This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kotniski (talk | contribs) at 17:47, 10 June 2010 (→Warning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:47, 10 June 2010 by Kotniski (talk | contribs) (→Warning)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Talk page policy: I dislike seeing only one side of a discussion on a page. If I put a message on your talk page, I will be watching that page for a reply. If you leave a message here, I will reply here, unless you request otherwise. |
|---|
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 7 June 2010
- From the team: Changes to the Signpost
- News and notes: "Pending changes" trial, Chief hires, British Museum prizes, Interwiki debate, and more
- Free Travel-Shirts: "Free Travel-Shirts" signed by Jimmy Wales and others purchasable
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Comedy
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Your edit summary
Why can't the article repeat verbatim what that law says?
- Because reliable sources have not connected the law to the subject of the article.--Kotniski (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Apart from the one which is quoted in the article as saying that the subject is "Polish-born". You know the source: it's the one you deleted. Varsovian (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- What are you talking about now? Where does that source connect that law to that person? And if it does (which it doesn't) then why not quote the source directly?--Kotniski (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- The source refers to Sawoniuk as "Polish-born" and he was born Polish because of the 1920 Polish citizenship law. His mother was Polish and that made him Polish because he didn't know who his father was, which may just explain why he described himself as being Polish! Varsovian (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know when you think he described himself as being Polish, but apparently the reason was to avoid being on the Nazi side when the war was lost. He is described as "Polish-born" because he was born within the borders of Poland. None of this has anything to do with any 1920 citizenship law. Or if it does, the sources don't make that connection, so nor do we.--Kotniski (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have a source to confirm your stance on why he described himself as Polish? I see you still can't (or perhaps don't want to) understand that being born in Poland does not make one Polish-born. Varsovian (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know when you think he described himself as being Polish, but apparently the reason was to avoid being on the Nazi side when the war was lost. He is described as "Polish-born" because he was born within the borders of Poland. None of this has anything to do with any 1920 citizenship law. Or if it does, the sources don't make that connection, so nor do we.--Kotniski (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- The source refers to Sawoniuk as "Polish-born" and he was born Polish because of the 1920 Polish citizenship law. His mother was Polish and that made him Polish because he didn't know who his father was, which may just explain why he described himself as being Polish! Varsovian (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- What are you talking about now? Where does that source connect that law to that person? And if it does (which it doesn't) then why not quote the source directly?--Kotniski (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Apart from the one which is quoted in the article as saying that the subject is "Polish-born". You know the source: it's the one you deleted. Varsovian (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Warning
You have now made your second accusation that I am editing in bad faith. Kindly refrain from doing and strike out your accusation on the WP:POLAND page or I will request that you are warned of DIGWUREN sanctions. Varsovian (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean. Kindly refrain from your obviously and consistently nationalistic-driven editing, which manifestly breaches all of Misplaced Pages's core policies. --Kotniski (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Do you feel that "your obviously and consistently nationalistic-driven editing" is in keeping with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL?
- It's not mine, it's yours, but all right, I suppose those are two policies that it doesn't breach (the core policies I had in mind were NPOV, V, OR). --Kotniski (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Do you feel that describing another editor's editing as "obviously and consistently nationalistic-driven editing" is in keeping with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL? If you have concerns with me breaking any WP policy, please file a report on me. I am trying to give you the chance to avoid me filing one on you. Varsovian (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Everyone can see what sort of editor you are. I'm not interested in filing reports, but you should still be ashamed of what you're doing. --Kotniski (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Do you feel that describing another editor's editing as "obviously and consistently nationalistic-driven editing" is in keeping with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL? If you have concerns with me breaking any WP policy, please file a report on me. I am trying to give you the chance to avoid me filing one on you. Varsovian (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's not mine, it's yours, but all right, I suppose those are two policies that it doesn't breach (the core policies I had in mind were NPOV, V, OR). --Kotniski (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Do you feel that "your obviously and consistently nationalistic-driven editing" is in keeping with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL?