User talk:Volunteer Marek/Archives/2009/April

Vilnija and P-L relations
Re:. I wonder if leaving this in may not be a good illustration of the "one side" in the discussion... it is clearly attributed and clarified as unreliable. At the very least, should we move this claim to Vilnija? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotta love the level arguments of some represent: sigh.... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

At this point it's not even an argument just straight forward obscurantism.radek (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with this: if no sources can be provided to back those claims up, they should be removed. I looked and couldn't find any myself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree with this as well. In particular Paviržis most likely doesn't belong on that list (I'm basing that on this, under Kwiecien).radek (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am afraid the ref for zz is unreliable - its simply a mirror of Wikipedia article . And I would like to see a translation for Voruta ref; as far as I know it is not owned by Vilnija, just sympathetic and often printing interviews with KG in which he makes anti-Polish statements. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, it seems you're right. For Vorkuta though - that just means it needs to be rewritten. This doesn't mention Vorkuta by name but it sounds like that's what it's talking about.radek (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also this states "Organ Towarzystwa, tygodnik Voruta" and "Poglądy Vilniji, utrzymującej się z dotacji państwowych".radek (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest discussing Voruta at Voruta (newspaper) or at Talk:Vilnija. I've even started a thread on talk - I suggest we can discuss evidence of how closely it is related to Vilnija there. As for Vilnija receiving funds from Lithuanian government, it is interesting, but both need reliable refs. How reliable is "abcnet.com"? If we don't ask those questions, you can be sure others will... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleting Historical Comments
Please replace the historical comments. They are important historical criticisms of the federal reserve system by some of the nation's leading intellectuals, economists and politicians. They add context to current events and allow for fair representations of cases for and against a federal reserve institution. While I can understand perhaps limiting the quotes to former presidents or participants in the federal banking system, eliminating all quotes all but eliminates any discussion against the federal reserve system. One might make the same argument that descriptions of the federal reserve can be copied and pasted from reserve.gov - I'm not clear on the argument that all quotes should be removed, nor does that seem consistent with other moderator philosophies or anything I can find in the guidelines. Lastly, you indicated that the quotes should be moved to wikiquotes - if that is the case - move them - don't just simply delete them to the extent that they are simply removed from the web. They play in important role in the debate around today's financial crisis and we frequently utilize them to provide perspectives in the classroom - David R Bayer - PHD Columbia University - Department of Economics. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popzwall1 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Extensive quotes don't belong in Wiki articles but in Wikiquote. It would be fine to summarize these statements in text and link to them as sources. But so many quotes all over the place the article just looks like a mess.radek (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why paraphrasing quotes from authorities would provide greater value than the quotes themselves. If anything it leaves room for misinterpretation and misrepresentation. It would be great if you would reconsider. Do you have any official moderator reference points you can direct me to that indicate that quotes are not necessary or is this simply your personal moderator opinion? Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popzwall1 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Do you have any official moderator reference points you can direct me to that indicate that quotes are not necessary or is this simply your personal moderator opinion?"

Well it's a bit of both. First the officialness:. In particular this part ''Editors should remember that Wikipedia is, at its core, an encyclopedia, and not an opportunity to list the best and worst quotations pertaining to an article's subject. If there are many quotations, please move them to Wikiquote and place a Wikiquote template on the article to inform readers that there are relevant quotations regarding the subject.'' If it was one or two quotes then it'd be different. But this is just quote, after quote, after quote. It's not encyclopedic and, yes, personally I also find that it makes for harder reading. If I (and presumably other readers who visit an encyclopedia) want to read/find quotes then I go to Wikiquote which is what it's there for. But I, and others, come to the Wikipedia to read articles, not quotes. Please note that this really doesn't have anything to do with the content of the quotes themselves, at least at this point in the editing.radek (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And you are lynching Negroes
Radeksz, you have reverted several edits to this article without stating a reason and while there is active discussion on the talk page. Looks like there is genuine disagreement here and you have so far not explained your several reverts. This is not acceptable. In the absence of a convincing explanation, your activities suggest the need for this article to be tagged as the ongoing dispute is not being resolved amicably, and certainly not to my satisfaction for the reasons stated in my comments on the article talk page. I am a longtime editor at Wikipedia and am offended by the way this article is currently written. If agreement can not be reached on its rewording, then I intend to tag it as a disputed article, bring in other editors, and get it cleaned up. Reverts without discussion are not the way to persuade me or anyone else of your perception, your WP:POV.Skywriter (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The "active discussion" really started after my revert. I replied on the talk page.radek (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Białystok pogrom
Once again, great job! Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Please consider nominating such articles for T:TDYK. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! And I was planning on nominating it for DYK but I've misplaced a few refs I used for the article and was trying to re-find them before nominating it.radek (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop trying to hide Genocide, please
What are you trying to do? Hide historic facts?

You can erase words, but you cannot change history:

The Benes-Decrees are the legalisation of Genocide, they legalize murder, rape, theft and torture; approx. 2.0 Million people were murdered during the Ethnic Cleansing committed by Poles and Czechs.

The Genocide, which happened on behalf of Benes, and which he tried to legalize in the Benes decrees, is very well documented and researched.

One of the sources i stated is Prof. Alfred de Zayas (Harvard-Alumno, Prof. for International Law, UN-Commission for Human Rights, Geneva/Switzerland) who thorougly researched Czech and Polish crimes and Ethnic Cleansing, and if someone tries to cancel a source like Prof. Dr. Alfred de Zayas, it means nothing less than denying a Genocide.

If you continue to delete reliable sources, you will receive a warning.

greetings

PeterBln (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No one's trying to deny anything - whether true or not. I was just removing highly POV language which you are intent on inserting into the article. "Genocide" for example has a specific legal definition as does "crimes against humanity". As far as your source, first, Zayas is a very controversial researcher, to say the least. Second, I don't think even his work quite supports the highly charged POV language you are trying to include in the article.radek (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Karmaisking
I've run into some trouble by being goaded into an over-reaction against persistent troll and sockpuppeteer Karmaisking. I'm going to leave him alone for a while, but you might want to watch some of his target pages, most recently John Maynard Keynes and perhaps add a comment at User talk:Nja247.JQ (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Of interest?
Based on your comment here, I think the following discussion may be of interest to you: this thread and the one below it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Białystok pogrom
Hello. Thank you for your note. I'll take a look at the article and get back to you with any thoughts. — Malik Shabazz 05:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Double-check the sources. I think the pogrom started on 1 June, not 14 June. — Malik Shabazz 05:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good catch. One source does say the 14th as does Polish wiki for some reason.radek (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's the difference between the Julian and the Gregorian calendars: . A 13 day difference accounts exactly for the disparity.radek (talk) 05:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm sure you're right. I'll do a little copy-editing on the article, but in general it seems good. — Malik Shabazz 06:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Apolinary Hartglas
Radek, I'm speechless... Thank you again for another great article you created.--Jacurek (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks again. Last few days of spring break, had some free time. I doubt I can keep it up and anyways, it was mostly just based on Polish wiki. What I'd really like is to find a picture for it somewhere.radek (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Tec Article
Hi - You'll find that if you reread the article, your changes messed up a hyperlink. I'll fix this hyperlink for now; I merely reverted it due to this problem. Thanks. The Fire  Tones  23:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem (I didn't write the sentence). The  Fire  Tones  23:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Woohoo! Thanks!radek (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Long overdue ! Thanks Tymek for taking care of this.--Jacurek (talk) 05:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Częstochowa Ghetto Uprising
Sorry Radek for messing up...I don`t know what I was doing..I will let you work on it first.--Jacurek (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Andrzej Stelmachowski
Replied on my talk page. Re: Andrzej Stelmachowski, what I'm really looking for is confirmation that he has died. I came across the article as part of a check on people added to Category:2009 deaths, and while the Polish hits I got from Google did seem to confirm it, I couldn't be 100% sure. So an obituary ref placed next to his death date would be good. Carcharoth (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And I see you've already done that. Thanks! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Šalčininkai...
I think we should copy to en wiki. A much more productive endaveour, I'd think... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. Do we copy these one by one or is there a quick way to do it?radek (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, perhaps you could ask User:Kotniski. He has a bot that may be suitable for this task. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Battles of Medieval Poland
Thank you for your help! My English is not perfect, so I first write an article, then work on it. But your help is great and I appreciate. Thank you once again! belissarius (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Monetae cundendae ratio
Po polsku to dzieło zwie się "O sposobie bicia monety" i chyba inaczej się tego przetłumaczyć nie da. Myślę też, że tłumaczenie w artykule na en:wiki jest zupełnie sensowne. Pozdrawiam serdecznie belissarius (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * One more explanation: cudendae comes from cudens, which do not appears in the Classic Latin. It is Medieval Latin word for "minting", that's why you could'nt find it in any of the Latin dictionaries. The Medieval Latin is very different and much more difficult then classic one. I had many problems with this studying history at the University. Fortunately my father (expert in the classical philology) knew everything about it. If I can help in the future, do not hesitate to ask :) belissarius (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Medieval battles
Once again thanks for your help! belissarius (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Polish Light Horse
It looks like we both - in the very same moment - started to ad some references? :) I appresiate your great help! belissarius (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks! belissarius (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical and "Alternate Names" in the "Lead" of WP Articles
As a result of our ongoing attempt to come to a compromise on the subject of alternate and historical names in the leads of various articles concerning cities and towns in the former PLC, I have to ask you if this will ultimately become just another can of worms, with open season on the names of Polish and Lithuanian geographical toponyms. Since an anonymous editor,...74.15.22.69, has weighed in at the Lublin article, with their edit, should this be reconsidered? Dr. Dan (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The can of worms I referred to is this. Should every major Polish city and town (and minor ones too) have its Yiddish counterpart in the lead of its respective article due to the fact that the populations and influence the Jewish community in Poland was extremely large throughout Polish history? Should the German and Russian names be included in the leads of these cities due to the Partitions of Poland? Should the Swedish or any other invader or occupier of Polish territory have their language included in the lead of a related Polish city or town? Personally, I don't think so. But I'm open to a discussion on the subject, and the rationale for putting "Litzmannstadt" in the lead of the article on Łódź. It would seem to be offensive to many people, myself included. Information like that, if appropriate, belongs in the article itself, not the Lead. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are unable to see my deeper concern, which goes far beyond Lithuanian-Polish relations, on Wikipedia, or elsewhere. The argument "...that some people still feel a strong connection to something is fine, if somebody really wants to put them in. Again, with good faith..." It sounds nice on paper, but since no one can judge the motives of an editor, or decide whether their edits are in good faith or not, leaves us with no other alternative but to allow Gotenhafen as an acceptable toponym in the lead of Gdynia. I strongly disagree with that premise. As I would object to including Generalgouvernement in the lead of the article on Poland. In the article, of course, in the lead, no, no, no. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that you are correct with..."I'm not sure there is a point in discussing this further." For me the bottom line is that I don't feel comfortable with judging people's motives or being so presumptious as to determine who is motivated by good faith and who is not. Therein lies the dilemma, as I see it, which is why I prefer not to deal with it, by not including it. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Konopka
Let me take one day more. Konopka was very strange person, and in fact I do not understand him. Absolutely brave man, but - probably, but I am not sure - alcoholic in the same time. We have to examine him very carefully... Pozdrawiam belissarius (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes! I saw some of that - his capture seemed strange even to the Russian general that got him, and then before that there is the mess up at Battle of Yevenes you wrote about which looks very much like what happened at Slonim. Nawrot goes into that in the footnotes to some extent.radek (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure about the Nawrot's writtings, but in the same time I am suspicious about Konopka's behaviour: once a hero, then the coward - isn't it the common behaviour of Poles of all times? We have to make some good sollution to not be consider as cowards or idiots... belissarius (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * These "citation needs" of the "... Knight" look like simple złośliwości. Don't you think? I will, of course, put some citations, but this is still głupota... Is it happend more often? belissarius (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Polish Wiki looks much easier, but it have its own "problems". Here - as we talk about the Battle of Yevenes - I have the one: I'm not in possession of Wojciechowski's text anymore (I got his memories for a short time many years ago), and I can't cite exact pages, but I'll try. By the way - I found very interesting piece about Konopka, and the "battle of Slonim" in the Kukiel's book. I'll send it to you tonight. :) belissarius (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Kukiel wrote about Konopka this: "Polak w służbie carskiej, generał Czaplic, na czele kolumny ruchomej zniósł pod Słonimem 3-ci pułk szwoleżerów-lansyerów gwardyi cesarskiej, pułk litewski. Generał Jan Konopka, dawny pułkownik lansyerów nadwiślańskich, teraz szef i organizator nowego hufca wyborowej młodzieży, we wrześniu przyprowadził do Słonimia pod komendę Schwarzenberga dwa pierwsze szwadrony; tutaj zamierzał kompletować pułk, z którego tylko 360 ludzi było dotąd pod bronią. Szwadronami dowodzili Adam Bieżyński i Adam Sołtan, przedtem dzielny oficer artyleryi konnej. Odwrót Schwarzenberga na Podlasie wystawił młodą gwardyę litewską na zatratę. W połowie października dowiedział się Konopka, że od strony pińska nadciągają oddziały rosyjskie; zebrał swój pułk, przemówił do żołnierzy pytając, czy chcieliby się zmierzyć z nieprzyjacielem. Okrzyki "Niech żyje cesarz! niech żyje gwardya!" stwierdziły ochoczość bojową młodzieży. Generał nieopatrznie postanowił czekać na nieprzyjaciół i stoczyć bitwę z ich przemagającą siłą. Z rana dnia 20-go października zbliżyły się oddziały kozackie pod Słonim. Pułk szwoleżerów stał w gotowości bojowej pod miastem. Drugi szwadron wysunął się naprzód nacierając na kozaków, którzy zaatakowani, rzucili się do ucieczki; wnet jednak przyszli im z pomocą huzarzy pawłogradzcy, otaczając garstkę mężnych. Szwadron Bieżyńskiego ruszył teraz z pomocą drugiemu szwadronowi, uderzył na huzarów i odrzucił ich wstecz; tuż za nimi pojawiła się jednak piechota i artylerya rosyjska. Przygnieciony druzgocącą przewagą wroga pułk Konopki musiał torować sobie mieczem drogę odwrotu; połowa szwoleżerów z Konopką dostała się do niewoli. Połowa zaledwie, wpław przebywszy rzekę Szczarę, ujść zdołała do Wilna" - Marian Kukiel, Dzieje oręża polskiego w epoce napoleońskiej, Poznań 1912/repr. 1998, p. 358, ISBN 83-86600-51-9... Konopka wasn't drunkard but hero, but I don't believe in Kukiel's revelations. belissarius (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)