User talk:Volunteer Marek/Archives/2008/October

Missed one.
Thanks for undoing an act of vandalism, but vandals are often sneaky. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 23:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Persistent, disruptive editing by User:Vision_Thing
Hi Radeksz, please leave a message here.  Wik idea  11:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wolak
see here: Forced Out: The Fate of Polish Jewry in Communist Poland By Arthur J. Wolak Published by Arthur Wolak, 2004 He's not a historian. He runs a merchandise business. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Being a businessman does not mean one is not a historian. Historians can have more than one hats (i.e. they can have side-businesses and such). Also, are you sure that's the same person? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the Piotrus Polish cabal :)
See your name mentioned here. My apologies that you've been dragged into this mess.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Talk:%C5%BBydokomuna. I am sad to hear this, but not that surprised. But there is hope: my arbcom is about those very thing - about good, civil content editors harassed and chased away. Please consider presenting some evidence (what posts made you give up?), and commenting on relevant workshop proposals (I believe you'll find the following highly relevant: Asking for input is not canvassing or forum shopping and below it, Wikipedia is not a battleground, There is no Polish cabal or tag team, Civil content creators are harassed and chased off by tag teams, The big picture: what this all is about, Specific editors restricted, Specific editors vindicated and possibly, User:Boodlesthecat has been uncivil and disruptive and Boodles is restricted. PS. Another avenue you may want to take is WP:AE, where you can list examples of incivility and invoke "Digwuren" anti-battleground creation sanctions. There is hope - please, don't give up. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As I indicated I don't really have time to get too involved in all this. And I didn't mean that I'm going to completely stay away from Wikipedia. Just particular users. If you want to cite something I said in the arbcom, please feel welcome to do so. Also if you need a comment on something specific, please let me know.radek (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Specific... I'd appreciate if you could read and comment on the several workshop proposals I noted above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Radek--on the subject of "harrassed and chased away," welcome to the world of Piotrus' "cabal!" Just for your own background, Piotrus  very first contact with me was when he flagrantly abused his admin authority by threatening to block me for removing his supporter Greg's vicious antisemitic rant (note that removal of this creepy BLP violation by his ally Greg was ultimately upheld despite his bullying threats of a block. That was Piotrus' "welcome, friend" to me! There is a months-long unbroken thread from that very first abusive contact to his sneaky canvassing for edit warriors for the Zydokomuna article that you (I'm sure in good faith) responded to, and literally hundreds of malicious, underhanded, abusive tactics in the interim. So, sorry you have found yourself in a maelstrom--just wanted to give you some context. My own unscientific amateurish ranting theorizing on just why Piotrus has waged this vendetta against me can be partially gleaned from here, if you wish to torture yourself further.
 * I am not in the habit of trying to ingratiate myself with editors or anybody who I feel is "against" me; I take full responsibility for my words and actions, and will not try to "wiggle out" of them with manipulative justifications to win anyone to my "side." But I do feel some sincere regrets that you have been sucked into this. I would much prefer that we could have good old fashioned civilized heated arguing and yelling rather than have to operate within the poisoned atmosphere that, in my view, Piotrus (with the support of some even more uncivil allies) has created. In my own editing, I've been accused of being anti-everything at one time or another (including being called anti-semitic--and a Saudi agent (a favorite)), so I know such intimations are not pleasant. It was only Greg that I have directly accused of anti-semitism, as to everyone else, I am merely keeping to my contention that many articles were tinged and distorted with antisemitic notions (often of the archiac zydokomuna variety, ironically). I have "accused" editors of propagating and defending those distortions in wikipedia, to the extent (like Piotrus) they have used underhanded and maliciously aggressive tactics in defense of those views. Other than Greg (who a number of admins and editors have accused of being a bonafide antisemite) I make no judgement on anyone's personal convictions on the matter, which can indeed be distinct from their ill-informed attempts to persist in keeping archiac, biased views, that they might truly think are valid, in Wikipedia. So thats where I stand, with no apologies for my views, but apologies if I have been unduly harsh personally towards you in the crossfire. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Piotrus very first contact with me was..." in fact, it was this warning, two days earlier... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, i stand corrected--Piotrus began defending the vicious antisemite Greg two days earlier. And now that a number of admins and editors have agreed that Greg is an inveterate antisemite and troll, Piotrus is still defending him. Five solid months defending an un-repentent bigot, and threatening editors who dare speak up against such sleaze. I'm sure Piotrus is very proud of himself. A real model administrator! Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Stalin's intro
You keep placing info about Stalin's fault and Polish invasion in WW II. It should not be in the intro...you should keep it under WWII section, why do you keep reverting everytime? Seektrue (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

''Saying it has to be sourced is not enough, Everything has to be sourced in the article, but it's not important enough 'cause its subjective, some might support it and some might refute it...The same could not be said for the one before. You should mention this part in the WWII section. It has no place in the intro We could say that he joined the RSD in 1898 but again that's not important enough to place at the start. I'm discussing it on the talk page Seektrue (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Prize
Why should I care about what you "think" and what you "think" is "obvious"? All other Nobel articles are introced with a pic of a notable leaurate, so why shouldn't the Prize in Economics also be introduced in that fashion. --Hapsala (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You might want to check the guidelines on civility.radek (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, but why are you so negative to the image of one of the most notable leaurates (which was certainly not the first to be awarded the price)? --Hapsala (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

krugman
1. your rationale regarding a misunderstanding by non-economists doesn't explain why you removed the first paragraph about the article from The Economist. That doesn't have to do with the paragraph below I see no reason why that should be deleted


 * Actually I restored another user's deletions which seem justified to me at the time. If there was some useful info removed along with it, feel free to restore it.radek (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

2. your explanation for removal on the grounds that it was a minor misunderstanding by non-economists is unfair. just because the criticisms are brought up by "non-economists" means they are suddenly invalid? only those who have advanced education in economics are capable of understanding what he writes and the rest are mere simpletons? it is properly cited and had been on the page for a long time. it was only removed after he won the nobel prize in what I assume was an attempt to hide valid criticisms of him. Willcoop (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, when the criticisms are brought up by "non-economists", who do not understand economics, regarding economics, and who are criticizing an economist (and a very accomplished one at that), then yes, the criticisms are invalid. But in fact it's worse than that here. The other mere simpletons can perfectly understand Krugman's columns, although it may take a bit of research and looking up some numbers. These critics didn't even bother to do that. As to the timing of the removal and reasons for it. It was probably removed right after he got the prize (and like I said, I'm not the one who originally removed it, though I agree with it) because obviously once he got the prize the article got more attention. Also I don't think it was an attempt to hide, well, invalid, criticisms of him, just to remove some invalid ones, per undue weight. I got no problems with valid criticisms of Krugman. In fact I think that mixing invalid criticisms with valid ones tends to, unfortunately, undercut the credibility of the latter. So it's really to the critics benefit to seperate the wheat from the shaft and remove similar material.

I put The Economist part back in. I'll agree to disagree on the second point and will not attempt to add that back to the article.Willcoop (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Economic inequality
Thanks for your corrections in my little contribution to that article. My English may be a bit too "Germanic", so perhaps there are more mistakes. Regards from Munich --DL5MDA (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)