Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:25, 24 November 2008

Home Army and V1 and V2

Good job on this article. You may want to link it from other, relevant articles - I just added a releavant link to Armia Krajowa article, I am sure you can think of others. So far, it is not linked from many articles, see this. I look forward to your other additions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments at game theory

Thanks for all your comments at Talk:Game theory! Since you seem knowledgable about the area I thought you might be interested in joining us at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Game theory. We use the WikiProject to organize work on game theory articles. Feel free to add yourself to the list of participants, if you like. Also add anything to the list of things to do or work on any of the projects you would like. Thanks again! --best, kevin 08:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you could join us. Welcome! If you need anything, feel free to ask. --best, kevin 06:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Economist

Think the list of economists should be alphabetized by last name instead of first?

Also, you might want to have a look at Microeconomics. It's a mess—desperately in need of an overhaul. dbtfz 08:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me know if you need some help with Microeconomics. I don't have any real expertise on the topic, but I'm interested. dbtfz 08:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

JEL classifications

Are you the same radek who comments at Crooked Timber. In any case, you seem well-informed, so I thought I'd pitch this idea at you. I think there's a good case for adopting the JEL classification system to define categories in economics. I'm not sure, though, how to implement this, or even how to go about getting some sort of consensus. Any ideas? JQ 09:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've run into some minor problems with this. We need a Category:Accounting for the subfield of economics. But some people want to delete it and make it Category:Accountancy which I think is silly. If you agree, maybe you could join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 19.JQ 20:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

since nobody else did it, welcome to Misplaced Pages, thanks for reverting the vandalism on the Macroeconomics page, it's much appreciated --«Θ» zeerus 18:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Steve Keen

Hi there,

Just wanted to check, how to agree on a neutral version of the artcile on Steve Keen. I think the article is OK, the way it is now, except for the second paragraph. My suggesttions:

1. This part: "A "proof" can be found here: http://www.debunking-economics.com/Size/mc_eq_p.htm" has a wrong link. The correct link is: http://www.debunking-economics.com/Maths/size.htm.

2. That previous link is in fact a proof (also published in the leading physics journal Physica A). So we should write "A proof can be found ..." and drop the quotation marks around the word proof.

3. Therefore we should also rephrase the following and state, that "Economists still believe that if one firm reduces it's quantity total supply will fall". (This is wrong, as is proven above, but I would agree to give this argument.).

4. It is actually the work from Eiteman & Guthrie, not Alan Blinder, which established the 89%-result for real firms, so we should replace Alan Blinder with the fully referenced article of Eiteman & Guthrie (1952).

Can we agree on this?

Regards, Aleksandar I. Ivanov 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Aleksander, I will reply here because I don't know where your talk page is. Ok, with regards to changing the relevant links, it is of course an improvement (in regards to 1. and 2.) In particular referencing Eiteman & Guthrie rather than Blinder - though if I remember correctly Blinder also did empirical work on the subject matter though I don't know if he is the one actually cited by Keen. However, as far as this "proof" goes... well, it is a "proof" but it is a wrong proof. A good analogy would be with someone who claims to have provided a "simple proof of Fermat's last theorem" - it looks deceptively correct but it's not. The mistake in the Keen paper is that "price-taking" means "price-taking" hence the second derivative in that equation is zero so it still reduces price equal marginal cost. If you read the Keen paper and look up the reference to Stigler you'll see that what Stigler is actually talking about is a Cournot market not a perfectly competitive market but somehow Keen completly ignores this. The "proof" is just wrong there's no two ways about it. I don't know much about Physica A, it seems to be a Physics and Math journal, which means that while probably quite competent in those fields its editors are probably unfamiliar with economics and so Keen could succesfuly get this sleight-of-hand past them. No serious economic journal (and this is simple math which economists know as well as any Physicist) accepted the paper and American Economic Review rejected it with a barely-contained embarrasment (that someone would actually think of submitting this nonsense) - the referee review used to be on Keen's site but he took it down. So I think "Keen claims to have proven" is much more NPOV than "Keen has proved" (the accurate version would actually be "Keen has mistakenly claimed to have proven"). So #3 is not wrong. Think of integrating a function over an interval. If you increase the value of that function at just one point (ie. just one firm raises its output) the value of the integral (total market output) doesn't change. This is one characterization of a perfectly competitive market. Even if there isn't a continuum of firms, what matters is not that output changes with respect to choices of any one firm but rather that each firm ACTS (ie. the way it carries out its maximization problem, by definition) as if it didn't - because it is so small relative to the whole market.radek 01:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Radek,

thank you for your comments. I also got a Talk page, so you can reply there now. My user name ist AlexIvanov2.

I believe that we can soon settle the last point of disagreement - the proof on price-taking in the theory of competition. You asserted that, "price-taking means price-taking" so the second derivative should be zero (see your last comment on your talk page). The next assumption in the theory is that: change of output by one firm, does not affect price. Because this is so, the individual demand curve of a firm, p(Q), must be a horizontal line at the market price (price-taking). On the other hand, the market demand curve P(Q) is supposed to be downward sloping. P(Q) is the sum of all the individual p(Q)'s. But since they are all horizontal lines at market price (according to the assumptions), it is impossible for their sum to have a different slope. So the total demand curve (market demand) must be just as flat (slope = 0). But then in the neoclassical proof a downward sloping market demand is still used.

Why does this situation arise? The reason for this is, that the neoclassical theory of perfect competion has inconsisten assumptions, i. e. assumptions which are logically incompatible. That's what the Keen paper in Physica A is arguing. However, the prrof in Physica A is very high level and short, because of the usual restrictions on journal articles. So if you like, you can check out the full argument including proofs here: A few slides on the topic from a recent presentation of Prof. Keen at City University of New York.

Just as an acompanying reading note: The key inconsistent assumtions are that a change in one very small firm's output means zeor change at the global level. This is impossible by the fundamental axioms of mathematics, specifically the Axioms of Peano on Counting.

I know it will be hard to digest, but it is a matter of fact, that neoclassical theory has a lot of fallacies, and the one we're talking about is just one of them.

Please let me know, what you think.

Best regards, Alex

PS: About the Physica A journal: This is the world-leading journal for Statistical Mechanics and it's applications. During the last decade it has evolved into one of the key journals for Econophysicists. So the people their know Economics just as well as Maths. On average they have at least four Social Science articles per issue, usually on fairly advanced topics, but also on general issues, like this one.

Alex, the link to your talk page doesn't seem to work. BTW I perfectly understand what Keen is saying so there's no need to repeatedly explain it to me. He's still wrong though. radek 02:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Radek, try again, this link to my talk page should work now. Curious about your comments. Al, 3 November 2006 (UTC) PS: The last change in the article is not mine (although I totally support it).

Radek, I can see, that our discussion get's to complex to handle ... it's hard to determine whether I claim, that Prof. Keen claims, that neoclassical theory claims ... which according to you it does not claim ... We'd have to start collecting the claims of Neoclassics from all books and papers etc. to see what they actually do claim - probably many different things - before we could move. That's not feasible. So, I tried to compile a neutral version of the Keen article, which explains Prof. Keen's beliefs and his work. It does not claim anymore that there is s definitive proof that neoclassical theory is invalid, but in does explain that Keen has published (in the words of the current article text: "presented") a proof on this topic. Hope we can settle it that way. AlexIvanov2 10:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Radek, I'm glad we could settle this. Best, Alex. AlexIvanov2 11:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Andrzej Wroblewski

A tag has been placed on Andrzej Wroblewski, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please write {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, articles #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Diez2 19:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This article should definately not be deleted. In fact I am amazed that this article has not been created yet. He is a major Polish painter but the inital start is very poorly written so it makes it look not notable. Please use *http://www.culture.pl/en/culture/artykuly/os_wroblewski_andrzej to expand and write this article properly with the correct layout and birth dates etc and layout. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 19:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There we go don't say I never do anything for you. I have set out a basic srticle for Andrzej Wroblewski. It needs a great deal of expansion particularly from the period 1948 -1957 his death. You can use the source I gave you to add all this. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 20:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Cossack talk page

The reason that the statement keeps getting removed from the talk page is because it is being added by a banned user Jacob Peters or one of his sock puppets (see Misplaced Pages:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits). Second the revert is marked as minor because it is just removing a form vandalism, and marking it as minor will keep it from clogging up recent changes. If you have any questions about either policy just ask.--Iosef 18:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Laffercurve.JPG

Thank you for uploading Image:Laffercurve.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 21:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Laffercurve2.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Laffercurve2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 21:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Hello Volunteer Marek! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Portal:Poland/Poland-related Misplaced Pages notice board, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with us.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

${\displaystyle M_{D}}$

Is that equation really relevant to the article on the quantity theory? Could you provide some discussion on the discussion page? —SlamDiego 21:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

“ratex”

Google for “ratex”. —SlamDiego 00:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been hearing this term since the mid-'80s. —SlamDiego 02:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Attacks on Quantity theory of money

Panache — who doesn't much understand economics, English, or wiki mark-up, but thinks himself gifted in the first — keeps making inappropriate edits to the section on the equation of exchange in the article on the quantity theory. Since his English is poor and his self-estimation is exaggerated, arguing with him is fairly ineffectual. Operationally, he's practically a troll. Unfortunately, a complaint to An/I has been met only with the chirping of crickets.

Anyway, since you'd previously concerned yourself with the article, I'm hoping that you'll help in the process of reverting his inappropriate edits as he makes them.

(I've not been protecting the “Critics” section simply because I don't have well-written material with which to replace the stuff that's been there.)

FWIW, he's been editing not only with his account, but with IP numbers 69.156.24.240, 82.232.235.239, and 132.203.44.207. —SlamDiego_←T 03:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Lies

As I don't have any 'sock-puppets' (whatever that is meant to mean) this personal attack on me is a lie: "You and your sock puppets seem to be the only objectors." Please withdraw it and apologise or I shall report you to admins forthwith. Colin4C (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Lenin and the Jews

By the way, most of the material was copied into other articles from the Lenin article, not vice versa. This is a common practice amongst lazy editors and should not be used as an excuse to delete the original material. If you look at the edit history you will see that the Lenin and the Jews section grew incrementally over a period of years, it was not copied en bloc from another article. Lenin and the Bolsheviks policy towards the Jews was a radical departure from the previous history of Russia and the whole subject has a bearing on Lenin's harsh attitude towards the church mentioned elsewhere in the article. Lenin saw the Orthodox church as the prime mover behind the Black Hundreds who initiated pogroms against the Jews. The whole issue of anti-Semitic pogroms was a live issue during the Revolution, with the Reds warning that they were a manifestation of right-wing White terror and the Whites using them as an instrument of policy in actual pogroms and also vis-a-vis their proposed bloody mass pogrom of what they saw as a Jewish/Bolshevik government if they had ever captured Moscow (as per the reaction after the Paris Commune in 1871). White Anti-Semitism was a popular rallying standard for right-wing opponents of the Bolsheviks. Basically the Civil War was a stand off between the extreme right and the extreme left. The liberals didn't figure either in numbers or military strength. Ant-Semitism and anti-anti-Semitism it is an issue of a fundamental importance to the history of the time. Just out of interest do the deletionists think that in articles dealing with the history of the Third Reich that 'Hitler's attitude to the Jews' is an unimportant matter which should be relegated to a peripheral article. The Whites practised the same genocide against the Jews as Hitler. Lenin's attitude towards the Jews was therefore as important in historical terms as Hitler's attitude. Colin4C (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Monetary inflation

Would you mind taking a look at Monetary inflation. Same general problems as with Inflation, but with the side issue that some editors claim that this should be a venue for presentation of the Austrian view. At some point, administrative intervention is likely to be needed to end an edit war, but it would be good to check that there is a general consensus among mainstream editors.JQ (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This user is a suspected sockpuppet of Gregalton

This user is a suspected sockpuppet of Gregalton

PennySeven (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this meant seriously? If so, I'm confident you're way offbeam and should be much more careful before making such allegations. If not, you should read WP:AGF and WP:POINT. I know some of your contributions have been edited pretty sharply, but that's part of the project. I've had whole articles deleted quite a few times. JQ (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. That's pretty funny. Click on my contributions and then do the same for Gregalton. Also I'm much less inclined than he is to put up with your nonsense.radek (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop deleting paragraphs from the Inflation article with references.

Please stop deleting paragraphs from the Inflation article with referencesPennySeven (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Missed one.

Thanks for undoing an act of vandalism, but vandals are often sneaky. —SlamDiego_←T 23:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Persistent, disruptive editing by User:Vision_Thing

Hi Radeksz, please leave a message here. Wikidea 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 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| talk} 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| talk} 07:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Żydokomuna#Welp.2C_I.27m_outta_here. 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, Misplaced Pages 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| talk} 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 Misplaced Pages. 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| talk} 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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| talk} 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 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)

A couple of things

I started Money demand a week or so ago, which rather bizarrely was a redirect to Money supply. I saw this on your To Do list when I visited just now. It's just a stub, but if you have time to work on it that would be great.

Also, I wonder if you'd mind taking a look at Economic freedom, where there is something of an edit war developing. From my perspective, a WP:OWNer is trying to exclude all viewpoints but that of rightwing thinktanks. However, I think the article would benefit from multiple perspectives.JQ (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Belgium

Best laugh I've had today. Might mean I need to get out more, thanks anyway. CRETOG8(t/c) 02:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

HCM Brigade

You are welcome and I thank you as well because I learned a lot as I was looking for source material. Cheers, --W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Special Courts

Death sentences existed even in 1939. See Stanisław Salmonowicz, Polskie Państwo Podziemne, Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne, Warszawa, 1994, ISBN 930205500X for details. But they were military - issued by military (ZWZ) courts for military treason. It was only around 1942/1943 that the Underground State had finished creating and organizing the civilian courts, which had the authority to deal with szmalcownicy and similar crimes (earliest known underground civilian courts date to mid-1941); around summer 1942 most legal framework was created and in December 1942 the Civilian Special Courts which focused on crimes against Jews were created. Salmoniwicz notes that "they played a major if late role in the fight against szmalcownicy"). PS. I think that entire topic should be moved to the government section of the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just going by the Zimmerman reference. The whole section is getting really long and probably should be split per your suggestion.radek (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And please, if you can, add refs to the end of each sentence, and if possible, don't forget about page numbers.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

" which essentially opearted on behalf of Poles only"

you removed that phrase from the article, saying "source doesn't qualify." Please look here, where you can see it is taken directly from the source ("the "underground state" was essentially for Poles only"). I would appreciate it if you would restore this properly sourced information. Thank you. Boodlesthecat 04:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This phrase doesn't make sense to me. Is "Poles" defined? Underground State was for all pre-war Polish citizens - even the ones who didn't really accept it (like German or Ukrainian minorities, who refused to participate in the gov't in exile structures).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of reliably sourced info

Please restore this reliably sourced information you removed. You have cited no violation of Misplaced Pages policy in removing it, only your own personal opinion (which no one has even agreed with, not that personal opinions are what counts.) You seriously need to not remove reliable sourced material without a reason based on Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines to justify it. Thank you. Boodlesthecat 06:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The reasons for the removal were articulated numerous times on the talk page. There is no need for a reason based on Misplaced Pages policy or guideline to justify it as it is simply a question of basic numeracy and knowing what a percentage is.radek (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Your disruptive editing will not stand scrutiny. Boodlesthecat 07:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Your saying "that's ridiculous" does not make it so, nor does it change the fact that a percentage has to be a percentage of something. If you feel very strongly about this perhaps you should try editing here and get a consensus on that page first.radek (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My dear ally

As your dear ally I feel obliged to bring this mention of you to your attention :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Ale uwazaj na zasade trzech rewertow - byloby glupio jakbys dostal bloka. Moze wez sobie kilka dni odpoczynku od tego artykulu? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)