Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:17, 2 July 2009

Archives

Template:Multicol 2007 1 Template:Multicol-break 2008 2 Template:Multicol-break 2009 3 Template:Multicol-end

Reference requested

Can you provide a reference for this? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Polanski = Sex Offender

When you can sight a specific rule in the BLP that would preclude the use of a valid adjective in the title sentence of an article that describes a topic of that article, then please do so and stop making false claims of vandalism. You have not made a single claim, logical arguement, or cited any rule that would give cause to not use the adjective sex offender or for that matter any other word that aptly applies. When you can do this do it in the discussion page and refrain from acting out of your own personal opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.108.47 (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, our anon person sure can copy and paste. *blink* Moving right along.
*I wanted to tell you that I think the great deal of editing you have done to the Roman Polanski article has improved it greatly. All the bestsinneed (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Warsaw Uprising

I've put it up for FAR: Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Warsaw Uprising. DrKiernan (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Jarosław Kaczyński

Hello, could I kindly ask you to please stop removing info from this article without citing WP guidlines? The info is not 'tabloid' as you have claimed - it has been covered by many respectable Polish newspapers such as Wyborcza, Dziennik, Polska... As for BLP arguments - they are spurious. We are not saying he is gay - just that many notable people (Walesa, Palikot...) have suggested he is and that this has garnered a lot of media coverage. That is true and irrefutable. Thank you for your cooperation. Malick78 (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aron Bielski

You forgot to sign :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Leon Feldhendler

Hi. I just left a comment there. Thank you. — ] (] · ]) 21:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Poles in 30th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS

I haven't heard anything about it before except perhaps for the fact that only Catholics were recruited (I think). Maybe if one stretches the definition of "Pole" to "pre war Polish citizen"? At any rate, until a reliable source is provided it shouldn't be in there.radek (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to dig in sources. For now, ask User:Molobo, he is our resident expert on those issues, I'd think.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

IP troll

Hi

First let me say that I have an opinion on this matter but I have to approach this in Wikiworld, with neutrality and without PoV

I know, I have been watching his edits, and that is why I mentioned all the stuff in my last post on the 14th SS page. He has been trying to get his point across, mostly it seems about antisemitism, even to the point of saying that Herge Tintin has a character which a Nazi collaborator claimed to be modelled on himself. On the Joe Redner chat page - "What is Joe's ethnicity ? Some claim his name is originally Jewish, while others claim he is from Gypsy background.....I asked Joe if his name was Jewish, he would not answer" I cannot understand why he asked this question.

I don't think he has bad intention, it seems more like he cannot understand why no-one wants to accept his point. It shows me that he is inexperienced with dealing with others so I am hoping he will calm down now and stop. He also seems to say contradictory things, "In Poland as in France, a number of fools at first resisted the Germans entering their countries" and then "My Polish grandmother's family in Krakow had no problem with the Germans at all, they knew the real terror was from the Soviets" obviously ignoring the fact that his grandmother must have turned a blind eye to the thousands of Jews and Communists being taken away or executed for the privelidge of not having the Soviets in charge anymore, a rather heavy price to pay I think

On the one hand it is either he has Nazi tendencies, and yet on the other he is defending Friedwardt Winterberg by saying that he had nothing to do with Larouche - who I assume is the LaRouche of the LaRouche_movement - basically saying that Winterberg is not an anti-semite and shouldnt be associated with one.

My problem is that if what he says is right, that the reference does exist, then he should have been allowed to include that in the page as he has done with his comment. "However, the Waffen SS and the Wehrmacht both enlisted Ethnic Poles into their ranks." The difficulty is that we normally would not challenge that information if he has cited the reference correctly and so without any evidence to the contrary it should be left to stand. The problem is that he has now cited it correctly, and we would have to disprove this statement to get it removed by stating contrary evidence and sources.

The article Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II even says in the closing paragraph of the Poland section, "In 1944 Germans clandestinely armed a few regional Armia Krajowa (AK) units operating in the area of Vilnius in order to encourage them to act against the Soviet partisans in the region"

I cannot stress enough that if he is right in some way - what then ? Is it such a big deal that Poles were collaborating. I think it should be pointed out to him that the article already says that there was collaboration at the end of the war with a small number of Poles to fight the Russians.

On a much more important note, it must be made clear where, if he does say it, Rikmenspoel got his sources and then we need to assess him as a credible or not credible source.

It is a very difficult subject, and without understanding hi intent, it is difficult to say which way to go, exclusion or inclusion with helpful advice and strong "reference it or else". I need to follow up on the Feldgrau forum to see what the author has to say himself and then hopefully we can asess the merits/demerits corectly.

If his part is to be included we could water it down to a more truthful statement "However there were a small number of Poles that did join the ranks of the occupying German forces"

I am sorry I cannot be more helpful apart from to keep battering him with "references, truth, discussion etc" and lets hope some of it sinkcs in and he can become a valid contributor instead of an ouitcast in need of proving something of which he is not himself sure yet.

Thansk--Chaosdruid (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

World War II article

The photos currently in this article were selected after a long discussion and there's an ongoing effort to prevent the number of photos from crowding out the text. Could you please discuss the photo on the article's talk page before re-adding it? Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI

You were mentioned and thanked by Greg in his final remark (I just found about it today by accident). Read his post here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI post on Allies of World War II

FYI, I've reported what appears to me to be block evasion at: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible block evader continuing their edit warring Nick-D (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Cite fact date

lol I wondered where that came from - I thought I must have missed seeing it then realised you added it between edits lol
That will be my next mission I suppose - two hours without a coffee and still I go on..... lol
--Chaosdruid (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

well, so far only 7 references on the internet, and 6 of those are direct copies out of Misplaced Pages, one is a rewritten copy of Wikpedia. The rest talk about Ukrainians who were NOT in the 14th joining his army but I am unsure who could help search in Ukrainian texts. Haven't seen Faustian or Bandurist for a while but I have posted on their talk pages.--Chaosdruid (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Small point though, nothing mentioned specificlally on the Polish_II_Corps either --Chaosdruid (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ya, it should be there also..--Jacurek (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi can you provide me with a translation of the section please ? This is a website and as such does not seem to give references etc so I would appreciate being able to check this myself as it may refer back to the problem with our friend "ethnic poles"

1 were they released after capture etc

2 why were they released as they were POW

3 were they"Polish" rather than Ukrainian etc

thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Poles in Waffen SS

No Jacurek, there were no Poles in Waffen SS to the extent of my knowledge.

• Poles were considered sub-humans and thus unsuitable for this formation whose primary aim among others was extermination of sub-human people. I have heard about two cases where some people reported a Pole being forcefully drafted during combat into a formation, but those are only rumours and would consider two people, so nothing here. Remember that many of the Waffen SS were quite ideological and dedicated, and likely they would be quite disgusted to serve with people who in their view were something worse then animals.
• However you can sometimes find info about "Poles", note that this is an error and in fact is about former Polish citizens with German, Ukrainian or other ethnic background. For example the Feldgrau forum which I noticed being quoted claims members of Selbstschutz as Polish forces fighting for Germany, while at the same time claiming that they are Polish even if made out of Germans(If needed I can point this sentence out to you). IMHO this is quite manipulative and shouldn't be considered valuable source. Fortunetly Misplaced Pages prohibits forums and self-published non-scholary sites from being considered acceptable sources.

Cheers ! --Molobo (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Input appreciated

At Talk:Rescue_of_Jews_by_Poles_during_the_Holocaust#GA_Review. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration talk page

Morning

Youre at it early lol

I have started an archive for the collaboration chat page (message at bottom of that chat)

Are you around later, or can you say any of the sections you wwant left there for a while and I'll get miszabot set up later today

cheers --Chaosdruid (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC) PS - u in UK ? I just noticed the flag lol

K m8 - good edits btw - I was watching you and 24 at same time lol--Chaosdruid (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The quote on your User page

Hi. I think the quote on your User page is very true. I think editors sometimes take extreme positions to counter what they perceive to be the extreme positions of others, and it's nice to be reminded that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Thank you. — ] (] · ]) 18:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is an excellent quote. If you could source it, we could add it to some articles in the future.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I Googled it earlier and found it in this article, which I think is interesting reading. — ] (] · ]) 21:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you guys. I am really happy that you agree and like it.--Jacurek (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

14th SS

Hi

Hope all is well with you. In regard to your "will this work?" edit - that seems fine by me - on another note though...

Molobo says there were no Poles in the Waffen SS, but if there weren't then they couldn't go and join the Polish army, so one of the views must be wrong, either there were and they left to join Polish army or there weren't and it was Ukrainians who joined the Polish army to try and get back home - it's getting too confusing lol.
I'm thinking that may be where the qoute originated, someone may have thought that "the 170 that joined Polish army after Rimini must have been ethinic Poles" and so we get the references in the book our pet Troll quoted.

Anyway, I have had no reply as yet from the authors of either book so I will cary on waiting...

Cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration

Hi

I have to say that the wording you have used is not good.

We had consensus on the term collaborator so the section "...occupied by the Nazis to collaborate with the Axis Powers." was to remain as we had all agreed that it meant to co-operate traitorously, and to remove or rewrite the phrasing that talked about "Collaboration ranged from urging the civilian population to remain calm and accept foreign occupation,"

I ask you to revert or undo your edit on that basis - I do not wish to do it

thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

...."participation in controlled massacres formulated by Reinhard Heydrich"

(You wrote)
Hi and thanks for your recent edits. I would like to point out that this line .. participation in controlled massacres formulated by Reinhard Heydrich in Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust page is a little unclear and confusing. Can we rewrite this somehow or leave it as it was before? In my opinion this looks like an excuse for a behaviour of a bunch of primitive mobsters. The sad truth is that in most cases like Jedwabne the angry mob simply took revenge on innocent people for collaboration of a few and it is better to just clearly say it. Thanks again.--Jacurek (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• I’m sorry to say that your excessively fussy rewording of my statement and the removal of Reinhard Heydrich link discourages me from improving this article any further. German Nazi police was present there in Jedwabne, just like the NKWD before them. This is not a trivial matter, and in that sense, the environment was also “controlled” by the outside forces. Please stop imposing your personal views upon my work which is supported with relevant citations, and try to fix the rest of the article instead, because I’m not going to bother with it anymore. Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 15:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I did not mean to discourage you from further editing, I am sorry. I am aware that the Germans were around when Jedwabne happened but were they also present in other villages were similar but on smaller scale things happened? Probably, but we do not know for sure. I have heard about a case of two brothers from one of the villages near Grodno. One of them was a big scum who collaborated with the Soviets and fled with them before the Germans arrived. Few days later, somebody murdered his younger brother his wife and her sister, as a revenge. A lot of crap happened at that time and not everything was really controlled, that is all.

I really hope you change your mind and continue your contribution to this article which needs editors like you. Why don't we ask what others think? Would that be o.k.?--Jacurek (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• I see your point, about the ever-present potential for capital crime at wartime, but the extermination of Jews was not an accident waiting to happen, but a Nazi murderous policy. That’s why, in my view, it is as important to mention the instructions of Reinhard Heydrich, as it is to mention the posters proclaiming death penalty for Poles helping Jews. These were "two different sides of the same coin". If you can read Polish, please see the link provided by me right next to my comment, because his name is mentioned there. Needless to say, I would appreciate if you reinstated my bit about the Heydrich directive, if you want us both to work on this article. And, by the way, thanks for the words of support. --Poeticbent talk 23:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Post-war PL

See eg History_of_Poland_(1945-1989)#Creation_of_the_People.27s_Republic_of_Poland_.281944.E2.80.931956.29, I'm not saying there were NO Communists, but they were not the only ones active. They were the ones to succeed, but this took some time. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

I am responding to a report at WP:AN3, where you have been reported for edit warring. An explanation of what you plan next would be appreciated. Either there or here, it doesn't matter. Kevin (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert. Kevin (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Jews and Communists

Hi Jacurek. Let's go through that briefly again here, and keep the real discussion on the article's talk, ok? I just understood after your message that I have to make myself a little more clear:

• Communists. To be plain: I am a little annoyed that you ask me to delete that sentence. The source says so, the source is reliable and verifiable, the "disagreeing party" has provided nothing but hot air. The correct way to proceed would be that you come up with a source backing your POV ("only Communists in PL in 1945"), and then, per WP:NPOV, we'd present both sources in an outweighted manner. Nevertheless to cut down this "argument about a sidenote", Radek and me have worked out a way everyone can agree with and which I would support even without a source. Please read subsection "Proposed compromise", we're just stuck on style and phrasing, maybe you can come up with the the ultimative phrasing for a qualification sentence not interfering with the sourced sentence below.
• Jews. I am not the one who inserted the large chunks about Kielce, and if you read my statements on talk closely you will find that I proposed to inform the reader with (quote) "half a sentence and a wikilink". You will also find in my statements that I regard Kielce not the only reason for Jewish emigration, but as a trigger for the ones still there. Xx236 provided some more on this, my position here is inform but keep short.

A final note regarding your most recent comments: This is not about making Poles look bad. First of all, nowhere in the article it reads "The Poles did ...", but it is always qualified who did/said what. Second, don't over-identify with your nation, or you will ultimatively end up identifying with fools and criminals, or even lawyers and politicians, who are part of every nation. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

POV template

What dispute besides the ethnicity of the authors? Please outline at talk or self-revert. Maybe you confused Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II with Expulsions of Germans after WWII? Skäpperöd (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In the "German POV" section, nothing whatsoever was presented to justify the tag than the ethnicity of the authors of an estimated 70% of the sources the article uses. Please, do not judge people by their ethnicity (you did not so far, but you will if you place the tag again). I am really sorry we are having these disputes right now, but I hope we can resolve them in a reasonable manner. That is: If you think a POVs are unbalanced, state which ones. Remember your personal oppinions do not count as a POV, but only POVs of authors of reliable sources (check WP:NPOV on this). It would also be nice if you forward the other, RfC-discussion by presenting something we can integrate. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Expulsions

I will work on expulsions as my next project after Wielkopolskie Uprising 1848. Will notify you about that--Molobo (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Żydokomuna

Nice work. Congratulations on bringing the article to Good Article status. — ] (] · ]) 20:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :)--Jacurek (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How to combine references

First, in addition to adding an external link, please describe it! So instead of <ref>ref link</ref> please use <ref>ref link and description</ref>. Second, how to combine references if they are the same: Use <ref name=blabla>ref link and description</ref> instead of <ref>ref link and description</ref> for the first time you use such a reference, and <ref name=blabla/> for the second and so on times you use it. Read more at Misplaced Pages:Footnotes.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will.--Jacurek (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

La France

I largely agree with you. France in 1944/45 was a junior partner at best and the Big Three had the last say. However, France unlike Poland subsequently gained importance and the "Big Three" became the "Four Powers" in the war's aftermath. Thence, France unlike Poland did not really join a bloc, but largely acted independent and pursued her own policies. Despite the differing self-perseption of the grande nation, she never reached up to the role of the US or the USSR, yet she needs to be considered to be one of the "great players" in post-war Europe, also (and most important in the context) in regard to post-war Germany.

So while indeed France' "yes" did not really matter whether or how the expulsions were carried out in 1945, I think the French perspective is nevertheless notable because of her future role in European and especially Germany-related politics. I am not arguing for giving it more room than currently, which after all is a mere four words in the intro. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Victim categories confusing?

I'd appreciate your input at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_12#Category:Holocaust_victims and below.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding a new category for SURVIVORS of the Holocaust

Hi Jacurek: Regarding the two CfDs at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 12#Category:Holocaust victims and Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 12#Category:Nazi concentration camp victims, while I agree that the categories need to be sharpened, but if they are going to become categories about people who DIED only in Category:People who died in The Holocaust and Category:People who died in Nazi concentration camps respectively, then in all fairness and following good logic and historiography, following that reasoning, there should now therefore be two categories. ONE for those who DIED and one for those survivors who LIVED such as Category:Holocaust victims who survived and Category:Survivors of Nazi concentration camps that would allow for that. I am positive you will agree and kindly take a look at the two above CfD discussions again and note that that should be so, that both those who died and those who survived and lived, and who were/are of course notable, such as Elie Wiesel; Joel Teitelbaum; Yekusiel Yehudah Halberstam and many others that I know as being important to Jewish history, and there are many others like this from many other groups. It would be a great shame and travesty if those names were expunged only "because" they survived and escaped the fate the Nazis had wanted for them by having lived and not died in the Holocaust and/or the death and concentration camps. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Center against Expulsions

I had to set back some expansions because of disruptive violations of wiki policies. Probably some of your edits were accidentally affected. Please check. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: New film

Interesting, yes, but how can we know it will be "Excellent"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Poland

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Poland has awarded you a status of a honorary member (you have never officially joined the project by signing on its front page...). Thank you for your Poland-related encyclopedic contributions! Please consider officially joining the project by moving yourself from the "Honorary members" list to the "Active members" list here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Film

Thank you. It looks like a very interesting film. I'll keep an eye out for it. — ] (] · ]) 03:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Zanussi

Nie przeinaczaj tekstu. Tajny współpracownik to po angielsku secret collaborator. Informer to informator a był to szczebel niższy współpracy (Kontakt Operacyjny, Kontakt Obywatelski). Mathiasrex (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Bloc

As a heads up, the analogy you deleted looks like something thrown together, but it is actually straight out of the listed source, including the onion analogy. Also, the sentence around it, re the Russia's domination of the USSR and the USSR domination of the Bloc are obviously pretty basic historical points, and they are both contained in a boatload of sources (and are not exactly disputed by many, if anyone). None of that is particularly controversial stuff.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Apolinary Hartglas

Anybody can give out wiki awards, so if you think it is time, go ahead and give them out! :) PS. You have not activated your email? If you want to discuss awards "in secret", activate your email and email me :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Częstochowa Ghetto Uprising

No, no, help out! Messing up is part of the process. I've also started Częstochowa Ghetto since that was missing as well.radek (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-German Nazi concentration camp

Jasenovac concentration camp --Molobo (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you please

...look at what actual content you are reverting to instead of just assuming that it must be right if a co-national wrote it. Give your thoughts at talk, it's all listed there. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Złośliwy

Forgive me for adding the correct diacritics. Regarding your post at the JP article. Sorry you are out of here, but do you think Vilna, (now Vilnius) is the way to go? But Cracow, (now Kraków) is not? How should we resolve this inconsistency on WP? What policy do you think would best address this conundrum? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerning your recent edit at the Kraków article (and its immediate RV). I'm surprised that you were unaware that additions of Lithuanian toponyms at cities of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in Poland, are unnacceptable. It is a one way street. Only Polish toponyms, such as the one at the Kėdainiai article are permitted on English WP. The arguments or rationale for their inclusion are not valid if Lithuanian is used. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Except Krokuva already is in the article. If you want it in the lead then put Wilno in the lead of Vilnius.radek (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So is Wilno "already" in the Vilnius article. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, so what's the problem?radek (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A nie mówiłem. WP:DFTT. A przy okazji: . Czemu nie? Bo nikt tak tam nie mówił... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen this?

Spieprzaj dziadu! Is this article notable? Ostap 03:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust

Noticed I said survived, I did not detail how they died. The edit is factualy correct. Any way, Misplaced Pages is wasting my time. --Woogie10w (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I got real ticked last week off when a user from Germany deleted a section on Nazi crimes in Poland on the Holocaust page and I got no support at all from the Poles or Jews on Misplaced Pages to restore the material. That's why I say Misplaced Pages is wasting my time. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep a watch on the Holocaust page, that user from Germany plans major changes based on his talk page comments. --Woogie10w (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

BTY did you read Unequal Victims by Gutman?--Woogie10w (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Misplaced Pages has a bad reputation because the citiation does not often agree with the posting, you made the post off the top of your head. The source has different information. Misplaced Pages is a dog and pony show, a joke.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The source Thadeuz Piotrowski says otherwise, he based his figures on up to date information. Read the source in the link. Piotrowski is an expert on Polands losses in the war that were 5.6 million, Misplaced Pages is beyond hope.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Always check your sources. Vad Yesem has dated information--Woogie10w (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

To make a long story short the Poles that remained in the USSR after the war were counted as dead in the official gov figures. In any case read the Piotrowski link 5 million Poles died at German hands. The Holocaust is about deaaths in German hands, not including the Soviets--Woogie10w (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The figure of 6 million + Polish war dead is wrong, up to date information can be found in Gniazdowski, Mateusz. Losses Inflicted on Poland by Germany during World War II. Assessments and Estimates—an Outline The Polish Quarterly of International Affairs, 2007, no. 1.This article is available for purchase from the Central and Eastern European Online Library at --Woogie10w (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I am definitely wasting my time on wikipedia, you have proved it beyond any shadow of a doubt Thank you--Woogie10w (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

well...maybe you are.--Jacurek (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Vilnius vandalism

You need to place a warning on the vandal's talk page. Then if the vandalism is repeated (you seem to be suffering from repeat vandalism by one individual) it is easier to ask an admin to block the user at WP:AIV This is generally faster than asking for page protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 20:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Zirmunai

Please leave your impressions, opinions, and preferences outside Misplaced Pages. "KGB killed A, B, and C." It's a fact. That A and B had problems with each other is totally irrelevant. Renata (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Falaise Pocket

It might be best to discuss your edit on the article talk-page rather than edit-warring (see WP:BRD for more information). I've opened a discussion there. EyeSerene 16:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Any Messaging Service?

Do you have AIM or MSN? Yahoo perhaps? I would like to contact you so we can discuss the Enver Hoxha article. --Mrdie (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sobibor Jews

Hello. I put that photo on Leon Feldhendler page. I am currently working on Sobibor. My goal is to get as many of the killers and survivors up as I can. Since I see you are intrested, i am going to do the bios of the Sobibor survivors from the Eichmann trials. Right now I did a 100% rewrite on Alexander Pechersky and wrote new articles on Hermann Michel, Erich Bauer and Kurt Bolender. If you have anything to add, please let me know. Meishern (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments welcomed

I updated Polish Areas annexed by Germany As your contributions have been productive I would welcome any comments on how to improve the article further.--Molobo (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Poland vs Polish forces

I'd tend to use "Polish forces", since the Polish government in exile was

• an appointed one
• limited in their authority over the Polish forces
• had no authority over a territory
• was acknowledged only by some states as the legitimate Polish government; in case of the USSR, this acknowledgement was just temporary

The above would be from the viewpoint that Poland cannot be considered a "state" during the war, as defined as being in charge of a territory's legislature, executive, and judicative. Which simply was not the case.

Yet I see the rationale behind the argumentation that Poland, though her government was not in charge of any territory, did exist in a kind of virtual nature during the war, and that this virtual nature even materialized to a limited extend in form of a so-called underground state. I see the government in exile was also in command of forces, though the command was primarily of theoretical nature ("fight and do what our allies say!") and did not extend to all Polish forces (eg the Soviet recruited ones).

So we have a body that in theory resembles a state but in practice does not (or only very limited). I tend to use "Polish forces" due to the definition of "state" being a practicle one - that is factual assertion of power in a given territory. Yet in terms of international law and recognition, "virtual" states are also possible.

So imho none of the rationales behind the conflicting positions is based on a logical fallacy, they are both reasonable. For now, I have not given it enough thought to weigh in the discussion. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

History of Polish Jews and copyvios

You know I respect your work, but you have to learn quickly what most of us have to learn: WP:PLAGIARISM. Rewriting takes time, but it is necessary. Attribution is crucial per WP:V anyway. Worst case, not respecting those policies means that your work will be wasted - articles will be deleted, and you may even find yourself banned. I'd suggest you take your time and review your past contributions, adding references and rewriting as needed where you can. Otherwise, others will have to do it for you - and they may be less forgiving :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

How you can help

Hi. Thank you for your willingness to help address this matter. I am currently reviewing the History of Polish Jews article, but it would be very helpful if you could identify any text you believe may be a problem in other articles. If you don't know, it would be helpful if you simply identified articles to which you contributed extensively in the past.

Unless you know that text is free for use (such as public domain material or material that is licensed elsewhere under GFDL), you can't use it in Misplaced Pages without using quotation marks (and only small amounts of quotation). This is true even if it has no copyright notice at all, since United States law (which governs Misplaced Pages) automatically grants copyright protection. (See WP:C and WP:NFC for policies on that.)

I am making notes at the talk page of this article, and I will identify any problem materials I find. Once I've finished, this article can either be restored (if it's clean) or cleaned up more if necessary. --Moonriddengirl 17:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will admit that it's not fun, but it's a job that I've willingly undertaken on Misplaced Pages because I'm good at it. :) I'm sure I've required time-consuming assistance in the past from editors who are good at jobs that I'm not. It's a collaborative project, after all. Just, please, let me know if you are unclear about our copyright policies or how you can best use previously published text. Piotrus is right to warn you that putting material on Misplaced Pages that doesn't meet WP:C can get you into trouble, even blocked from editing, which would be a shame since you're obviously dedicated to improving articles.

I do appreciate that you are receiving this graciously. As I said at Piotrus's talk page, I believe that many people who run afoul of our copyright policies do so innocently. Unfortunately, some of them become extremely belligerent when it's point out to them. It's not pleasant for anybody, and much better if we can just get through it with as little fuss as possible. :)

You are welcome to stop by my talk page any time you have questions about how to use or revise something. (Revising can be trickier than it might seem. We have a user essay at Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing that does offer some guidance.) We also have a project related to the issue where you might get help: WP:COPYCLEAN. Meanwhile, I'll get back to reviewing. --Moonriddengirl 17:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Pyrrhic Victory

Germany's victory over Poland in the Warsaw Uprising was pyrrhic. Germany put all of its resources in Poland to squash the rebellion, therefore when the Soviet Union came they faced almost no resistance by the Germans in Warsaw. There isa saying that the only things the Soviets liberated were stray cats and rubble. If the Uprising did not occur, the Soviets would have faced heavy resistance in Warsaw therefore the German victory was pyrrhic. see "The Polish Way" by Adam Zamoyski (born in New York, graduate of Oxford)

Bez problemu

It was just a mistake, and the article needs a major rewrite anyhow.radek (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

(Whether or not that's too close might depend on if you are giving credit to the source in the text itself. For example, if you said, "According to Gutman, the new details about Jedwabne mass murder were a shock to many Poles because it clashes with the popular knowledge of the war years, anti-Semitism and Polish-Jewish relations during the WW2." That allows you to stick a little closer to the source. Otherwise, you've got a very good start on revision and certainly what you have is nothing in the order of copyright infringement, as long as you don't have a whole lot of it. But I would try to change a few more key words, maybe like:

"Many Poles were badly shaken by details about the Jadwabne mass murder, which challenged national beliefs about the war years." (Nothing wrong with myth, I just preferred beliefs. :))

One of my favorite tricks for revision is flipping a sentence around. Instead of making the details the subject, I make the Poles the subject. I could also flip it by saying, "National beliefs about the war years were challenged when the Poles learned the shocking details about the Jedwabne mass murder." In that case, obviously, I've put the beliefs up front. --Moonriddengirl 20:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC))

I just wanted to stop by and thank you for helping with the clean-up in that article. I know the issue can be complicated. Please feel welcome to come by my talk page any time if I can provide assistance with these matters or, really, anything else. This is what I do, but if you need help with something else, I'm pretty good at tracking other people down. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! :D You are very kind. I'm happy if I'm able to help. --Moonriddengirl 21:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Jews in Poland

		The Resilient Barnstar
		It's my honor to give you this barnstar in recognition of your resilience in returning to Misplaced Pages after being blocked and in learning from your early mistakes. — ] (talk · contribs) 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Don't let trolls bait you into violating CIV/AGF/NPA and such. They may be socks or meatpuppets working with more established editors, created with the sole purpose of doing just that, and getting a content opponent banned. Never lose your cool, no matter how disgusting their views are. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for advice Piotrus.--Jacurek (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

... for the barnstar. :-) — ] (talk · contribs) 20:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, thanks!radek (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Of interest

Please take a look at what I wrote at User talk:Jjaggeropen#Rescue_of_Jews_by_Poles_during_the_Holocaust in responce an apeal for my informal mediation. Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 15:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice of rollback removal and editing restrictions

I have removed your rollback access. Even ignoring these , these reverts are a complete abuse of the feature. Please familiarise yourself with WP:Rollback before reapplying for access.

And for this and other recent edit-warring here is notice of Digwuren editing restrictions:

Notice: Under the terms of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a total miscarriage of justice, a notice from a person who pretends to be uninvolved. Deacon, this is ridiculous, you are totally involved in Poland-related topics, and you know it. Stop this nonsense and stop harassing other editors. Tymek (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I find this totally improper as well. You should raise this issue at WP:ANI. I see no grounds for removing your rollback and even less so for placing you on DIGWUREN's restriction; further, Deacon is hardly a neutral admin to do so and his actions constitute abuse of admin privileges. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Rollback clearly states that rollback is for "blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense". The above edits that Jacurek rolled back obviously don't qualify as "vandalism and nonsense", but are part of a content dispute. The fact that the user whose edits were rolled back has been blocked in the meantime does not give anyone carte blanche to roll back all of his edits as "vandalism and nonsense". That Deacon of Pndapetzim may have been involved in disputes with Jacurek and therefore not be considered unbiased only means that not he, but someone else should have removed Jacurek's rollback access. It does not mean that Jacurek's rollbacks were correct and that he was punished for an offense he didn't commit, as claimed by Tymek. The most one could demand is for an uninvolved admin to lift the restriction and then immediately reinstate it. I think this just isn't worth the time, though. --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be enough to remind Jacurek that he should be more careful with reverts, two possibly disputable rollback reverts hardly warrant more, especially considering that Jacurek has been using rollback uncontroversially before. An involved admin bypassing a procedure (or two, since AE thread was not started for Digwuren's warning) is a case of multiple admin rights abuse. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 10:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Piotruś, first, let's be perfectly clear that we're not concerned with the question whether Jacurek's reverts were justified or not - but with the question if he should have used "rollback" or "undo". As far as the effect is concerned, the only difference is that "rollback" sends the message that the reverted edits were "vandalism or nonsense" - so this rather is a social as opposed to a technical issue. "It would be enough to remind Jacurek that he should be more careful with reverts" - yes, that may arguably have been enough. Nonetheless, removing rollback rights was clearly within WP:Rollback. It would have been ok to put mercy before justice here, but that doesn't mean that justice wasn't allowed. "two possibly disputable rollback reverts " - I'm counting not two but six, and they weren't just "possibly disputable", but all relating to content disputes that an outside observer would not be able to judge without doing a lot of reading-up. "Jacurek has been using rollback uncontroversially before" If I get caught jaywalking six (or even just two) times, I can hardly expect not to be fined because I correctly stopped at red lights thousands of times before. "An involved admin bypassing a procedure is a case of multiple admin rights abuse." This may or may not be so, but's not relevant. If a suspended policeofficer catches an offender red-handed, the offense isn't going to be ignored because the officer was suspended. There is no miscarriage of justice here whatsoever, even if the sanction may have not been formally correct. You're free to complain about Deacon's behavior as being formally admin rights abuse, but stop wikilawyering here. --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thorsten1, you wrote: "If a suspended police officer catches an offender red-handed, the offense isn't going to be ignored because the officer was suspended." I tend to disagree. If a police officer is suspended for multiple civil right violations and thrown off the force, and the next day drags a beaten up black man into the police station claiming he caught him red-handed, there is no DA who will prosecute and no grand jury who will indite. As the saying goes - you are what you eat. Testimony of a person with a proven track record of being unethical or a liar must be viewed with skepticism. Meishern (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually Jacurek's rollback was a textbook example of a situation where rollback IS appropriate. If a suspended policeofficer catches an offender red-handed, the offense isn't going to be ignored because the officer was suspended. i don't understand what exactly are you trying to say with that example but if a suspended policeofficer catches an offender he most certainly can't apply any sanctions but rather he has to inform the Police as a normal citizen. Loosmark (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, short time no see. ;) "Jacurek's rollback was a textbook example of a situation where rollback IS appropriate" - as stated above, rollback is supposed to be used strictly for "blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense". Edits that are "blatantly unproductive", "vandalism" or "nonsense" are quite different from edits like this one, whose validity cannot be judged by anyone without solid knowledge of wartime East European history. "if a suspended policeofficer catches an offender he most certainly can't apply any sanctions but rather he has to inform the Police as a normal citizen." Obviously. But if he fails to do so and I end up in court anyway, I can't plead not guilty just because the officer was suspended, off duty, or never liked me in the first place. Even if I may try and do that in a courtroom - this ain't a courtroom. The closest you can get to a courtroom is WP:AE, as AGK said below. --Thorsten1 (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• If you think the above sanctions are invalid in that the administrator who applied them is not uninvolved, then an appeal should be filed at WP:AE. I would encourage Jacurek to do so (simply to resolve any doubts about the validity of the sanction). Please include in any appeal diffs substantiating claims that Deacon is not uninvolved. Thank you, AGK 11:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I think I was treated unjustly and too harsh. I will file an appeal but I have to read more how to do it first. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek's use of rollback power is inappropriate, he should have edit with calm head and use normal undo or simply explain his reverts. Removal of his rollback power and editing restrictions are nonetheless premature and simply wrong. Intervening admin should have consulted other people or seek ways through WP:ANI. These actions should be reconsidered again. - Darwinek (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Darwinek has shown us here how an uninvolved administrator should act. Tymek (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've filed a report on this matter at AE .radek (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Deacon seems to have reverted his ill thought actions; but please be careful with rollback in the future - he was right that few times you have misused it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I support your rollbacks. Too many people try to hide the truth about what really went on during the German 'occupation' of the Baltic States. The willing collaboration with the Nazis and the joy of the local population during mass murder of Jewish women and babies has been well documented. Keep up the good work and don’t let this new breed of apologists and neo-nazis hold you back. Meishern (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Poles at Arnhem

Hi Jacurek. I'd been looking into getting a good quality copy of that image, but just so you know I don't think its captioned correctly. See the IWM collection here. Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Aren't historical images great? I've seen it in a few books similarly captioned, but of course they all have (IWM Collection) at the end anyway so are presumably just sourcing it from them. I'm kinda inclined to go with the IWM though, there are jeeps in the pic and the Poles at Driel were only para battalions - their gliders landed near Wolfheze. Besides which there's a lot of detail on the IWM page! Any thoughts? I think its ok to use the IWM image (pre 1957 and all that) which might be preferable as it's a lot clearer, so I'll check and upload it in the morning if so. Do you mind if I therefore delete the one you've added afterwards?! Ranger Steve (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you. And thanks for your watching it too. It's a bit of a labour of love I try and fit in when I have time - I can only hope it will come out as well as you think it might! Ranger Steve (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the link. It looks like a very interesting site. I'll have to spend some time there. — ] (talk · contribs) 18:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

afd

We talked about this before, this "Spieprzaj dziadu!" article should really be deleted. Do you know how to do an WP:AfD? I have never done one before... Ostap 04:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 25 Ostap 03:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Arnhem Barnstar

Thanks Jacurek, that's very kind of you. Article should be finished very soon, just one more map and some cleaning up to do! Ranger Steve (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it might even be finished... well enough to remove the construction tag anyway Ranger Steve (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Img caption Polish Corridor

I saw you reverted the img caption with the summary "this is not what the description of the picture is. Nalot Niemczyzny 1910-1931". I had copied the caption from the commons description side , as it was at the time of your revert. A day later it was vandalized but is now restored. What do you think is wrong with the caption? Skäpperöd (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE

Hi, Skäpperöd just started another WP:AE against me and he also mentioned you Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Loosmark (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Notification

Notice of editing restrictions

Notice: Under the terms of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, "any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

Editors are cautioned that the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to write an encyclopedia that approaches its subjects from a neutral point of view. While it is possible for editors with strongly held opposing viewpoints to collaborate and produce neutral articles, it is extremely difficult, and requires editors to be patient, flexible, respectful of their fellow editors, and willing to negotiate and compromise. Editors are further cautioned that when a change to an article becomes contentious, such as through a few early reverts or a strong objection on the talk page, they should stop reverting and discuss on the talk page until a compromise or consensus is reached. Use the content dispute resolution mechanisms including content request for comment, request for third opinion, mediation, or the content noticeboard. Reverting without discussion is very bad. Reverting during discussion is almost as bad, as it shows disrespect to the editors participating in the discussion. Thatcher 11:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)