User talk:Volunteer Marek/Archives/2008/November

A couple of things
I started Money demand a week or so ago, which rather bizarrely was a redirect to Money supply. I saw this on your To Do list when I visited just now. It's just a stub, but if you have time to work on it that would be great.

Also, I wonder if you'd mind taking a look at Economic freedom, where there is something of an edit war developing. From my perspective, a WP:OWNer is trying to exclude all viewpoints but that of rightwing thinktanks. However, I think the article would benefit from multiple perspectives.JQ (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Belgium
Best laugh I've had today. Might mean I need to get out more, thanks anyway. C RETOG 8(t/c) 02:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

HCM Brigade
You are welcome and I thank you as well because I learned a lot as I was looking for source material. Cheers, --W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Special Courts
Death sentences existed even in 1939. See Stanisław Salmonowicz, Polskie Państwo Podziemne, Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne, Warszawa, 1994, ISBN 930205500X for details. But they were military - issued by military (ZWZ) courts for military treason. It was only around 1942/1943 that the Underground State had finished creating and organizing the civilian courts, which had the authority to deal with szmalcownicy and similar crimes (earliest known underground civilian courts date to mid-1941); around summer 1942 most legal framework was created and in December 1942 the Civilian Special Courts which focused on crimes against Jews were created. Salmoniwicz notes that "they played a major if late role in the fight against szmalcownicy"). PS. I think that entire topic should be moved to the government section of the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I was just going by the Zimmerman reference. The whole section is getting really long and probably should be split per your suggestion.radek (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And please, if you can, add refs to the end of each sentence, and if possible, don't forget about page numbers.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

" which essentially opearted on behalf of Poles only"
you removed that phrase from the article, saying "source doesn't qualify." Please look here, where you can see it is taken directly from the source ("the "underground state" was essentially for Poles only"). I would appreciate it if you would restore this properly sourced information. Thank you. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This phrase doesn't make sense to me. Is "Poles" defined? Underground State was for all pre-war Polish citizens - even the ones who didn't really accept it (like German or Ukrainian minorities, who refused to participate in the gov't in exile structures).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of reliably sourced info
Please restore this reliably sourced information you removed. You have cited no violation of Wikipedia policy in removing it, only your own personal opinion (which no one has even agreed with, not that personal opinions are what counts.) You seriously need to not remove reliable sourced material without a reason based on Wikipedia policy or guidelines to justify it. Thank you. Boodlesthecat Meow? 06:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The reasons for the removal were articulated numerous times on the talk page. There is no need for a reason based on Wikipedia policy or guideline to justify it as it is simply a question of basic numeracy and knowing what a percentage is.radek (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's ridiculous. Your disruptive editing will not stand scrutiny. Boodlesthecat Meow? 07:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your saying "that's ridiculous" does not make it so, nor does it change the fact that a percentage has to be a percentage of something. If you feel very strongly about this perhaps you should try editing here and get a consensus on that page first.radek (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My dear ally
As your dear ally I feel obliged to bring this mention of you to your attention :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ale uwazaj na zasade trzech rewertow - byloby glupio jakbys dostal bloka. Moze wez sobie kilka dni odpoczynku od tego artykulu? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For the suspicious watching eyes, in order to save you the trouble of Google translation, Piotrus says: "Be careful with the 3RR rule - it'd be stupid if you got blocked. Maybe take a few days of rest away from that article?". Much like Malik does here for Boodles . But somehow in this instance it's a big deal (apparently even to users who understand what Piotrus said). Just like I get blocked (despite the fact that a 3RR violation did not take place) but the Malik-Boodles tag team gets off scot-free. And just like I get charged with "incivility" for just once referring to Malik's obstinate, unexplained (an assertion is not an explanation) removal of my edit as "vandalism". But Boodles and Malik are civil and honourable man:, .radek (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)