Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 90 days are automatically archived to User talk:Dr. Dan/Archive 6. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
See the Misplaced Pages article on Pyrrhic Victory for information. A Pyrrhic victory is one that comes at a great cost to the attacker. For example, the Battle of Bunker Hill was a pyrrhic victory for the British, since they won the battle, but were drained of men. In the Battle of Westerplatte, the Germans lost 200-400 men while the Poles lost 13 men. As the Germans paid an extremely heavy price while inflicting fewer casualties than they sustained, than this could be considered a Pyrrhic victory. (unsigned)
If, per definition, a pyrrhic victory is a victory with devastating cost to the victor, the Battle of Westerplatte, seems to be a poor example. I think your statistics are those stemming out of the People's Republic of Poland. I believe the German official KIA are around 50-55, with a proportion of those being the result of friendly fire from the Schleswig-Holstein. If I'm mistaken, I am interested in getting the actual facts straight concerning the matter. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
German official KIA? You probably mean the Nazi official KIA, and everybody knows that the Nazis were notorious liars. It's quite disgusting that you'd rather believe them than the other sources. Loosmark (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I think by now the German statistics regarding their casualties in the Second World War are hardly questioned for their accuracy or objectivity. I also think they would be in a better position to state what they were in this "battle" than statistics coming out of the People's Republic of Poland. Or do you believe they were less notorious liars? Loosmark,sorry that trying to get to the bottom of this and making the article more accurate disgusts you. Politics aside, as I stated before, I am only interested in getting the actual facts straight concerning the matter. Thanks again. BTW, this is an open question to anyone with information concerning the issue. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I think by now the German statistics regarding their casualties in the Second World War are hardly questioned for their accuracy or objectivity. huh!? Or do you believe they were less notorious liars? Indeed, I think the Nazis were the worst, personally I don't trust any stats they come up with. I am only interested in getting the actual facts straight concerning the matter. I am sure you do Dr. Dan. Loosmark (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
You're correct Loosmark, I am only interested in getting the actual facts straightened out regarding the casualties. Without Godwin's Law entering into the discussion. Anyway I do standby my reluctance to accept the People's Republic of Poland statistics as reliable. Do you accept them as reliable? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Uh, Godwin's Law obviously doesn't apply where there are, you know, actual Nazis involved. Are you planning on showing up on the talk page for Adolf Hitler and chastising everyone there for Godwin's Law violations?radek (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I find it puzzling that every time I reffer to the Nazi by the word Nazi there is always some drama, Godwin's Laws and what not. How am i supposed to call them then? The reality of the matter is that the Nazis expected an easy victory at Westernplatte but then suffered far greater losses than expected. Since that didn't feel too well into their concept of "ubermensch" it's more than likely that they doctored the stats a little bit. IMO people who were capable of this were quite capable of everything. But to answer your question, lets put it this way: if I have to choose between the Nazi stats and the stats of the People's Republic of Poland I'd pick the later 24 hours per day and 7 days per week. Loosmark (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm shocked by the manipulation of what I said by Matthead. I said I would pick the source of the People's Republic of Poland over a Nazi source, not that I would "always pick a communist source" as you try to imply. Loosmark (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
(od) As an example, accuracy-wise, I would trust German statistics over casualties suffered and inflicted over Soviet statistics regarding casualties suffered and inflicted. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk18:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
It depends on what is meant by "communist sources" above. For pre 1957 Poland I wouldn't trust those sources anymore than Nazi ones. But after the "thaw" legitimate historical works began coming out and even government publications on areas that didn't directly challenge the "official history" were pretty accurate. So for post 1956/7 the sources have to be evaluated individually (though with a skeptical eye - basically it's important to look at how other, independent, scholars treat them).
On the other hand, Nazi sources are all unreliable if taken at face value. Of course analysis of Nazi era sources in secondary sources can very well be RS.radek (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
What was a small issue concerning the term "pyrrhic victory" that was raised concerning the the Battle of Westerplatte, placed by User:Reenem, is being blown way out of proportion. It would be better served being discussed at that article's talk page rather than here. There are actually some threads in place that can be further discussed. Please go there. Thanks to all for your input. Regards, Dr. Dan (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Alternate names
Hi Dan - thanks for asking, I always learn something doing these things. Will probably be able to get to those two over the next couple of days. As far as the larger alternate naming issue - that should probably go to the WP:NCGN policy page and might could use a WP:Request for comment (more eyes). Viso gero, Novickas (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
EEML case comment struck
Dr Dan - I struck this comment as a portion of it crossed my "inflammatory statement" threshold. The two phrases that I won't permit are "inappropriately backhanded jibe" and "harping". Please feel free to rewrite your comment accordingly. Manning (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure you're in a position to make accusations of others in this regard - at the Samogitia article I see you've repeatedly tried to take a relevant piece of information (the Polish name for the place) out of the article - for what purpose? You can hardly claim that Piotrus' (and multiple other editors') reinserting it is in any way disruptive. I thought your recent attempt to rename Bieszczady to Western Beskids was an honest mistake, but combined with this other thing it makes me wonder if you have some prejudice against Polish names' appearing in WP articles. (I've certainly seen examples of such behaviour by editors of various nationalities.) It really has to stop on all sides.--Kotniski (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
In fact, I hope you'll forgive my browsing your recent contributions, but it didn't take me long to find this and this, where in both cases you've simply removed morsels of information connected with Poland. Combined with your great interest in this ArbCom case, where you seem to be trying to get as harsh restrictions as possible imposed on Polish editors, I have to wonder whether do you have some kind of ulterior (possibly subconscious) motivation here.--Kotniski (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Kotniski, this is not the proper forum to discuss why Samogitia, one of the five ethnographic regions of Lithuania, should require a Polish language version in the lead of that article. I'd be happy to discuss that with you at the article's talk page. Same goes for Kalvarija and Kražiai, and the the proper English name for the Beskids and it's components, too. I am however, in a position to point out that Prokonsul Piotrus' example of how he reaches compromises is not all that it seems. That was the point of my edit. Incidentally, since you've never edited the Kražiai or Kalvarija articles in any capacity whatsoever, what you call "browsing" my recent contributions, is sometimes referred to as stalking. Just to let you know, I don't mind though, I'm use to it. More importantly however, since you seem to be able to follow my contributions in such detail, this remark..."you seem to be trying to get as harsh restrictions as possible imposed on Polish editors"...truly surprises me. Where? When? A "diff" would be most helpful. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, in your comment just above, you seem to be trying to display Piotrus in a bad light over an edit where all he's done is restore some perfectly valid encyclopedic information which you had previously removed (despite several editors' restoring it). If your purpose in doing that was not to argue for harsher restrictions on him, then I can't think what it was. And just to stay off topic for the moment, if you remove information because it's not appropriate in the lead, then please ensure that you preserve it somewhere else in the article (as has now been done properly at Samogitia).--Kotniski (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Kotniski this thread is getting way too Kafkaesque, OT, and untrue with remarks like..." where "you seem" to be trying to get as harsh restrictions as possible imposed on Polish editors, I have to "wonder" whether do you have some kind of "ulterior (possibly subconscious) motivation"" ? How about a "diff" please, for where have I "argued for harsher restrictions"? And is there any reason for me not to have a great interest in this ArbCom case? Btw, as far as who "put themselves in a bad light" by their actions, that wouldn't be me, but they themselves. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
And is there any reason for me not to have a great interest in this ArbCom case? Your sudden mega increased interest (numericaly going by numbers of posts it's around 2000%) in the ArbCom case coincides with the proposed more narrower sanctions to some members of the list. Btw good idea you have changed that "surreal" comment, you were starting to use that word too much, it was starting to look bizarre. Loosmark (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Do I have to look in the history and give a diff for the comment we can all see just above? Are you claiming you didn't write it? Are you denying the destructive anti-Polish pattern inherent in the diffs I have provided? They certainly do show you in a bad light, at least on the surface, far more than the diff you cite against Piotrus might be claimed to show him in a bad light. If this is the sort of behaviour that Polish editors encounter on a regular basis, then I'm not surprised they've felt the need to take irregular action to combat it. I'm happy for this OT subthread to be archived, but Dan's original accusation against Piotrus (the one about the "provocative, unnecessary and undue edit") should go with it - it's hard to see any justification for those words when the edit is actually examined. --Kotniski (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
(OD) Two things. Kotniski, please provide a "diff" for your assertion or retract it. And for the benefit of Loosmark, you, and anyone else concerned (especially members of the committee) my interest in this proceeding is the result of being a target of this mailing list. Some emails in the list specifically mention me. In one or two, the Prokosul specifically mentions a strategy of how to remove me from the project. That's why its of interest to me. Those privy to the emails can confirm this fact if they care to. What would your interest in this proceeding be? And I still believe that his edit was "provocative, unnecessary and undue", and totally so. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Just for the purposes of clarification, Dr. Dan was a "target" of the list in the sense that one member of the list told others to "just ignore him" and then another said "yes, that guy has a PhD in trolling" and then another one said "yes, why bother, just ignore him", and then maybe somebody else said "yeah, why waste your time, ignoring sounds good". Hence it was a huge evil conspiracy to just ignore Dr. Dan's usual "contributions". Understandably, the ignored Dr. Dan is upset.radek (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
LOL, yes I was a target alright, but it hardly upset me. In fact the whole expose of the mailing list, not just emails concerning me, totally disgusted me. Later the duplicity exposed and the shame of it actually occurring disgusted me more. And the attempts to deny it and play more games after the ArbCom case was opened even further disgusted me. So, your emails about some plan to ignore me didn't upset me, they just disgusted me. But your "clarification" of this small part of the mailing list is a step in the right direction. Instead of denying it or claiming that someone falsified the emails concerning Dr. Dan, we have an explanation, a "clarification", of not only what you all were saying about me, but the bonus of what my reaction to them must be. That's nice. If you want to you can clarify the rest of what you all were doing at the mailing list, but not here, do that at the ArbCom before it closes. I might even behoove you. It would be a refreshing change from all of the earlier denials. Btw, I think you forgot to include one rather important email concerning me sent by the Prokonsul to the rest of your cabal (whose existence was consistently denied). Do you care to share that one with everyone, maybe verbatim? As for the rest of your explanation ("clarification"), Radeksz, all I can say is too bad you didn't follow the advice of the "one member of the list" and ignore me. I think as a result of your recent input, I'll take his advice by ignoring you. But before I do, I want to thank you and Loosmark for your contributions to this discussion that Kotniski and I were attempting to have. Maybe it gave some committee members a small insight into what kind of wikipedians you are and how this all came to pass. I don't know if anyone ever said this at the ArbCom, maybe I missed it, but I'll say it on my talk page, Shame on all of you. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, so that's where we disagree. How is adding encyclopedic information to the encyclopedia "provocative"? (Surely continually removing it, as you've been doing, is far more provocative?) "Unnecessary"? (Well, nothing we do here is necessary - but that's hardly an argument to use against someone.) "Undue"? (Don't know what you mean by that, but it seems to occur regularly in your edit summaries where you've removed the Polish names from articles on places in Lithuania - you seem to be waging some sort of campaign here that isn't to do with improving the encyclopedia, much as some of the more extreme Polish editors have been known to do against German names.) --Kotniski (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Unless some members of the committee (which I doubt) wish to hear more about this topic, Samogitia, etc., I've told you to take it to my talk page already. I believe this is the second time I've made that suggestion. For the last time, I'm respectfully asking you to provide a diff for this statement,"you seem to be trying to get as harsh restrictions as possible imposed on Polish editors" or to retract it. That would be relevant to this proceeding. Otherwise this is a pointless discussion and I will not continue it. Please do not make outlandish accusations if you're unable to back them up. And Kotniski, this tidbit of yours probably sums it up perfectly "If this is the sort of behaviour that Polish editors encounter on a regular basis, then I'm not surprised they've felt the need to take irregular action to combat it." "Irregular action" (your explanation)? You might be surprised that most of us do not feel we're in "combat" and that this project is some kind of battle ground. Obviously we disagree here too. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Next you are going to tell us that you pop up every time there is discussion about sanctioning some Polish editors to prevent battleground. Loosmark (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Not at all Loosmark, just to tell you that you pop up very frequently at these kinds of discussions with very interesting comments. Perhaps they're made with the intention to prevent "flaming" and "battlegrounds"? And what does "sanctioning some Polish editors" have to do with your confusing statement. It doesn't strike me as a "morsel of wiki-wisdom" or any kind of wisdom. Loosmark, if you are unable to follow the conversation or add something substantial to it, I'm asking you respectfully to stay off my talk page. It's those kinds of yuk, yuk, sophomoric remarks that were interwoven into too many of the EEML emails. They no longer interest me at all. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Heh, my confused statement? Considering what you wrote above that's a classical case of the pot calling the kettle black. Loosmark (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Loosmark, I said "confusing" not "confused". They don't mean the same thing. Other than that, I apologize for all my shortcomings. Just the same you couldn't have been confused about this part, "stay off my talk page". Have a good one. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Dan, I come here in the first place only because the discussion was "transferred" here on your initiative. But since according to your analysis I can't add anything "substantial" and "worthwhile" I'm just gonna say sayonara. Loosmark (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm just stating what seems to me to be the case. If you make an accusation against someone in a discussion about what sanctions should be applied to him, it seems you're trying to get the sanctions increased. If you make regular edits removing Polish names from articles about places in Lithuania, then it seems you're waging some kind of battle against Polish names in Misplaced Pages (the Bieszczady thing rather reinforces this appearance). If I'm wrong, just tell me the real reason you did these things, and everything will be clear. Anyway, your accusation against Piotrus on the ArbCom page still seems without foundation, so you might consider retracting that.--Kotniski (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Kotniski you are mistaken, what seems to you an attempt to get sanctions increased towards anyone was in reality pointing out that the Prokonsul's "diff" (and edit summary), claiming to represent compromise was anything but that. Nothing more, nothing less. Maybe others are in a better position to judge that question than we are. I'm definitely willing to listen to reason and any arguments as to why it wasn't. As to the English language question even when P.K. aka P.P. erred at Talk:Elisabeth of Austria (1436–1505), I too demonstrated that not only can I work with him, but that when he acknowledged an error on his part (and offered a good alternative) , I gave him praise and support . On another issue, regarding English on English Misplaced Pages, you might take a peak at the Elisabeth of Austria (1436–1505) article and it's talk page to get a better understanding for my reasoning for the attempted move regarding the Beskids. I acknowledge the improper action of moving the title without discussion. And again, I apologize for that. It was wrong to do that even though it seemed a no brainer at the time, just changing a non-English title to English, just like moving Elżbieta Rakuszanka to Elisabeth of Austria (1436–1505). It should have been discussed first, my bad. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Kotniski, now that we've both decided to either delete the above thread, or just let it die a natural death and get archived (that's my decision, almost hate to look at it until then), I'd like to discuss our disagreement concerning that matter of Samogitia. Would you like to go first? Be my guest. I'm hosting the discussion. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
EEML Warning
This is completely unacceptable. The case pages are not for interrogating other users. This is your final warning. Continued conduct like this will result in bans of increasing duration from the case pages. KnightLago (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. It has been my experience that parties questioning other parties on talk pages does not lead to anything positive (or substantive). KnightLago (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
"Don't want to play anymore"
Whenever we heard that one as kids, it usually meant that the unhappy party was going to take their ball and go home. And probably drink some ovaltine (tea was for grownups). Dr. Dan (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Cher Dr. Dan, Merci de votre message. I have read your recent edits on Chopin's article, and am quite satisfied that you gave George Sand's real name. And I am going to jump on the opportunity of your coming upon the scene to bring out a couple of points, three, in fact:
1. Chopin's birthdate: 22 February on a baptismal certificate, with an alleged (but generally considered erroneous) birth date recorded on it, according to a Wikipedian. Now, why is this "alleged" date considered to be *erroneous*? It is the date inscribed on the cenotaph with his heart in the church of Sainte-Croix in Warsaw. We know that Chopin's sister took his heart when she returned to Poland after his burial. When was the cenotaph built? What I am driving at: was she still alive when it was, because, if so, then she would have given the exact details pertaining to the date of his birth.
2. Chopin's nationality: Born in Poland, there is no doubt that he is a Polish citizen, naturellement. However, his father was a French citizen. Now, I have no idea what the law(s) on nationality - different in different countries, even now - were at the time of Chopin's birth.
Was a French expatriate considered a French citizen?
If still a French citizen, would the born-out-of-France children of this expatriate French citizen be French?
As the laws of France are now, OUI: Chopin would have both nationalities. But what were the laws in 1810?
If considered a French citizen because his father was French, then Chopin, once he moved to France, did not need to become a French citizen since he was one by birth.
3. Chopin's French passport:
In my opinion, his French passport is no proof of citizenship:
The one we see in the article was issued for one year in 1837 to allow him to travel outside of France. Chopin was 27 years old, quite well known and well considered because of his artistry: the French would have done anything they could to facilitate his travels, and the only way they could do it was to issue a passport to him.
The passport issued to Chopin in 1837 does not say that he is a Frenchman, it says that his parents are French (de parents français), which includes his mother, implying she became a French citizen by marrying a Frenchman. Which also could imply that Chopin (and his sisters, by the same token) were French citizens because of the French nationality of their father. However, it does not say de nationalité française; but, again, this was in 1837.
The reason I am bringing this up is because it seems to me that somewhere in the article, it is said that he became a French citizen & the only proof given is the passport. (In fact, if the one issued in 1837 was issued for one year, then he must have had others as he traveled outside of France two or three times.)
Thank you for your time and trouble to elucidate your thoughts on various matters (birth dates, passports, etc.) concerning Chopin. Unfortunately the issue of his nationality (far too often) seems to raise concerns in some quarters on Misplaced Pages. It would seem that other than some type of nationalistic xenophobia one should not object to including his connection to France (emigration to France, acquiring French citizenship, primary residency in France), thus making him Polish-French (and of course, his father's heritage). And including that would be appropriate information for the lead. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I do fight my own battles (which I call "windmills") at times on Misplaced Pages, but the (dual) nationality of Chopin is not one I want to go into because I realise that it touches some too deeply. Besides, being French with a Polish name, whichever way I turn, I can claim Chopin! Aurevoir !Frania W. (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I do understand your dilemma. Unfortunately, many of the people who are "touched too deeply" by such issues are the same ones that are less concerned about "touching other people's sensibilities" as in the Antanas Mackevicius matter . There are plenty of other examples. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Cher Dr. Dan, Yes, I am quite "aware". But I am also aware of what the Code Napoléon stated at time of the birth of Chopin, which touches the Chopin family since his father came from France, and leaves no doubt as to Chopin's French nationality. Unfortunately, it is difficult to find a book to reference this particular point, and what I am saying falls into Misplaced Pages definition of "original research".
Chopin & his music are so incrusted into the tragedy of Poland that, in my opinion, out of respect for the Poles, the French have been unwilling to claim him as their own. He is always mentioned as "compositeur polonais né d'un père français" (Dictionnaire Petit Robert)... yet, according to the Code Civil: "Tout enfant né d'un Français à l'étranger est Français." But, go say that to the Poles!
Tad Szulc is the writer being quoted in Chopin acquiring French citizenship four years after his arrival in France. These few lines are enough for Misplaced Pages's requirements. It is obvious that neither Chopin's friends and protectors nor Tad Szulc ever consulted the French Code Civil. Until he met with the French authorities, Chopin himself may have been unaware of the fact that he was French, but the French authorities knew the Code, hence the issuance of a French passport.
In my opinion, Tad Szulc's book is not a good reference (for the nationality part), but it is the only one there is, so it automatically wins out.
Merci. J'ai lu votre lien et le point de prendre bonne note. Le problème est que ceux qui s'opposent à des faits ne traitons pas avec la réalité. Que faire maintenant? Dr. Dan (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Que faire maintenant? Attendre une réaction et si elle se fait attendre, on peut toujours mettre les deux nationalités dans l'introduction de l'article puisque l'on est couvert par Encyclopedia Britannica. Ensuite, si nécessaire, en cas de controverse, on sortira le Code Napoléon ! - the problem being that it may be argued as OR. I am looking for something readable in English that would put an end to the debate. Comme vous vous en doutez, le plus gros problème sera d'éviter une bagarre entre éditeurs. Aurevoir ! --Frania W. (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, as I wrote earlier, Chopin is the last person I would want to fight an edit war over; in other words, he is not going to be turned into one of my windmills. If I can find it acceptable for en:wiki, the only reference/source I will use is the Code Napoléon and, as I understand the way Misplaced Pages functions, it has to be a secondary source, not the reading of the code itself (?).
In fact, there should be a calm discussion on Chopin's nationality/nationalities without anyone over-reacting when the word "French" is mentioned. --Frania W. (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Strang article
Thanks so much for your recent contributions to James Strang. Your changes definitely enhanced the readability of that portion of the article, and are much appreciated! - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been meaning to tell you "thanks" for the comment you made about my userboxes. I really like userboxes (you probably couldn't tell that, could you?!?); they are not just informative, but also—to me, at least—miniature works of art that really "spice up" any Userpage. Thanks again for your compliment (and your message in general), and have a great week! - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
ok, thanks. I think there is still a small problem with that caricature but it's not really important. About the Soviet leadership, in the 1918-19 time frame the majority was still for spreading the revolution abroad, at least Trocki and Lenin were. IMO we should replace "some" with "most". Dr. Loosmark07:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Please note, that I didn't "note" the Pole's resemblance to Pilsudski, or the ghoulish long, pointed, nails that both parties are using to dig into Belarus. Dan may i ask you what are you talking about? which Pole? Dr. Loosmark17:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The representation of Poland in the caricature . The caricature with the caption "Down with the shameful Riga partition. Long live an independent National Belarus". Dr. Dan (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
You're right nobody noted, other than myself, any particular resemblances. This is why I mentioned "that I didn't note that" in relation to the caricature. There wasn't any "strong need" on my part to do so either. Just a digression regarding many comments made concerning a caricature at the Bialystok pogrom (talk page). User:Malik Shabazz can bring you up to speed on that one. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Quite right! A digression. Subjective notations are unnecessary and uncalled for. They often get people into trouble. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Earth to Loosmark. What are you trying to start up again? Just what are you referring to? I'd like to know before you pull the plug Dr. Dan (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok i will explain why was your edit wrong. imagine for a second that the Soviet Union would not have invaded Poland. In that case after the Nazis were toasted the Polish Eastern border would have been restored to the 1939 state. considering that it is wrong to say that the border established with the Riga Treaty lasted till the start of the Second War (which was on 1 September 1939) but actually till the Soviet Invasion (17 September). Dr. Loosmark05:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Loosmark, first explaining why my edit was wrong is quite different than accusing me of "anti-Polish POV pushing". Please be so kind as to retract that comment and stop being so defensive. It's really uncalled for. Second, I've read your remark above and I honestly have no idea of what you are trying to say. Usually your English is much better. Please reorganize your thoughts and put them together in a more coherent fashion. It would be better to carry this dialogue over to the talk page of the Peace of Riga article. If you wish to apologize for your uncalled for PA, you can do that here. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
ok, i retractor my comment, it was unfortunate. Dr. Dan I want to give you barnstar for your contributions to wikipedia but I don't know how to do it. Can you please teach me how? Dr. Loosmark05:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
_restored_(cropped).jpg)
Kwan Man-ching
