User talk:Volunteer Marek/Archives/2010/August

DYK for Republic of Ostrów
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Władysław Wawrzyniak
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

About wars (including edit-wars)
Proposing a ceasefire and a song. Have a good day.Lokyz (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Comm. of Danzig
Radeksz, as you are well aware the naming of Danzig/Gdansk is a controvercial topic. The article dealt with the history of Jews until WWII/Holocaust. Following the Gd.vote we should use the name Danzig for that period, especially as all sources (including publications of the Jewish Museum (New York) etc.) use the Name Danzig. However we might discuss which name is appropriate as endorsed at WP:MOVE. I ask you to revoke this move. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It dealt with history of Jews until WWII because you arbitrarily chose to limit the scope of the article to the period 1308-1945 (i.e. when "Danzig" would apply). There's material beyond that though, including about the present day community. Your statement "all sources.... yse the Name Danzig (sic)" is simply FALSE; these sources which you yourself included in the article all use Gdansk:, . Not that it matters - the reason why we have the Gdansk/Danzig vote is PRECISELY to settle these kinds of disputes quickly. And this is what the Gdansk/Danzig vote implies for the article:


 * The name of the article should be Jewish community of Gdańsk since that is the contemporary name of the city, but the name "Danzig" should be in the lead
 * For the period 1308 until 1945 the form Danzig (Gdańsk) should be used. For other periods it should be Gdańsk (Danzig)


 * That's what the article had when I finished working on it. Now you've turned it into one big violation of the vote which I'm going to undo.radek (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe you misunderstood the scope of the article, it's not about the modern Jewish community in Gdansk but about the history of the pre-war community. And that's what is perfectly described by the title "..in Danzig". The pre-war community ceased to exist and today a different community with only a few things in common exists. The Jewish Museum (New York) once organized an exhibition "Danzig 1939: treasures of a destroyed community" and that's exactly what happened. Adding some unsourced sentences about the modern situation does not improve the article nor does your refusal to discuss the move improve the atmosphere. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC) P.S.:"yse the Name Danzig (sic)" - if you cite a single typo to ridicule me you shouldn't create a new one on your own.


 * The scope of the article is the "Jewish community of...the city" - so I don't see why modern community needs to be excluded, except to force the article under "Danzig". There ARE actually connections between the modern community and the pre war one, Jakub Szadaj being one example - which I'm going to expand and source shortly. My apologies for the unnecessary (sic) thing.radek (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked for a period of 72 hours from editing for violation of the ruling. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.  Sandstein  12:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)  Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

See here for an explanation of this block.  Sandstein  12:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

some fun
e4 Bc4 d3 Ne2 exd5 0-0 Nc3 Nc3 f4 Bf4 Kh1 Be5 Qh5 Be6 Bg7 Qg4 Rf8+ Qg5+ Rf1 radek (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC) e5 Nf6 Be7 d5 Nd5 0-0 Nc3 c6 ef4 Qb6+ Qb2 Qb6 Be6 fe6 Qc5 Qg5 Kg7 Bg5 Dr. Loosmark  12:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * i think the move is Raf1, right? in that case i resign, i will never be able to free from the pin on the 8. rank. well played. Dr. Loosmark  20:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah that's the one (sorry I'm not used to the notation). Had me worried though - if my attack'd fizzled the game would've been yours. If you want to play another one then your turn to be White.radek (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

1.c4 g3 Bg2 Nf3 Nd4 cd5 d3 Nb3 Nc5 0-0 Nc3 de4 Qa4 Ne4 Qe4 Qe3 b3 Kg2 Qf3 Ba3 Rad1 Rd5 Bb2 Qc3 Ra1 Dr. Loosmark 21:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 2. e5 c6 Nf6 e4 d5 cd5 Bc5 Qb6 Qc5 0-0 Bf5 de4 Bd7 Ne4 Bc6 Qb4 Bg2 Qg4 Qd7 Re8 Qb5 Qa6 Qa2 f6 Resignradek (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * are you sure? Dr. Loosmark  22:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, I read that as d4. Hold on.radek (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * i assumed it's Bc6 actually. Dr. Loosmark  11:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah.radek (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

going to sleep now. have you though of Qc1 instead of taking with Ne4? looked really complicated, i couldn't figure who would have come on top. Dr. Loosmark 02:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you'd take Nf3 with check, I take gf3 but my pawn formation gets screwed up and my position sucks.radek (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah but I was trying to evaluate: Qc1 Nf6 gf6 Rac1 Ba4 then Bb7 Nd7 Ba8 Ra8, at first glance looks fantastic, 2 pawns + R for B + N, plus the control of the c-line. However I am not sure how white wins that one, if black manages to block the extra pawn on the b file then it can get complicated. I think it's practically more difficult than how the game went. Btw thanks for fixing the Resovia article, somehow that simple solution didn't occur to me. Dr. Loosmark  19:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Jewish community of Danzig
Hello, is the DYK nom for the Jewish community of Danzig still being supported? If so, please clarify any concerns there before it becomes out-dated and deleted at DYK. --NortyNort (Holla) 08:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Prince-Bishop
I've reverted your edit at Prince-Bishop and suggested we discuss the issue to try to find consensus at Talk:Prince-Bishop, where I assume you will way to express your opinion. Let's see if we can solve this dispute amicably. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem.radek (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940)
Hi! Please, tell me, verdict of an international court about "Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union". Remember the presumption of innocence. I believe in the mind. Do you believe? 102RB (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what verdict or court you're talking about. The point is that that was a very controversial move which should be discussed first (I don't intend to participate in such a discussion).radek (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You sure?? Genocide, Military occupation, annexation - its terms of international law. And only after the verdict of the international court can say so Soviet Union. Mind, mind, mind.102RB (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure about what?radek (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jurek Wilner


A tag has been placed on Jurek Wilner requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. &mdash; 71.166.157.40 (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed this speedy deletion tag - the subject is clearly notable. Thparkth (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And thank you for adding extra sources to the article.radek (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Tadeusz Adamowski
Uh oh. Here's what I heard back today: "Thank you for your inquiry regarding Tadeusz Adamowski and the Harvard men’s hockey team. Unfortunately, we have no record of Mr. Adamowski ever playing varsity hockey at Harvard. He is not on our letterwinners list, was not in any of the team photos from 1919-25 and is not in our directory of former athletes. It is possible that he was a member of the team for all or part of a season but did not compete enough to earn a varsity letter and was also not present for the team photo. It is also possible that he played on a team while at Harvard but did not play on the university’s varsity team. I’m sorry I can’t be of more assistance to you. Thanks, Casey Casey Hart Assistant Director, Harvard Athletic Communications, Murr Center, 65 North Harvard Street, Boston, MA 02163".

I think this means that we have to change what is written about Adamowski's being on the Harvard varsity hockey team, unless or until we get further verification. There are, of course, some sources that report that he played hockey at Harvard, but could it be that someone as skilled as he was did not actually play for Harvard's varsity team? If so, where did he learn to play?

Here's what I wrote in return: "Thanks, Casey. I appreciate your effort on this. It's definitely then a mystery how Adamowski became such a good hockey player! He led the Polish team and scored 2 goals during the 1928 Olympics. I know he attended Harvard, since his photo is in the yearbook. We'll just have to do some more research."~Mack2~ (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I spoke to my SIL today, as now I am in vacation and we spent some time with her. She thinks we should contact one of Helenka's relatives (e.g., daughter-in-law), both on this and to get photos. I'll try to follow up on that, but it will take a bit of time.~Mack2~ (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For starters I'd remove any mention of "varsity" from the article until we can verify it/get more precise information. Basically, need more info.radek (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Add: The Harvard yearbook definitely lists him as being on the "hockey squad". Actually I'm not sure if such things as "varsity" existed back then. Can you email the coach the link to the 1922 Harvard Red book?radek (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just emailed that link with a note: Hi Casey, What we have is a link to the Harvard Red Book from 1922 with an image of Adamowski, and the comment beneath the image that he was on the "Hockey Squad." We don't know if "varsity hockey" was organized at Harvard in that year. Thanks again for your information. [link followed]]~Mack2~ (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the picture, which is supposedly from freshman year, puts Tad's age at 17. But he was born in 1901. In any event he was in Warsaw by 1925, presumably a graduate of Harvard.~Mack2~ (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I received another note from Casey, who wrote: "My assumption would be that he was part of the freshman team for at least part of that season. The earliest freshman or JV roster I have is from 1925. In that season, he did not play for the Harvard varsity, JV or freshman teams." But of course, she doesn't have rosters from 1922-1924, and Tad was in Warsaw in 1925. So based on the Harvard-provided information, we cannot EXCLUDE the possibility that Tad was on the Crimson team during 1922-1924; but we also can't confirm that he was on the team during that period either. My inclination is therefore not to change what's in WP until or unless we get further information.~Mack2~ (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I've figured out the age thing. The yearbook is actually for "Class of 1922" not "from 1922". The publication date is 1919 so it fits in with Tadeusz being born in 1901.radek (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * EUREKA. On a hunch, I did a search of the Harvard Crimson (newspaper) electronic database. Here's what I found, and sent to Casey Hart:


 * My speculation about looking for his name in the "Harvard Crimson" paid off. Fortunately the Crimson's electronic archive goes waaay back.


 * 1: An issue from January 17, 1919 reports that Adamowski was on the freshman team for the "1922 Harvard squad": http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1919/1/17/1922-hockey-squad-cut-to-25/


 * It does not say how many years he played, but at least we've got him on the team at one point. If you had records from 1919-1922, it would help to make things certain but this is good enough evidence for us, I think.


 * 2: A Crimson story from 1920 also mentions T. Adamowski as winning his match playing for the Harvard Fencing Team: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1920/2/18/fencing-team-defeats-tech-pthe-university/ . Another story about Adamowski the fencer: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1920/1/22/match-with-graduate-team-first-of/


 * Adamowski was a two-sport man for the Crimson.


 * 3: In my opinion, the Harvard website that lists athletes who were in the Olympics should definitely include Adamowski as a 1928 Olympian for the Polish national hockey team -- on the 1928 team, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_at_the_1928_Winter_Olympics as well as the Wikipedia bio for Tadeusz Adamowski.


 * He was a two-sport athlete for Harvard who was in the Olympics, and in my opinion should be listed on this page: http://www.gocrimson.com/information/history/olympians


 * 4: In addition, FWIW, Adamowski was on the Harvard R.O.T.C. Field Artillery Unit, in a Crimson story from March 15, 1920: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1920/3/15/university-artillery-men-show-up-well/


 * Alright, let me read through these sources.radek (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Learned a couple of things today from talking to my MIL, who knew Tad very well but was still surprised to see details in the WP bio that she hadn't known, in particular about his specific achievements in hockey. (1) When he was escaping Soviet control in Poland on his way to Italy, he relied on his fluent French and his native-like fluency in English to make his way around, sometimes using an assumed name (after all, what papers did he have?), namely Ralph Adams. (2) He was not yet an American citizen when he was given safe passage back to the U.S. in company of American military -- had dual Swiss and Polish citizenship, even though his sister, born 12 months before he was, had American citizenship. He only got his U.S. citizenship after WW II. He did speak native-like American English, since he grew up in the U.S.~Mack2~ (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Opatów Palace
Can you make Opatów Palace compliant with the Gdansk/Danzig vote? I realize that sometimes when writing stuff the G/D vote is not the first thing that springs to mind, particularly when translating from Polish or German, but respectin' the vote avoids a lot of potential trouble. I also think the title should be Abbot's Palace (Oliwa), which is the term used in english language sources. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, not sure what you're referring to - it already mentions Free City of Danzig. But the move suggestion is a good idea. Thanks.radek (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your latest edit (After her death in 1888 the ownership of the palace was taken over by the city of Oliwa..) clearly violates the Gdansk vote. Oliwa is a district of Gdansk and 1888 is clearly "between 1308 and 1945".
 * The bishops of Ermland resided in the Palace until 1836, I'm unable to see a reason for your removal. I would appreciate if you would restore this information. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies, my only intent was to remove the clarification tag - since the info is right there in the source. This is actually part of the reason why I despise and hardly ever use the "{{Cite=" inline tags; it makes it a big pain in the butt to tell apart which portion is text and which is reference, and there's very little reason for using them.


 * While we're on the subject of respectin' the Gdansk/Danzig vote, when are you going to move "Jewish community of Danzig" to "Jewish community of Gdansk", as the vote requires?radek (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

USSR
Are you still working on the Economy of the Soviet Union article, or should i take over the controls of the project? --TIAYN (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Abbot's Palace (Oliwa)
The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jacek Rybiński
The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tadeusz Adamowski
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jurek Wilner
Hello! Your submission of Jurek Wilner 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! Nsk92 (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)