User talk:Volunteer Marek/Archives/2009/May

Statistics
Sorry to interrupt your discussion concerning the Polish-American, Konopka, but I'm puzzled by your reluctance to include Lithuanian demographic statistical information at the Poles in Lithuania article. All of WP's articles have links to further educate those who need it. Why should this be an exception? I'm putting the information right there at one's fingertips, no calclator needed. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The information's already there as a %.radek (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but not as a percentage of the whole number. My version helps people who are "mathematically challenged." It shouldn't really bother anyone to have that information right at their finger tips, should it? Dr. Dan (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's no big deal I think it just clutters up the lead. I think something like that'd be fine if it was in the text. Why not footnote it?radek (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, since it's no big deal I'll re-add the information and that very short article will survive the "clutter." Regarding, "I think something like that'd be fine if it was in the text. Why not footnote it?", is one of the best suggestions you've made lately. That reasoning should be applied to the Lithuanian villages having their Polish geographical toponyms added on English Wikipedia every once in a while. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, those are two different things. Which should be obvious.radek (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Stalking and Editwarring
Last warning, Radeksz. -- Matthead Discuß   23:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Matthead, I am neither stalking nor editwarring. You're simply going around to a lot of articles on my watchlist and trying to POV them. As a consequence you get what you get.radek (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE
Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement, where I have mentioned you.  Sandstein  08:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Jedwabne
Thank you Radek for your contribution there. I was going to ask you for help. Please see the comment on the talk page from one of the editors also. Thanks again.--Jacurek (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice: SPI request
Your name was mentioned in this SPI request. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Royal Prussia, Poland
Thanks Radek! Space Cadet (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lipka Rebellion

 * If you hadn't, add it to the WP:MILCON, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?
How, exactly, are you able to conclude that adding 'Copernicus Science Centre named after the Polish astronomer'  is vandalism, as you do at User talk:Piotrus? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Because it was made by a banned user. Any edits made by banned users are automatically considered vandalism. On this one, Matthead's edits were fine.radek (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Jan Dzierżon
It's pretty astonishing that the Dzierżon family would be expelled, after the war, from Poland to Germany, especially since they were Polish, the history of the family, and all the rest (was surprised to read about it, perhaps it's a mistake). Do you have any details as to why? Personally, I knew a few German families in Sląsk, who remained there after the war and were not expelled. What do you think may have happened in this case? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If that info is sourced (re Alois Dzierzon) then it can be put in. But note the same source refers to Jan Dzierzon as Polish and from Polish family and Polish beekeeper, etc.. As to why, I don't know at the moment. Maybe Alois or somebody in the family signed a Volksdeutsche list during the occupation. Maybe he was "collateral damage". Maybe the commies were sloppy. Who knows what motivated them. Still, that doesn't change anything about Jan, since, generally, as far as we know, the future cannot affect the past.radek (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input and explanation. Quite a few "maybes." Maybe a few "maybe nots" should be considered? Like how about these "Poles" had become so Germanized that they no longer considered themselves Poles. Like the Pilsudskis? Not the German part of the equation, but I'm sure you know what I mean. p.s. Don't really care about what can be put in or taken out. I'l leave that to others for now. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually I don't know what you mean. And what grandfathers and grandsons do and how they see themselves can be quite different for no reason at all. In the realm of speculation, any speculation's possible. So you're asking the wrong question - if you're really interested dig up some historical archives and documents. Do some research, original research - since you're not really concenred about what can be put in or taken out.radek (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll leave the original research to others best suited to do so. Whereas I weakly agree that the future cannot affect the past, I strongly believe that the present can truly affect the past. Twisting it, turning it inside out, falsifying it, and the like. See it done often on WP. I'm sure you have too. Best. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See, this is where what at first seemed like a good faith inquiry starts sounding like thinly veiled insinuations. Bye.radek (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See what? They were good faith inquiries. I assumed your responses were also in good faith. You must have had a long day. That last remark is bordering on thinly veiled paranoia. Dobranoc. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW
Talk:Marginal utility —SlamDiego&#8592;T 13:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for help
Hey Radeksz, thank you for help on History of Polish Jews. I have contributed to all that mess when I was "green" on Wikipiedia. I really appreciate that you are taking your time now to fix some of the problems. Thanks so much.--Jacurek (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel so bad now that I created all this work for you guys. maybe one day I will be able to buy you a huge case of beer and a bunch of nice flowers for Moonriddengirl :)--Jacurek (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Check WP:PUA and associated pages :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Polish 1st Light Cavalry Regiment of the Imperial Guard
Thank you for "B". Now, after next wave of corrections it is ready - IMHO - for GA or even FA nomination. What do you think? :)In fact I do not know how it works - step by step, or - like in pl-wiki - at once? Explain it to me, please! belissarius (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Your unhelpful edits on articles you had never previously never touched such as here and here are petty, provocative and disturbing because it suggests that you are seeking to provoke a conflict with me simply because of a dispute at another page. Please end this shenanigans. Kupredu (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I was just concerned with your POV pushing so I checked your contributions and saw more of the same. I'm not interested in provoking a conflict, but I am interested in keeping fringe POV out of Wikipedia.radek (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is rather strange that two editors blame us both of vandalism at the same time. I asked a question about Kupredu here. I could find more evidence, of course.Biophys (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If we are the use the methodology for these accusations, then if Biophys and Radeksz are not sockpuppets, there is perhaps a case of meatpuppetry and/or tag-teaming in violation of Wikipedia's rules. Kupredu (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's neither actually. We were both editing the same page, both saw your disruptive edits and both got suspicious at the same time. I think it says more about the pattern of your edits than anything else.radek (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for.

Special:Contributions/220.101.2.8 is one for the watchlist, I think (see Special:Contributions/Filsdegilbert, Special:Contributions/220.101.139.240 and Special:Contributions/220.101.79.98 for background).

Best wishes, Knepflerle (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BABEL
Please consider using the lang templates. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
After the Russian apartment bombings page was unprotected, you began edit warring yet again. You have been blocked for 31 hours. Nakon 15:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

WHAT?!? One edit and I'm blocked? If you don't want people to edit the page then keep it protected! This is completely ridiculous.radek (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Also not sure where that "yet again" comes from as I have NOT edit warred on that page.radek (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC) As a bit of further info (not sure if this is necessary for the unblock request above) - I came to the page Russian apartment bombings after clicking on Biophys' contributions. Why did I click on Biophys' contributions? Recently one or more socks of banned user Jacob Peters have been active on a wide range of articles. Biophys reported one such sock to SPI but there was suspicion that there was another one. To keep track of the wide range of articles that the sock(s) was (were) active on I began to keep an eye on Biophys' edits since the socks seemed to follow him around (he's a sock magnet apparently). Hence my arrival at Rab. Seriously, if there's a "one edit and you're blocked" warning in effect on an article it needs to be on the ARTICLE page, just like a prot template, otherwise innocent editors like me are going to stumble into something nasty unknowingly.radek (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to expand, I did not block you because you simply edited the page. I blocked you because you continued to revert the contested material after two previous editors were blocked for doing the same thing.  Nakon  16:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.radek (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Poland
I'm sorry that we all seemed to be working on the article at once. I'm going to busy for the next few hours, so I won't be able to work on the article until this evening (Eastern Time).

By the way, thank you for all the hard work you've been putting into fixing the COPYVIO problems. — Malik Shabazz 21:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Appreciation

 * Your participation has been very much appreciated. I hope we'll be able to get that article back into full circulation soon. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Nisko Plan
I agree that the section "role in historiography" is pretty dubious. In fact, it is the only section I had spared during my rewrite of the article and just left it as it was before because I had no idea how to deal with it. On the one hand, it should be noted that Browning and some others (who btw?) proposed that the Nazi planners really meant to find a permanent territorial solution there, and that others (who again?) object. But not much more, that could be sufficiently covered in one paragraph, and an expansion would need some research in historiographic perception I frankly am not that interested in. So feel free to tweak further, this section was just "left over" from the old article. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
Please refrain from removing masses of well sourced cites from the article, such as in this edit of yours in the article Strategic bombing during World War II. It seems to me you are only removing - repeatedly! - German operational orders describing targets, and the French attachés quote because it does not fit into your POV. You have removed recently more almost 3000 characters of text - its simple vandalism. I agree the article needs to be trimmed down a lot, but it should be discussed first, and agreed upon.

Your edits will not be accepted just because you keep reverting them again and again, while refusing discussion and to provide the direct cites you were asked to provide - I did provide you a direct quote when you asked, did not I? Kurfürst (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

SPI case
As per my earlier note to the case, your addition to the case did not constitute evidence regarding sockpuppetry, but consisted of allegations about the motives of certain parties to the case, and has been reverted. In accordance with SPI process, I must now ask you to cease contributing to the case. Mayalld (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Orlando Letelier
I notice you removed the complete ref to Letelier in the Milton Freidman article. I restored it because 1) the Klein section references it and 2) it contains a rebuttal by Freidman, keeping it NPOV. Discuss? Verne Equinox (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.  Sandstein  09:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: this is in relation to Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.  Sandstein   09:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Umm, there's nowhere near 4 reverts there. There is 2 on 5/30 (and one of those is of an anon which I mentioned specifically in prior cases) and 1 on 5/31. Likewise on 5/29, out of the two edits, one of them is a revert of a blanking.radek (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, I am not counting reverts, I am concerned about edit warring in general.  Sandstein   14:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand and I didn't mean to come of so defensive. Just wanted to point out that I've actually been pretty patient on that article. This may not be reflected in a quick eyeballing of the reverts but that's because quite a number of them are actually reverts of blanking/vandalism, the same disruptive anon IP, and of the banned user Seraffin.radek (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)