User talk:Volunteer Marek/Archives/2009/October

Recommended Reading
Hi Radekez, I think you will find the book Darkness at Noon relevant in the current situation--Woogie10w (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks will definitely check it out.radek (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

aldebaran
dobra, niech se pisze chlopak, bo widze ze nie ma nic leprzego do roboty ...ale powiem ci jedno. Piszac tak jak pisze, nie tylko kompromituje siebie ale tez nas Polakow, bo ci wszyscy ktorzy beda te jego pseudo-angielskie wywody czytac utwierdza sie tylko w szeroko juz uznanym przekonaniu ze Polacy to idioci, ktorych stac w najleprzym razie na kaleczenie jezyka Angielskiego, i na niezrozumiale dukanie. Pozatym nie rozume chlop po polsku i przypuszczam ze uzywa programu do tlumacznia. Wiele rzeczy po prostu jest napisanych niezgodnie z tym co jest oryginalnie na polskiej Wikipedji, z ktorej sciaga doslownie wszystko. A wszystkiego tego co on naduka nie da sie ot tak naprawic bo sadzi byki takie ze czasami sie plakac chce, i nie mowie o pisowni, bo pal to szesc, ale o skladni ktora moze przeinaczyc znaczenie zdania, zwlaszcza w angielskim.

Na zakonczenie, ja tez bym mogl zaczac pisac na hiszpanskiej stronie ale mam wystarczajoco duzo taktu ze wiem ze kalecze ten jezyk i to co pisze bylo by masakra przykra do czytania. Napewno bym nie zmienial artykolow napisanych przez tych ktorzy po Hiszpansku mowia plynnie... bylo by to w moim mniemaniu poprostu bezczelne. Ale jak ci jego proza nie przeszkadza to coz, ja cie nie przekonam ze wiecej szkodzi niz pomaga. Powiedz mi czy Ebonics tez uwazasz za piekny wyraz ekspresji? then... word dog. Them polish king fools was fo sho some mad stupid nikaz, and git Sheniquah's ass back ova' heeah, befo I get crazy on that Wiki bool shizel, that's my word, ya'll betta recognize! ;)

Pozdrawiam --Rob Aleksandrowicz (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban
In response to your attempts at dispute intensification at the recent WP:AN thread on Russavia, Radeksz, you are hereby topic banned from Russavia, except for your participation in the arbitration case, for the duration of that case. You are not to comment on, report on, wikihound, or otherwise annoy Russavia. Should Russavia show the extreme poor judgement of engaging Radeksz, please leave me a diff and I will deal with that. Jehochman Talk 12:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You know what's crazy? I'm actually going to *abide* by my topic ban. How's that for total insanity?radek (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! You have my respect. Jehochman Talk 18:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know problem
Hello! Your submission of Michał Klepfisz at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Art LaPella (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Expanded. Should be good now.radek (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Henryk Ehrlich
It is DYKable; don't forget to nominate it (and similar quality articles). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sometimes it takes me longer to think of the proper hook than to actually write the article.radek (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Radeksz, let me know when that happens. Thats a good accomplishment that deserves mention on the Jewish Labour Bund Task Force.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Kultur Lige
Almost DYKable... will you finish it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Radeksz, let me know when that happens. Thats a good accomplishment that deserves mention on the Jewish Labour Bund Task Force.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerking actions
Radek - I am very sympathetic to all the frustration levels. Hence although it is my responsibility to enforce decorum, I am trying to do as quietly as possible and without creating any additional drama. Regards Manning (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

About Caruk
Source: ''następnie przytacza wyniki badań „krajoznawcy" Jarosława Caruka, który - zbierając relacje od miejscowych Ukraińców - „ustalił" liczbę 836 zamordowanych przez Polaków Ukraińców w rejonie włodzimierskim i 673 w rejonie uściłuskim 57. Dla tych fabrykacji i krętactw nie ma żadnego uzasadnienia w dobrze rozpoznanych wydarzeniach.'' I have added two paragraphs about Caruk to Władysław Siemaszko. Motyka mention about it too. Caruk isnt reliable source--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this from Siemaszko's book? In that case it's a bit of a "she-said-he-said". Do you have the actual quote from Motyka or other clearly reliable sources?radek (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Henryk Ehrlich
Hello! Your submission of Henryk Ehrlich at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  So Why  09:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Your reverting,
good sir, is discussed here:. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hirsh Lekert
Hello! Your submission of Hirsh Lekert at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your provocations and editwarring
Yet another attempt to provoke me into violating Sandstein's 1RR: Your revert of my edit, in which you oversize an image, claim that a Polish name for a suburb in German-speaking Danzig, and state that I "insert obviously POV material" in my edit summary(!). Do I have to add references for my POV and your POV into my edit summaries now? And those century old massacre fairy tales were and are nothing but nationalistic Polish propaganda claims, made in the 14th century, in pre- and post WW2 Poland, and still by 21st century EU members. The 700th anniversary in 2008 has passed, 2009 is almost over, and still the official city website claims [http://www.en.gdansk.gda.pl/about,2,12.html ''the Teutonic Knights ..., having captured the castle in 1308 butchered the population. Since then the event is known as "the Gdansk slaughter "'']. Just go on, folks, ride that dead horse another mile in front of everyone. -- Matthead Discuß   21:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Matthead...I'm shaking my head with disbelieve when I look at your super aggressive comments...I don't know how you are getting away with this.--Jacurek (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom discussion deleted
Your lengthy statement about Topic banning at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision has been deleted for being irrelevant to the Proposed decision page. However the diff of your evidence (and Russavia's response) has been logged and submitted to Arbcom for review. My submission of the diff is not an agreement that your statement has merit. Manning (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks - I wasn't sure where to put, since this case has sprawled so much.radek (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Re evidence. Yes, put it in your evidence section. Manning (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom discussion: constructive proposals
The discussion has ballooned way past my ability to respond to you coherently without interrupting the existing discussion.

All I wanted to say was that my use of the term "mud-slinging" with regards to Poitrus is due to his own laments concerning it. I have observed him in the past decrying mud-slinging headed his way (he even has a couple essays on the subject). Its a semi-deroggatory term, I suppose, that has the benifit of actually fitting what going on. He would call it baseless accusations, his opponents would call it justified concerns. Until it was proven either way, its just mud-slinging. So without actually accusing him (or anyone else, specifically) of anything, I can still say that a topic-ban would help him escape the mud-slinging. Generally because if he is topic banned and his 'opponents' continued their mud-slinging towards him on the topic, then thats about as official of harassment as it gets. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your point but that seems like a very minor consideration, considering how much damage a topic ban for Piotrus would do to Wikipedia.radek (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I only wished to clarify my use of the above term. I continue to stand by my previous statements concerning the potential damage to wikipedia and Piotrus' ability to continue contributing. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Email disabled.
All my email accounts have been disabled.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Why the revert?
A question - how come you reverted my notice on Molobo's page? Manning (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strike that, a better question would be "Why can't I tell the difference between the User:MyMoloboaccount and User:Molobo pages". Please pass the cluebat. Cheers Manning (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL - that's why I struck my comment as soon as I realised I was completely wrong. My sincere apologies for any distress caused. :-) Manning (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Armia Ludowa
Please add Gwardia Ludowa to your watchlist, or note the pattern of vandalism that occurs at both. I may not be able to rvv on those articles in the future. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is good for you (and for Wikipedia)
I even don't know how I ended up here reading your user page... Just wanted to point out that over long time finally I've seen someone speaks sense on wikipedia: You might want to turn this Edit warring is good for you (and for Wikipedia) into an essay from series of Category:Wikipedia process discussions. Cheers!--Termer (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Patience
Radek,

Thank you for the positive note on the UPA talk page.

Patience is indeed a virtue. Often I am not patient enough. Please remind me at those times, also.

Horlo (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Relocation of EEML evidence
Just a notice: For a few users I have relocated your EEML evidence to a sub-page.

The reasons for this are because your sections are now so long it was becoming impossible to navigate and decipher who wrote what, particularly towards the end of sections. This effectively rendered your evidence as unusable, which was not a good thing.

Rather than reduce the size of your evidence (which I deemed as unfair) I have removed them to private subpages. These are yours and yours alone to edit. They certain make interpreting your evidence MUCH easier.

The downside is that when you update your evidence it does not go into the history log of the principal evidence page. Hence I suggest you add a brief "Updated evidence on ..." note beneath your evidence heading on the main evidence page. This will alert people to changes on your subpage. An extra bit of hassle I know, but it a small price for having evidence which can be understood.

Also feel free to create a single sentence description of your main headings and insert it on the main page below the link I have added. See for an example from a previous case.

I hope none of you are upset by this - I assure you my only objective was to increase the usability of your evidence.

Sincerely, Manning (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ease up just a little...
Radek - I hope I've earned your trust by showing myself to be fair and impartial throughout all the debate. So I hope you can understand my request that you keep it cool and refrain from comments like "stop making stuff up". The same message can be communicated using non-inflammatory language. I did not consider that comment severe enough to issue a warning at this time, but please appreciate the pressure I am under from all fronts to rigidly enforce conduct standards. It is not my desire to see ANYONE sanctioned. Regards Manning (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Stanisław Radkiewicz
I am assuming you'll DYK it soon? It needs some more inline refs for that, but would be a shame to waste such an effort as you've put into is so far... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe. I don't know if I'll have enough time and I'm sort of Wiki-tired-out.radek (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence issue
Deacon left a complaint about your evidence. For the most part I've been fairly tolerant as far as evidence goes, but here you say...

''"Deacon has been going around calling Polish editors "those mud hut dwelling Poles" or making comments like ""...and the rest of the bee-swarm that buzz in whenever a fellow "patriotic" tendie is in trouble." (directly from the link provided by MK)"''.

That is pretty intense - you're going to need to either support it with a link yourself, or remove it. Manning (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure I can provide diffs. The second statement is directly from MK's statement. Gimme time to track down the other one (it's an older one).radek (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs
You have enough DYKs to be there, I think. I suggest you take a few minutes, list all of your DYKs in one place (your userpage or a subpage) and then add yourself to that listing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll wait to list myself until my latest batch comes through. I think I'm at 29 now, got 1 in the pipeline and 2 more that can be DYKed soon.radek (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, remembered about 2 more.radek (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Antoni Szczęsny Godlewski
What year did he die? And please remember to give your sources. Thanks. PamD (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops. 1944. Will add sources tomorrow, I have to go get some sleep now.radek (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom clerk warning
Radek - I have some regret for doing this as I sincerely know you have made huge efforts to conduct yourself properly in an emotionally heated case. But as you probably expected to hear, this crossed the line and so a warning is getting issued as a result. Manning (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, no problem. It's a really hard to line to walk - between responding to allegations, defending oneself, and staying civil. I'll try to be more careful.radek (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said on the discussion page, let ME handle flamebait. Manning (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Economic history of Poland
It is one of the articles on my "to do" list. Would you be interested in developing it, first to DYK and later to GA, at some point? Note we have Category:Economic history of Poland. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes! I used to have a lot of material on it and I'll see if I can dig it up (some of it is deep in my "archives" though (piles of papers and books shoved ah hoc in the closet).radek (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * GBooks offers limited preview to this. I think we will have to go to a library and dig through "Historia ekonomiczna Polski" / "Geografia ekonomiczna Polski" works available to us. Unfortunately I know that I don't have the book I read ~10 years ago for a course I took in it in Poland... :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this (great find!) and some sources I already have can be used to start things. A different strategy would be to first focus on sub-topics or sub-periods in individual articles and then use those to write a general article. I've been planning on doing something like Monetary Policy Under the Piasts though I've put it off for obvious reasons.radek (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think our current subarticles (from the category) are rather poor; Polish wikipedia doesn't have anything we can use as a base, neither (as a main article; they have a much larger category at pl:Kategoria:Historia gospodarcza Polski).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)