesting stories, I found this. I assume you can access the full version. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah I got it. It's pretty interesting. Not sure who this Luigi Caroli is though. Italian wiki has a page on his love interest where he's red linked. I guess Raimondi was the women that came between Caroli and Garibaldi.   Volunteer Marek   18:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Btw, it seems amusing that this Legion was likely 20 people or so... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the thought that counts.  Volunteer Marek   00:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for François Rochebrune
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Useful work: Ayres and Warr speak to economists
http://tv.insead.edu/video/EconomicsPolitics/2/7544

Yeah ok, how about instead of trying to convert me to this theory and convince me of its "rightness" you provide some third party sources which establish it's notability. There's a book, it could be good, it could be bad, from the little I read up on it the dudes have an idea of what they're talking about so it's not completely fringe and quacky. So far so good. But I haven't seen any indication yet that this has had any kind of academic impact outside of this Oil Drum blog/advocacy site. It could be the greatest thing ever in economics, but until it is recognized as such, Wikipedia is about WP:VERIFY not WP:NOTTRUTH. So you still need third party sources...  Volunteer Marek  01:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I added a third prty citation: The International Energy Agency (IEA), who hosts one of their papers on their website. IEA also cites the paper in World Energy Outlook 2004, Ch. 10.Phmoreno (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Redirect: Polska Roma
✅. Thank you for your interest and for efforts in improving Wikipedia. Best regards. --Robsuper (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Please contribute something positive to economic growth
When I first viewed Economic growth I found it a very low quality article. I spent a lot of time and the benefit of hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours of research to create my edits, mainly the sections on productivity, the work week and economic history. You deleted all of that and now the article is in no better shape than it was a few months back.

I have given up editing this for a while, and according to Wikipedia guidelines, a definition, which this article basically is in its peresnt state, is unfit material. Therfore, I am asking you, or someone else, I don't care who, to fix it. If no one else fixes it, I will evventually do a re-edit, but if you delete that, please replace it with something else, because you will then be the "owner".

CheersPhmoreno (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that it was and still is a low quality article. However, the text you are inserting does not belong in the lede and the other part has no third party sources to back it up.  Volunteer Marek   22:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I addressed the third party issue with another citation. Now, prove that you are actually capable of wirting some high quality content.Phmoreno (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, the thing you are not getting is that this is a piece of work which has not been widely cited or accepted by mainstream economists or physicists. It seems that Ayers et all wrote and published a book about it but it has had next to none influence on academic work on the subject, although it's been picked up for political reasons by some advocacy blogs, one of which you appear to be a member.
 * If you want to discuss the merits of the model then actually I wouldn't mind if you emailed me personally with the relevant subject matter. I read some of the works referenced but having a succinct "baseline" outline of the work would be of interest. While paying attention to this topic I looked through quite a number of works but was never able to find an actual statement of the model (as opposed to general and usually exaggerated claims about the models' veracity - this is another thing that makes me quite skeptical about it - a lot of claims about how great this model is, but very little about what it actually is, which is generally a feature of late night infomercials). If you really think there's something to it, send me the model. Aside from basic arithmetic which I've always been horrible with, my maths are pretty good so throw in all the differential equations, the matrix algebra or even the physics that it takes.
 * But that's for me personally. For Wikipedia purposes you still need to come up with works which cite the model. Third party sources and so on. The fact that there was some sponsorship does not count.  Volunteer Marek   04:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Urgent need to update of the page Polska_(disambiguation)
I started editing the Polska_(disambiguation). Project is located in my sandbox. Feel free to edit it. --Robsuper (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Which one is the "better" version, the long one or the current short one? I guess you could put in "Polska kielbasa" in there too. I'll keep an eye on it and if anything jumps out at me I'll let you know.   Volunteer Marek   17:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. I myself have quickly realized that detail exactly in a place like this is harmful, even ridiculous. Very quickly corrected the draft, as ordered sense: only the main concepts directly related to the topic. Disambiguation may not in itself be an encyclopedia or dictionary. I can see the effect on the hand. I hope this is the correct disambiguation page. BTW, I created a disambiguation page for the subject Rzeczpospolita. Thanks for your attention. Regards. --Robsuper (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Griefswald
Want a source that speaks about research about its Slavic roots? ;) --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, but it is true that *some* of these towns went into decline during the troubles of the 10th-12th century and were rebuilt afterward. Still, the "uninhabited wilderness" (you know, like North America was a "uninhabited wilderness" before Europeans got there) description in the town's article strikes me as someone's wishful thinking.  Volunteer Marek   01:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Grochowiska
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   06:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Invite
The project is somewhat moribund at present and could do with the help of capable, neutral and conscientious editors. Please don't feel under any obligation. In any case, thanks for your recent contributions to Romani-related articles. RashersTierney (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I added my name. My overall knowledge of the subject matter is pretty spotty and I mostly just know some stuff about the Roma in Poland.  Volunteer Marek   17:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. The main criterion is a willingness to help improve these articles. Welcome aboard! RashersTierney (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Krzykawka
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

ZFI
Hi, please be careful not to use edit summaries like undid revision XYZ when you in fact changed the text rather than reverting per se, I was almost going to press the revert button myself. Apart from that, the difference between your last two revisions shows an improvement. Nevertheless, I don't know how accurate it is to summarize the source as Stephen E. Atkins has stated that the ZFI is a Holocaust denial institution when he actually just says it's a 'Holocaust institute'. True, he also adds later that Schickel has 'cautiously included the Auschwitz lie thesis into his writings', perhaps that's the way how to put it, given that Schickel's name is mentioned in the article anyway. Regards, --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 21:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's in a section entitled "German Holocaust deniers" and it is obvious from the context - he is discussing German Holocaust denying organizations and mentions ZIF there. There's other stuff on Schickel out there as well, some of it in German. As far the revision goes - I also explained what I did in the edit summary.  Volunteer Marek   21:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflicts at Shapley Folkman
Please don't save anything for 10-15 minutes. I want to reply to TCO's comments.

(Edit conflicts torture me!)

Thanks Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry. No problem.  Volunteer Marek   10:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I finished. Thanks for your patience and politeness. Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you are the author of this article
You might look at Ingo Haar article-there seems some pushing towards entering "criticism" by very dubious sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I already saw it and edited it.  Volunteer Marek   17:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Some Small Potatoes to Fry
This is just small potatoes but Christoph Bergner does not know what he is talking about. He claimed that the Schieder Commission determined that 2 million died in the expulsions. Bergner is wrong, Schieder was not the author of the 1958 study. The study was prepared by Horstmann, Neller and Bohmann, of the Statistics Division. I am looking at the book now, Schieder’s name is not there! I no have doubt that Schieder ,Horstmann, Neller and Bohmann were drinking buddies after hours in Bonn but that is neither here nor there on Wikipedia. --Woogie10w (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yo Marek man, I sent you an E-mail, check out your mailbox--Woogie10w (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Marek check this out Don’t blame me, In 1933 my father was a Pennsylvania coal miner and my mom a waitress in Atlantic city. They both voted for FDR and supported the New Deal!--Woogie10w (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, the New York Public Library has an excellant collection in German. After my research I plan to go to my favotite Jewish Deli for a Chopped liver sandwich. They call it gehakte leber. --Woogie10w (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Your question
I remember that you asked somewhere who Buske is. CDU politician who received award from one of the sub-organisations of the BdV headed by Steinbach. He studied theology. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected page
The page in question was 'semied' until the 7th. Almost certainly it's a single disruptive editor on a number of related IPs and an apparent disposable account. If disruption continues I'll open an SPI. RashersTierney (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Ciudad Juarez, Tom Mix
Um, I finally took the time to consult McLynn's book. He mentions voluminous dispatches fr/ the battle, but NEVER a specific source. The biographies of Viljoen & Garibaldi lend credence to their participation. Mix on the other hand, was a notorious self-mythologizer. So, unless you or someone else can produce reliable documentation for Mix's participation, I'm going to delete the reference. In addition, there's no independent verification for Viljoen, so that may have to go also. Tapered (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The McLynn book is itself a reliable source. If you want to add stuff on Mix and his self-mythologizing then get some sources and add it in. It makes no sense to remove stuff though.  Volunteer Marek   18:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You can't just say "the McLynn book by itself is a reliable source." He wasn't AT the battle. He cites unnamed sources. Um, is anything about this unclear? Tapered (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Ummm, yes I can. It's a published academic work. He cites numerous sources in the bibliography. If we wrote about battles based only on eyewitness testimony we'd 1) be using primary sources, which we don't do in an encyclopedia and 2) have very few battles to write about.
 * And if you're not finding "independent verification" then you're not looking hard enough, .  Volunteer Marek   18:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Um (really needs only one m, please refer to discussion section article for origin), fair enough. I'm going to check footnote #27 fr/ Scheina. If it references McLynn, or anything other than original sources, adios Mix. His article here @ Wikipedia and the links fr/ the article abundantly document Mix's self-aggrandizing promotion. That is the reason I want him out of the article on the battle, unless the documentation is unimpeachable. It dishonors the peones who fought and died there. Try a google search for all the hot air Mix blew about himself. It's good for a day. I'm glad we're documenting this. I'm betting that Scheina's source isn't primary. Tapered (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What you actually need is a source which questions Mix's presence at the battle explicitly. See WP:RS, WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTTRUTH. My ummms are special kind of um that require several mmms.  Volunteer Marek   21:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If it exists, it will be done. You're the best versed dubious editor I've run across. If it turns out to be factual, my bad. Tapered (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't actually care one way or another except that it is a notable aspect of the battle and it is mentioned in many sources so it should be in there. So keep your insults to yourself.  Volunteer Marek   01:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Mix was an inveterate self-promoter, a fact most knowledgeable Yankees know. Perhaps the knowledge isn't the same everywhere. He created all sorts of myths about himself, embodying some of the worst of our national tendency to view life as salesmanship. A compromise might be to take his picture out of the article. He was, almost certainly, a less important contributor than the others mentioned. To see Mix's face, at one time so ubiquitous, instead of thousands of more deserving faces distracts from the article IMLTHO. Your quote of ummm started the insults, and when battle is joined I'm relentless. So don't insult unless you're ready to be a recipient. Giving Mix a prominent place in this article is mediocre editing, at best. Tapered (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Assistance regarding economic history
I would be most greatefull if you would contribute regarding objective view of Frederick manipulations of economy in the article, I tried to insert a counter-view from publication of University of Washington, sadly it has been removed. Do you have any sources and information you could add. As of know the article is highly biased and repeats the "Frederick myth".--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I indicated one source on the talk page. The others I would have to look for.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * More generally, yeah, there are portions of this article that are written in an over the top "gushing" tone more reminiscent of how people write about Justin Bieber or some other modern pop star, which are clearly non-encyclopedic and NPOV. There's also a bit of strangely ... "archaic", language - did a lot of it originate with EB1911?Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Walki partyzanckie na Pomorzu
A rarity, regular preview of a Polish language book:. Enjoy, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Price elasticity of demand page
Hi Marek,

My principal concern with the page as it stood before stemmed from the sentence (other changes follow by corollary from this):

" The percentage change in total revenue is equal to the percentage change in quantity demanded plus the percentage change in price. (One change will be positive, the other negative".

This would mean that if the quantity change was -100% (i.e. quantity sold became zero) and the price change was +25% then the page (as I found it) would predict the percentage change in total revenue as -75%. This is not possible when zero products are being sold.

Equally, if the quantity change was -50%, the price change +25% then the page as it stood when I found it stated that revenue change should be -25%. But if the original quantity is 100 and the original price 100, then 50 products at price 125 gives 6250 revenue, not the 7500 predicted by the formula I updated.

If I have misunderstood I would be very grateful if you were able to explain briefly where. If I haven't heard from you within a reasonable period I hope you will think it reasonable if I revert the page back again.

Many thanks,

Tom

Tfll (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're getting at. The formula that %dTR=%dP+%dQ is for "small changes" - i.e. it comes from calculus. If TR=PQ then dTR=P*dQ+dP*Q and you get the formula. It's a "local" result. For "large" discrete changes the %dTR=(P(new)*Q(new))/(P(old)*Q(old))-1 which would get you the -100% you're looking for in your example. In your example with the -50% and +25% scale the changes down proportionally and the arthimetic result will approach the formula result. IIRC there was some effort on the article and it's talk to clarify this aspect since it is a perennial source of confusion for economics students. Maybe you should bring it up on talk again as it's an important issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

OK - cheers, talk added. Tfll (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pomeranian Griffin
Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree
I agree with your AE comment. It might be logical to ban every editor who made at least one revert in this article during last six months. However banning people who never edited this article or improved it without causing anyone's objections was highly unproductive. Biophys (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a nice way of putting it. It was/is just dumb.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Pomerania during the Early Middle Ages
Hi. :) Are you able to help me identify the passages you find problematic in this article? Without some indication, I'm afraid that the Close paraphrasing issue will be impossible for me to resolve. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I just went through and reworded the remaining potentially problematic parts myself. The section on "Society under Wartislaw I" is still a little too close for comfort for me - the words are different but the paragraph and sentence structure follows the text - but I think it's probably sufficient from a copyvio point of view.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'll mark the situation resolved at WP:CP. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Duchy of Pomerania? Same situation. Can you help? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's actually the same text, which was then copy/pasted into several articles. I'll reword it per the other one, in just a little bit (got to run errands right now).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Me again. :) I think the one you rewrote was Pomerania during the High Middle Ages; Pomerania during the Early Middle Ages is still tagged. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to get the book from the library again - it should be here soon. Or I could just rewrite it "blind" but at the moment I'm a little wary of doing that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, more or less done.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiGuides
The WP Foundation has initiated a project to improve the initial contact that a new editor recieves. User:Jane Peppler is one of the participants. Thanks for your encouraging response to her edits. Buster Seven   Talk  19:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, the topic is an interesting one. Also can you fix the link to the WikiGuides project? I'd be interested in taking a look.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ Buster Seven   Talk 


 * Thanks!Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Amusingly enough
Re: - it seems that the problem was not in being forced to move, but in being prevented from doing so. The forced aspect is probably limited to that fact that it was the territorial change that was forced; repatriations of late 1940s and 1950s were quite different from deportations of late 1939 and early 1940s... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It was both, depending on who you were and yeah, when they got around to you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a ref that somebody was forced to leave, please add it. I checked the repatriation of Poles articles, if briefly. Also, an expansion on the reasons for the repatriation (reasons for the territorial changes) could be warranted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At the moment I can just point to the Redrawing Nations book which speaks about "Lithuania, Belorussia, and Ukraine" together, generally. However, when I was looking stuff up yesterday there was a source which stated that in Lithuania, Poles with low education were seen as ripe for "Lithuanization" and hence forced to stay, while the educated ones were seen as potential trouble, and thus forced to leave. I'll try to find it again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Were you able to? It does match some of what I have read, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Your orange sig
I liked it, it made it easy to find your posts. Why did you stop using it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't wanna gloat too much. There's Tide fans on Wikipedia too, they're good people, and it'd would be unseemly of me to rub it in too much, even if one particular individual out of all of them did poison our tree. I'll go back to the orange and blue when my football team starts sucking again. In the meantime, what do you think, yellow, green, red? Or go with the Schwarz auf Weiß?Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. My choice of green was mostly random... :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

WQA
Your WQA thread is still open, and I've commented there if you'd like to take a look. If you'd like to just let it go, just say the word and we'll close it. Regards  Swarm   X 21:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Gdansk/Danzig
Thanks for the link, I was unaware of the ongoing discussion (it wasn't personal anyway, so I'm not too worried), and will suitably defer. One option I didn't see mentioned there was mentioning in this specific case the name Danzig as a historical name/ the German name in a sentence in the lede, rather than directly suggesting it's an alternative. Then at least we could do it some justice. If there is a nationalistic thing going on, then perhaps that could be a compromise? Something like at St Petersburg? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well Gdansk/Danzig is a bit of a special case, for better or worse. I think including the fact that "Danzig" was a historical name would certainly be fine in the text. I'm not so sure if it belongs in the lede but that is something that can be discussed on naming policy page - problem is that it opens up a can of worms in regard to other places (should the lede of the article on Vilnius state that "Wilno" and "Vilna" are historical names?). These kind of discussions always need outside and levelheaded participants so I hope you participate (here's a link again ).Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche
Hi VM, I've trawled through Google Scholar and brought up some academic sources that call LaRouche an economist, in addition to the various media sources. Have a look at them, and see what you think. I tried to avoid the ones that I know are LaRouche's own publications. Cheers, -- JN 466  18:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you again. I had resigned myself to the likely outcome of the RfC, and removed the economist label, but now see that LaRouche, under the pen name Lyn Marcus, authored a book, Dialectical economics : an introduction to Marxist political economy (1975) (entry at archive.org), published by D. C. Heath and Company (Lexington, Massachusetts), which was reviewed in the American Economic Review, published by the American Economic Association.

The book has citations in Google Scholar and in Google Books.

To my mind, this changes things, and I feel less happy to let the matter drop. Surely, having your work reviewed in the American Economic Review, which according to our article on it is one of the most prestigious journals in the field, counts for something. Add to that the fact that he was considered quite an important economist by various Latin American governments, according to reliable sources, and I feel uncomfortable not calling him an economist. -- JN 466  04:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at the AER book review that may be something but I'd want to read the actual thing first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The book itself is available as a pdf at the archive.org link. -- JN 466  04:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just checked the issue of AER (1976). It's not a book review. It's an advertisement by the publisher. The "An unprecedented approach to Marx's method and economic theory," is just the publisher's blurb, nothing more.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for checking. That changes things of course. -- JN 466  22:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Question at EW
Since it relates quite closely to the recent incident you are involved in, you may be interested in this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement restrictions: Eastern Europe
In application and enforcement of Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, in consequence of this AE request, you are You can appeal the ban as described at Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, but if you disregard the ban before it is successfully appealed or lifted, you may be blocked without further warning.  Sandstein  07:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * banned for six months from editing articles to change, remove or add names (including translations) in a Eastern European language with respect to a subject that the same article already designates with a name in another Eastern European language. This includes names in other pages that are displayed as part of the article, such as categories, images or templates, and it also forbids moving articles that have a name in a Eastern European language to a name in another language. For the purpose of this ban, "Eastern European language" includes German;
 * warned not to express what sounds like nationalist prejudice ("Polish editors, unlike Lithuanian ones, actually follow policy").
 * while I have deep disagreements with VolunteerMarek over content this puts the arbitrary in arbitration. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think this makes it a hat trick for Sandstein in the past month.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get the sport reference... help? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Uno
 * Dos
 * Tres.
 * Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hockey, single individual scoring three goals in one game. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sanction vacated
The sanction is vacated for the reasons described here and replaced with a warning: Please do not continue nationalist edit wars by others, and do not engage in a pattern of apparently nationalistically motivated name-changing (which I assume is the case if an editor systematically adds or removes one particular nationality or language to or from multiple articles).  Sandstein  06:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)