![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Witam! http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granatowa_policja Ten artykuł to moje dzieło. Czy możesz pomóc mi go przetłumaczyć na angielski??? MarvinSS 17:23, 16 STYCZNIA 2008
Thanks for your comment at Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Sca ( talk) 15:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Laimingų naujųjų metų! Novickas ( talk) 14:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a proposed move of Scottish kings at Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland that I thought I'd bring to your attention. I think you have had things to say on this subject in the past. Probably won't be successful, but that's wiki for you. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 17:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Temple of Music requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Wtfdontkill (
talk) 01:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Dr. Dan. I think you are a good looking guy. Your user name is interesting. Anyway, why did you oppose the FA nomination? I think the biography of Józef Piłsudski is fine. What are your views? Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 04:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
In historic posters More are to be found here [1] -- Molobo ( talk) 04:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
As you probably have heard, a few days ago a cement brick shattered a window at the Jewish Reconstructionist Congregation in Evanston in the suburbs of the great city of Chicago. This shameful event was reported to police by a synagogue employee, and some Northwestern students said the vandalism definitely constituted a hate crime. We do not know if it was done by single individual or a group. Anyway, are you familiar with this incident? How did this came about? We are not familiar with the incident ourselves, and this is why I asked. Tymek ( talk) 18:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Tymek, I posted this on your talk page three days ago. Since you erased it, I wanted to remind you of a similar incident in case you forgot:
As much as we don't see eye to eye, I do think you did a good job npoving the caption here. Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Dr. Dan, hope all is well. Since you are among the most knowledgable wikipedians on this topic and have more objectivity than most contributors, I wondered if you had any thoughts on the discussion going on at Talk:History_of_Poland_(1939–1945)#Removal_of_Soviet_picture. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 23:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
File:David,larry.JPG | My RFA | |
Thank you muchly for your support in
my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth!
Kidding btw. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 11:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC) |
Just wondering, does your automated archive bot still work? M.K. ( talk) 22:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Happy Easter to all! Dr. Dan ( talk) 22:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[2].-- Molobo ( talk) 05:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
[3]-- Molobo ( talk) 05:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Dr Dan, thank you that you supported my in A.K Talk. And Can I wrote in polish for You?:) Alden or talk with Alden 09:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Dr. Dan, I'd like to remind you that - particularly with relation to this - sarcastic remarks like this are not appreciated. Please consider reverting yourself and moderating yourself better in the future, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I note that on this page, you took out as nonsensical and then restored a statement that John Paul II spoke at Auschwitz to 1.1 million people, "90% of them Jews". This does seem pretty unlikely. Is there a source for this statement somewhere? Or did you restore it by accident? Brianyoumans ( talk) 09:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of courtesy, I'm informing you that a discussion of your edits has been brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Discussion_concerning_Dr._Dan. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 22:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Dr. Dan, generally my view on this is inclusive and multiculturalist, particularly since many of these towns/regions/countries do have a very rich multicultural history. As a result I got no problem with other-lang names in the leads of articles, unlike apparently some other editors who take the very presence of Polish words in "their" articles as a grave personal (and national) insult. More so, I think that in many cases these other-lang names are very important to the topic. So I don't have much of the problem with what's been put into Lublin. As you may have noticed, I've actually put the Lithuanian name of the town BACK INTO the article.
Of course there are some reasonable limits to this (and Lublin's sort of stretching them) as it wouldn't make sense to add in any ol' name into the lead or two list too many of them. Likewise I would and do object to bad faith edits based on some kind of reciprocal mentality.
I don't see how this kind of attitude can cause an "open season on the names of Polish and Lithuanian geographical toponyms" unless it's done in bad faith, nor do I understand what this 'can of worms' you refer to is exactly supposed to be.
Cheers. radek ( talk) 22:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This sounds like a kind of a can from which worms come out of only if they are forcefully shaken out, by someone with bad faith. As I said, the situation with Poland and Lithuania is in general different. (Also in some instances I'm fine with, say, "Breslau" in "Wroclaw" because it's appropriate). If you don't see the difference then I'm not sure there is a point in discussing this further. radek ( talk) 01:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I apologise for not responding to your inquiry before this discussion was closed, but I will do so here.
The inquiry centred on my statement that I was "an uninvolved editor in these particular issues". I was referring to the immediate issues that resulted in the request. I was not involved in any of the edits in question, was not previously aware of them, and had not been consulted concerning them. How I found out about the discussion was through the notice on Matthead's user talk page, which I had on my watchlist from my previous interactions with that editor.
You may not have encountered disruptive editing on Matthead's part, but I certainly have. I don't really care two figs one way or the other for the substance of Matthead's argument that "West Germany" is an invalid country name or that "West German" is an invalid nationality. I don't really have an opinion on how to approach that issue. But what I blocked him for was systematically blanking category pages that referred to "West Germany" or "West German", when several of these categories had been formally discussed at WP:CFD and the consensus was to keep them in their current form. That's disruptive editing whether your position on the substantive question is defensible or not. I don't know if you were implying that it was me who had tried to "ram my POV down his throat", but I can assure you that my actions were to protect decisions made by consensus, and not in any way by me.
Hopefully that answers your question. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article J.P. Borden, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Bongo matic 14:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I have sent you an email. Regards, Novickas ( talk) 16:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for catching this! Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the copy-edit. But can I ask you not to edit the article until I remove the "under construction" banner? It just creates edit conflicts and headaches trying to reinsert the changes. Thanks, Renata ( talk) 03:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
An RfC has opened about this issue at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II#RfC: Nazi atrocities in Warsaw. Skäpperöd ( talk) 05:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that there is a simple answer to your question, because I do not believe that "nationality" is an objective category. Basically, it is a matter of cultural self-identification rather than of scientific distinction. Personally, I think that the only acceptable answer is Bogart's in Casablanca.
So, for Jews in Vilna, the answer must be specific to the individual. For some, it would be appropriate to put "Jewish" as their nationality, while for others "Lithuanian" or "Russian" would be better. In the case of Trotsky, which first caught your attention, it is clear that he did nor identify as a Jew, and the insistence on this label would seem to result from either antisemitic or Jewish chauvinist prejudice. I'm not sure that "Ukrainian" is appropriate either, since Uktaine was not independent at the timne of his birth and he never considered himself a Ukrainian. Nor, as far as I know, did he speak Ukrainian. What is certain is that it is inappropriate to categorise him as a Jew by nationality. RolandR 08:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dr.Dan, would you please explain this? [5] You wrote there is a "new consensus" however I'm not able to locate it on the talk page. Loosmark ( talk) 15:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Possible rule 1: Wikipedia article about every single piece of territory that the Russian state has any historical connection to (it was occupied by Russian trooops, dominated by Russian traders) shall have its cyrillic transliteration given prominently in the lead. This would include Warsaw obviously, but also Berlin, Anchorage, California, Budapest, Vienna, just for starters. Plainly ridiculous and completely untenable. Yet this edit can only be justified by such a rule.
Possible rule 2: Wikipedia article will only use the Russian name in the lead for a placename outside Russia proper if that name can be demonstrated to be in significant use in English language publications. Thus Modlin can and should have the Russian name Novogeorgievsk given, Dęblin should have Ivangorod in the lead. But you will not find any English language publications using Варшава to refer to Warsaw, now would you? I didn't think so.
Which approach makes more sense? Please make your choice and then pursue it with consistency. Do not experiment with Wikipedia, disrupt it, or make edits only to prove a point in some dispute. 99.236.70.174 ( talk) 02:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
In the above exchange concerning Warsaw, I was asked why I added the Cyrillic Russian version of the city's name. Here's the diff... [7]. I responded..."Hi back, I noticed that you highlighted the Russian version, but not the Yiddish version." In a nutshell, you found the Russian version objectionable, but not the Yiddish one. Any particular reason? The question, I believe, remains unanswered. Perhaps I missed it. I'd still like Loosmark to explain why, however? Dr. Dan ( talk) 18:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
A user requested informal mediation for the current dispute at the Paneriai page. Please go here to take part. Please note that in the event you refuse, the end result of this dispute may be penalties for both sides for disruption. Please take part in informal mediation. -- Raziel teatime 19:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Whoa! What personal attack? Break it [13] down for everyone. What personal attack? Dr. Dan ( talk) 19:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, my apologies. I thought you meant that he reverted your edit without giving a reason. In any case, I still view your comments as a personal attack, but we'll agree to disagree. It doesn't really matter at this point anyway. -- Raziel teatime 19:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I found Your question about Blondi's age. I've checked it and You were right. She was prob. born in 1941 cos Bormann gave her to Hitler in 1941 when she was a young bitch. I've changed it (and a few other thing in the article) - I hope did not make too many grammar errors there.
Sorry - I've got some personal question: have You ever lived in Britain (some spa town) or in Spain (ca 2005-2006). I've prob. mistaken You with somebody I had met near some Moorish castle in Spain (he was going to be a teacher in Masuria, Poland and he knew quite a lot about history). Sorry for that stupid question; I'm just curious (especially when I looked at your picture) and You don't have to answer it :). V1 t 23:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Dr. Dan, I do not much like you but hey, that's life. How about instead of this endless bickering we try to do something productive together. I notice that's there's A LOT of Lithuanian places that are still red-wiki linked. To pick a random example, Adutiškis. I'm bringing this up now because recently I was trying to write an article and had trouble finding anything about Onuškis (which I stubbed - but it took me like an hour and a half to figure out what the non-Yiddish name of this place was). So instead of fighting about alternative names and so on, why not we try to knock out as many of those red wiki links as we can, even if it's just stubs. Seriously, the time that's been devoted to fighting over Paneriai and Ponary could've been better used to create articles on the multitude of Lithuanian places that are missing - I'm speaking as an economist here, I hate this kind of inefficiency. For myself, I promise not to bring the issue of alternative names up in any new articles that are created through this collaboration (should you agree. If I'm on my own here, I'll do it my own way), and will leave that up to the mediation case when and if it ever concludes.
So how about some help here? Something simple. A list of all Lithuanian places which are mentioned somewhere but which are still red. Help me out. radek ( talk) 02:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The Russian bashing continues at the circus unabated, and not reprimanded. What's up with that? Dr. Dan ( talk) 05:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Reading on my real project here. "Largest" of the Baltic states. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 03:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
See the Wikipedia 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)
(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 ► talk 18:27, 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)
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)
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)
(moved from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision
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)
(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 [17] was "provocative, unnecessary and undue", and totally so. Dr. Dan ( talk) 18:49, 21 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)
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)
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)
Hi, could you please copy edit this article in my sandbox? If you going to c/e it please don't forget to add {{ inuse}} template, then editing it (by this we will avoid edit conflicts). Thanks, M.K. ( talk) 08:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Linksmų Kalėdų ir laimingų Naujųjų Metų! Novickas ( talk) 23:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
And Best Wishes. Please be sure to turn up the volume. Dr. Dan ( talk) 00:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1qpwag8ddM
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.
3. Chopin's French passport: In my opinion, his French passport is no proof of citizenship:
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.)
Meilleurs vœux pour 2010.
Frania W. ( talk) 03:53, 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 Wikipedia 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 [22] are enough for Wikipedia'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.
Do you "readez" French?
Cordialement, Frania W. ( talk) 05:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Great, only that I don't read cyrillic so a translation would be welcome. Dr. Loosmark 04:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Would you stop your anti-Polish POV pushing? thanks. Dr. Loosmark 04:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Re the article - glad you liked the edits - I think it's in pretty reasonable shape now. The lead - perhaps you're right and it's too much info, but we should probably discuss that at article talk. I don't feel strongly about it tho. Later, Novickas ( talk) 15:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't even understand it very well. Dr. Loosmark 03:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Merci! -- Frania W. ( talk) 03:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Yup, the conventions are in force everywhere in Europe (and not only in Europe). I believe it was either CIV or COTIF (both are in force), you can easily google it. Anyway, that's why Russian trains from Moscow to Paris passing through Warsaw have "Moskva-Warszawa-Paris" written on their sides rather than "Москва-Варшава-Париж". Polish trains to Moscow also call it Moskva, even though the letter V is not even in Polish alphabet. And yes, Polish coaches to Vilna (no direct rail link) operated by the Polish State Railways go to Vilnius rather than Wilno. Which does not mean that Vilnius is the Polish name for that place. // Halibu tt 23:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know whether you noticed, but I replied to your question posed at Talk:Vilnius#German. Knepflerle ( talk) 10:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 12:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
...for that one. Skäpperöd ( talk) 16:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Hitler Youth Quex - while we're on it, will do the movie within the next days... Skäpperöd ( talk) 21:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Dan, there is again a section up on human soap production at the Stutthoff page. What are you thoughts on deleting it at this time?-- TL36 ( talk) 02:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Have you seen this ? I hope you understand exactly what's written there. In my opinion Jacurek should be blocked for writing this FOREVER. BTW, I'm 100% Polish, but I rather read Wikipedia than edit this. I can't agree with some of your edits, but still I think that doing wrong edits (well, in my opinion wrong) it's not the same like calling someone 'jebanytroll' and 'h zlamany' on Wikipedia ! I'm sad that they are so many Polish NPOV pushers on Wiki. Well, in fact many of them are hardcore nationalists and shouldn't edit Poland/Eastern Europe related articles .. Another sad thing is, that ppl like Jacurek don't understand and don't believe that someone can be Polish and have different (not Polish-nationalistic) point of view. I know I should write it to him but I'm afraid it would be waste of time ... Greetings/Pozdrowienia ( 81.190.211.58 ( talk) 09:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC))
de Chopin est écrit en polonais. J'ai déjà laissé un mot à ce sujet au restaurant chaud chez Chopin. Je suis aussi en train de travailler à une traduction, mais n'arrête pas de m'interrompre pour suivre la discussion chez Chopin, où la tambouille commence à brûler...
-- Frania W. ( talk) 01:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Dr. Dan. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18#Richard Tylman, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard ( talk) 02:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Kotniski or anybody else wants to censor your arguments. The problem on the Chopin talk was the discussion drifted completely off-topic, because another editor tried to hijack the thread and nothing good was going to come out it. Sometimes it's just better to take a time-out so to say and restore a bit of order. Let's wait and see what the admins say, they have experience with handling such situations and I have maximum confidence in their abilities. (Your comments can easily be restored from history anyway if they decide it's better not to delete.) Dr. Loosmark 18:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
User:Dr. Dan has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Êtes-vous médecin généraliste ou bien spécialiste, par exemple psy, car si cela continue, je vais bien vite avoir besoin d'en consulter un.
Cordialement, -- Frania W. ( talk) 19:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page.-- Tznkai ( talk) 20:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Mon cher Docteur, vu le ridicule de la situation, au lieu de prendre mal ce qu'il me disait, j'ai préféré me marrer avec mes petits insectes; mais je doute fort qu'il comprenne la légèreté de mon esprit de papillon. Cordialement, -- Frania W. ( talk) 04:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
If you understand polish (you have declared it) - i'm able to show you point: Nie wiem na jakiej podstawie umieszczasz Mickiewicza wśród polsko-litewskich pisarzy - problem polega na tym, że on nie był Litwinem, tworzył po polsku - ma wkład w polską kulturę a nie w litewską. Na polskiej Wikipedii jest to jednoznacznie opisane, możesz przeczytać. Andrew18 @ 15:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Shortest jokes "considered to be" the best, I chose not to develop as I was tempted with "Local Interstellar Cloud in the Local Bubble zone", which could explain the catastrophic fallout caused by the recent volcanic eruption in Iceland & the stock market bubble explosion over our galactic financial universe. NASA might be a shoot off NASDAQ. Et savez-vous que la plus appréciées des astrologues en France s'appelle Madame Soleil?
Cordialement, -- Frania W. ( talk) 17:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Since this is not the first time you have done so, I have brought this matter up here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
This block is made as a result of this AE thread. You are also banned from commenting on or otherwise directly interacting with Piotrus ( talk · contribs) and Nihil novi ( talk · contribs) for three months, except for the purpose of necessary dispute resolution (as determined by uninvolved administrators in their sole judgment). Sandstein 08:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 03:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
[31] radek ( talk) 00:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Dan, what's with the renewed campaign to remove information about Polish names from Lithuania-related articles? I know you have some kind of ongoing conflict with Polish editors, but there's no reason why Wikipedia should have to suffer for it. We're trying to provide information here. If you know of any Polish editors actively removing Lithuanian/German/etc. names from articles about Polish places, let me know - I'll be just as strongly opposed to that. But it can't be right to respond to information-destroying actions in one place with similar actions in another place. (Or whatever else your motivation is.)-- Kotniski ( talk) 07:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
As somebody who has taken part in the previous discussions on this topic, you may be interested in the current move discussion here. Varsovian ( talk) 17:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for digging out the self-reverted edit from the trash, great job. btw I found your claim that, quote: "The bottom line here regardless of all of this OT stuff is that Johann Dzierzon used Johann himself in the first person. The preponderance of reliable sources use Johann. And the majority of the contrary claims come out of Communist Poland." most interesting. I didn't know that Encyclopaedia Britannica and many other reliable sources were published by Communist Poland. Dr. Loosmark 13:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
(OD) We don't seem to be making a lot of progress here, perhaps more clarity will be established at this talk page [36]. I hope so. Dr. Dan ( talk) 16:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand you questioning my sincere welcoming attitude, because my first remark was far too generalised. I was referring to the personal nature of some of the comments (which I am sure you agree are never helpful), not to the constructive ones (though I am still not convinced that one small remark in the lead of an article is worth all this fuss). We are all contributing to the same cause (which is: making all human knowledge available to the whole world, is it not?), and pls believe me: some of that knowledge comes from people who are commonly referred to as elitist snobs, even if they are not. Francesco Malipiero ( talk) 21:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
help? You sound rational. What am I missing, what am I doing wrong? I will not post here again unless you ask me to. I just don't understand. Thank you. Wm5200 ( talk) 17:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
What did Hermann Karnau think when he “kicked” the ashes? Did he respectfully say goodbye to the boss? Did he mechanically just do his duty? Did he kick them in rage? I think that "Smokey Joe" Goebbles is the most impressive artifact that I have ever known. Pure evil. I think he should have been put in a glass case at Auschwitz, so jews could spit in his face. And Joe was evil his entire career, he made it happen, as well as being evil at home. Poor Magda, I guess, I don't know the story. My interest is mainly four hours and a couple of hundred yards. Maybe I'll see the headline "Russian historian finds Hitler"s teeth, DNA confirmed", maybe not. Wm5200 ( talk) 01:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Frania, you made an excellent point yesterday with your factual remark "He (Chopin) initially went there (France) to study for three years, but did not return to Poland, and never attempted to move anywhere else." I was a little tired and it was late so I waited until today to give you some of my thoughts on the matter. I think in all of this nationality "ruckus", one thing that is neglected is that Chopin was above all an artist, and to some degree even a bit of a showman. Like Liberace with his candelabra,
but not as gaudy as Lee later became. (Mon Dieu, j'espère que le commentaire ne cause pas de personne à se suicider, ou essayer de me tuer)
Although some would like to think that our hero, left Poland-Russia, because of political motivations, and melancholically lamented its fate, let's face it, Poland at that time was not a concentration camp. His parents and sisters remained there and had a rather comfortable life. Like many artists, Chopin sought the limelight and fame, and Paris made Żelazowa Wola become a nostalgic memory. He could have returned for Wigilia anytime he wished. I'm not sure this possibility has been given enough consideration. Fortunately for him, the fame and the limelight was in his father's original homeland, and that made it easier for him to live half of his life there. Not to mention the champagne. Dr. Dan ( talk) 01:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Dan,
"...it was destroyed on 16 May 1871, during the Paris Commune"
vs
"...it was taken down on 16 May 1871..."
Did not it break into zillions of little pieces when it was "taken down"???
http://bjazz.unblog.fr/files/2009/05/disderichutedelacolonnevendome.jpg
in which case, it could not be "re-erected", but "rebuilt".
It reminds me of the story of Humpty Dumpty:
Cordialement,
Frania W.
-- Frania W. ( talk) 04:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Cher Docteur Dan, ""Re-erected" or "rebuilt" is not worth spending too much time on." Which is the reason I put the matter on your talk page with the HD rhyme, as writing such a comment on the subject talk page would start another revolution! So, contrary to Humpty Dumpty, it was "put together again". Had I been there, I would have taken a closer shot so as to see what the "zillions little pieces" looked like. Hoping my signature shows this time. -- Frania W. ( talk) 04:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
(OD) Jusqu'à ce que votre remarque, je fait ne savait pas que Chopin est mort à la place Vendôme. Il est toujours agréable d'apprendre quelque chose de nouveau, surtout quand on se rend compte qu'ils ne le saurons jamais assez. Cordialement. Dr. Dan ( talk) 05:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that I fixed whatever I "did upstairs". Aurevoir. --
Frania W. (
talk) 04:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I did fix it, but I thought I had seen my signature at one of your comments. How weird!
RE your above comment on Chopin, Frédéric, that is: why did he remain in France if he felt no attachment to that country? He initially went there to study for three years, but did not return to Poland, and never attempted to move anywhere else. He adored Paris and certainly was not unhappy in the springs, summers & autumns he spent at Nohant. If people would only take the time to read his letters, they might see the man as he really was. Aurevoir!
-- Frania W. ( talk) 05:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Mon cher, Non, je ne pense pas que vous ayez changé votre position, ce que j'en disais était pour les grandes oreilles qui sont à l'écoute.
I find it un-encyclopedic to do away with half of someone's ancestry in order to make him/her 100 per cent something he was not entirely, specially when that someone chose to live in his father's native land for the second half of his life. What if that someone had been "the greatest good-for-nothing of French-Polish parentage", would there be as much insistence to make him "the greatest Polish (only) good-for-nothing"?
-- Frania W. ( talk) 12:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Use this whenever you want, if it is of any value. No rush. I’m sick of her. If this is useful and you want more, answer here on your page. I have two Russians coming. Otherwise I’ll leave you alone. Thanks for your time. P.S. Kierzek knows, but he’s busy, too.
The will. Joach p129 has Gertraud Junge testifying on 24 Feb 1954.
Hitler’s dog. Joach text starts on p132, on p134 Gunsche testifies to the actual poisoning. Actually, Joach pretty much backs up everything before, too. I don’t see Haase recommending a method (maybe I missed it), but he is with the dog.
The actual suicide. Joach Text addresses this p153-161.
The actual cremation. Joach text addresses this p197-222, when the Soviets become involved. Beyond this there may be conflict, waiting on info from Soviet/Russian sources. Wm5200 ( talk) 22:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
[42]. Seriously, enough is enough. Discuss content not editors. radek ( talk) 01:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I have posted a "rant" on my talk page which may interest you, if the "Galetroopers" have not disappeared me. All these years, I thought the nazis were wrong. Anyway, I assume that Kiersek and you can count to "TWO", and will understand. Thanks. Wm5200 ( talk) 15:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
F.Y.I., I have posted some AH death myth stuff at my place, I think I will hang out there more. Should be less O.R. and P.O.V. problems, more control, right? I won’t push this stuff, if someone wants to, they can come and get it. Feel free to delete this whole section, if you want to clean up your place. Thanks. Wm5200 ( talk) 17:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
U edit warring here Dan.[ [43]]-- Jacurek ( talk) 04:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
[ [45]] [ [46]] [ [47]] [ [48]] [ [49]] [ [50]] Friendy warning today to play by the rules and do not edit war...-- Jacurek ( talk) 17:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but just idly clicking on your edit history brought up this, from just a few days ago. I find this behaviour absolutely cynical - no attempt at all to preserve the information anywhere in the article, even though this is clearly a place with significant Polish history. Sad that a potentially good editor like you should be continuing to let this nationalist obsession get the better of you, after all the discussions on this matter we've had and the solution that I thought we'd reached.-- Kotniski ( talk) 17:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I've put down some points to be added to the article on Litvin:talk page. Why don't you come up and share your view on which of those should be added to the article. Rasool-3 ( talk) 09:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
There will be no apology coming from me. I assumed “read and delete”, your policy left that post up far longer than it had to be. For the record, in my world “whore” is a common term which has NOTHING to do with sex. News whore, sales whore, when working I openly refered to MYSELF as a road whore, as well as a land raper. I don’t get the difference between that and cute links to insults, I seem to recall anal retentive somewhere. There are quite a few of these links floating around in Wiki, none by me. The only reason I used whore was the sound connection to horse. I have tried to dispute only one person at Wiki, and I feel that I have reason. I no longer feel welcome to post here, and will not. Wm5200 ( talk) 14:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Bonne Année 2011 ! -- Frania W. ( talk) 22:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Although she prefers champagne
the one & only Frania de Lutèce, a.k.a.--
Frania W. (
talk) 19:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
I'd like to express my deepest sympathy and condolences to my Russian friends on Wikipedia, and to the great Russian nation and people, as a result of the tragedy committed by evil and deranged people at the Domodevo Airport. I know many others share my sadness. Dr. Dan ( talk) 02:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Dr. Dan, Je viens juste de trouver votre note écrite le 5 février à ma page. Vous êtes très amusant! So, there was no consensus to change Napy's title, but je suis sûre que le sujet sera remis sur le tapis d'ici quelque temps. Just waiting for a certain acquaintance of mine to step in, then we'll be waltzing on Chopin's Marche funèbre ! Mon Dieu ! Now, le "moulin" à la mode est *l'eau de Vichy*, or *Vichy sans eau*..., in which you can replace *eau* by *armée*, then you get the picture...
Aurevoir, mon cher !
-- Frania W. ( talk) 02:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
So, our dog as it turned out had melanoma in one eye and the vet surgeon took it out. From our point of view it coincided strangely with reading the recent Oliver Sacks book which has an extended discussion of same (only about humans; can understand his reluctance to anthropomorphise in print). Anyway, hope you and yours are well and it's good to see you editing - thanks for grammar improvements and wikilinks. Viso gero, Novickas ( talk) 20:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Where do you come off insulting me and trying to judge my motives? Have you even bothered to look up my contributions before you try to lump me in with others as some kind of Polish nationalist?
In regards to your question, yes, no sources in English about the Zakopane Style outside of Podhale that I was able to find refer to the town in its Lithuanian form, since most of the scholarship is still written by Poles. Only by looking at sources about Saldutiškis in Lithuanian was I able to confirm that Saldutiškis was in fact Syłgudyszki.-- Orestek ( talk) 07:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Dan: Note: I have just gone through the article in recent days for "c editing" work. See what you think. Cheers Kierzek ( talk) 16:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Dan: it would be good to have your input as to the lede of the article as that has come up again in discussion by PBS; have a look when you get a chance. Cheers, Kierzek ( talk) 17:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
See [54]. Novickas ( talk) 02:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
In application and enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, in consequence of this AE request, you are
You can appeal this ban as described at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, but if you disregard the ban before it is successfully appealed or lifted, you may be blocked without further warning. Sandstein 07:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to a discussion of Pilsudski dictatorship on the Talk page of the article about Pilsudski.
There is an on-going discussion and edits of this article related to this matter. Your contributions to this discussions and edits will be most appreciated. See the talk page of the Pilsudski article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J%C3%B3zef_Pi%C5%82sudski#Sources_on_Pilsudski_dictatorship:_Britannica_Concise_Encyclopedia.2C_The_Oxford_Companion_to_Military_History.2C_Gale_Encyclopedia_of_Biography.2C_Columbia_Encyclopedia_and_Time_Magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.172.86 ( talk) 08:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I reverted your move of Washington Harbour. Did you look at their website? - If Harbor was right, please change consistently, but I think it's fine now, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
precise reduction
Thank you for quality contributions, based on historic knowledge and language skills, to articles about
people,
places,
music, wording with precision and reducing excess with a focus on content and accuracy, - repeating: you are an
awesome Wikipedian (30 April 2010)!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Much discussed on the talk page and a move request to Der fliegende Holländer has failed in the past but feel free to start a new move request. Also, do you seriously want to include both in the title? That's a really bad idea. -- regentspark ( comment) 17:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't notice that a massive recent move request closed as "no consensus" - or do you just not care? [[Talk:Der_fliegende_HollC3%A4nder_The_Flying_Dutchman_%28opera%29#Move_request]] i suggest you move it back. Johnbod ( talk) 17:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, sorry to bother you but I am leaving a message because I have seen that you have been previously involved in discussions with user Nihil novi, that are quite similar to the one I am currently having on the Marie Curie talk page. Basically, this is again a silly issue with the lead sentence of the article, with a few editors that seem to be very protective of anyone somehow Polish being called by anything else that only "Polish" in the lead sentence. I do think my views on the issue are the one reflecting the established Wikipedia practice. But since I am currently alone supporting them, it is quite time-consuming for me. So, if you had time to have a look at the discussion on the Marie Curie talk page, that would be interesting :-) Tokidokix ( talk) 03:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dr. Dan,
There is a requested move discussion on Talk:Free City of Kraków that I thought you might be interested in.
Genealogizer ( talk) 20:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Witam! http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granatowa_policja Ten artykuł to moje dzieło. Czy możesz pomóc mi go przetłumaczyć na angielski??? MarvinSS 17:23, 16 STYCZNIA 2008
Thanks for your comment at Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Sca ( talk) 15:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Laimingų naujųjų metų! Novickas ( talk) 14:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a proposed move of Scottish kings at Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland that I thought I'd bring to your attention. I think you have had things to say on this subject in the past. Probably won't be successful, but that's wiki for you. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 17:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Temple of Music requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Wtfdontkill (
talk) 01:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Dr. Dan. I think you are a good looking guy. Your user name is interesting. Anyway, why did you oppose the FA nomination? I think the biography of Józef Piłsudski is fine. What are your views? Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 04:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
In historic posters More are to be found here [1] -- Molobo ( talk) 04:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
As you probably have heard, a few days ago a cement brick shattered a window at the Jewish Reconstructionist Congregation in Evanston in the suburbs of the great city of Chicago. This shameful event was reported to police by a synagogue employee, and some Northwestern students said the vandalism definitely constituted a hate crime. We do not know if it was done by single individual or a group. Anyway, are you familiar with this incident? How did this came about? We are not familiar with the incident ourselves, and this is why I asked. Tymek ( talk) 18:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Tymek, I posted this on your talk page three days ago. Since you erased it, I wanted to remind you of a similar incident in case you forgot:
As much as we don't see eye to eye, I do think you did a good job npoving the caption here. Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Dr. Dan, hope all is well. Since you are among the most knowledgable wikipedians on this topic and have more objectivity than most contributors, I wondered if you had any thoughts on the discussion going on at Talk:History_of_Poland_(1939–1945)#Removal_of_Soviet_picture. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 23:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
File:David,larry.JPG | My RFA | |
Thank you muchly for your support in
my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth!
Kidding btw. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 11:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC) |
Just wondering, does your automated archive bot still work? M.K. ( talk) 22:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Happy Easter to all! Dr. Dan ( talk) 22:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[2].-- Molobo ( talk) 05:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
[3]-- Molobo ( talk) 05:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Dr Dan, thank you that you supported my in A.K Talk. And Can I wrote in polish for You?:) Alden or talk with Alden 09:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Dr. Dan, I'd like to remind you that - particularly with relation to this - sarcastic remarks like this are not appreciated. Please consider reverting yourself and moderating yourself better in the future, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I note that on this page, you took out as nonsensical and then restored a statement that John Paul II spoke at Auschwitz to 1.1 million people, "90% of them Jews". This does seem pretty unlikely. Is there a source for this statement somewhere? Or did you restore it by accident? Brianyoumans ( talk) 09:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of courtesy, I'm informing you that a discussion of your edits has been brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Discussion_concerning_Dr._Dan. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 22:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Dr. Dan, generally my view on this is inclusive and multiculturalist, particularly since many of these towns/regions/countries do have a very rich multicultural history. As a result I got no problem with other-lang names in the leads of articles, unlike apparently some other editors who take the very presence of Polish words in "their" articles as a grave personal (and national) insult. More so, I think that in many cases these other-lang names are very important to the topic. So I don't have much of the problem with what's been put into Lublin. As you may have noticed, I've actually put the Lithuanian name of the town BACK INTO the article.
Of course there are some reasonable limits to this (and Lublin's sort of stretching them) as it wouldn't make sense to add in any ol' name into the lead or two list too many of them. Likewise I would and do object to bad faith edits based on some kind of reciprocal mentality.
I don't see how this kind of attitude can cause an "open season on the names of Polish and Lithuanian geographical toponyms" unless it's done in bad faith, nor do I understand what this 'can of worms' you refer to is exactly supposed to be.
Cheers. radek ( talk) 22:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This sounds like a kind of a can from which worms come out of only if they are forcefully shaken out, by someone with bad faith. As I said, the situation with Poland and Lithuania is in general different. (Also in some instances I'm fine with, say, "Breslau" in "Wroclaw" because it's appropriate). If you don't see the difference then I'm not sure there is a point in discussing this further. radek ( talk) 01:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I apologise for not responding to your inquiry before this discussion was closed, but I will do so here.
The inquiry centred on my statement that I was "an uninvolved editor in these particular issues". I was referring to the immediate issues that resulted in the request. I was not involved in any of the edits in question, was not previously aware of them, and had not been consulted concerning them. How I found out about the discussion was through the notice on Matthead's user talk page, which I had on my watchlist from my previous interactions with that editor.
You may not have encountered disruptive editing on Matthead's part, but I certainly have. I don't really care two figs one way or the other for the substance of Matthead's argument that "West Germany" is an invalid country name or that "West German" is an invalid nationality. I don't really have an opinion on how to approach that issue. But what I blocked him for was systematically blanking category pages that referred to "West Germany" or "West German", when several of these categories had been formally discussed at WP:CFD and the consensus was to keep them in their current form. That's disruptive editing whether your position on the substantive question is defensible or not. I don't know if you were implying that it was me who had tried to "ram my POV down his throat", but I can assure you that my actions were to protect decisions made by consensus, and not in any way by me.
Hopefully that answers your question. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article J.P. Borden, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Bongo matic 14:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I have sent you an email. Regards, Novickas ( talk) 16:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for catching this! Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the copy-edit. But can I ask you not to edit the article until I remove the "under construction" banner? It just creates edit conflicts and headaches trying to reinsert the changes. Thanks, Renata ( talk) 03:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
An RfC has opened about this issue at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II#RfC: Nazi atrocities in Warsaw. Skäpperöd ( talk) 05:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that there is a simple answer to your question, because I do not believe that "nationality" is an objective category. Basically, it is a matter of cultural self-identification rather than of scientific distinction. Personally, I think that the only acceptable answer is Bogart's in Casablanca.
So, for Jews in Vilna, the answer must be specific to the individual. For some, it would be appropriate to put "Jewish" as their nationality, while for others "Lithuanian" or "Russian" would be better. In the case of Trotsky, which first caught your attention, it is clear that he did nor identify as a Jew, and the insistence on this label would seem to result from either antisemitic or Jewish chauvinist prejudice. I'm not sure that "Ukrainian" is appropriate either, since Uktaine was not independent at the timne of his birth and he never considered himself a Ukrainian. Nor, as far as I know, did he speak Ukrainian. What is certain is that it is inappropriate to categorise him as a Jew by nationality. RolandR 08:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dr.Dan, would you please explain this? [5] You wrote there is a "new consensus" however I'm not able to locate it on the talk page. Loosmark ( talk) 15:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Possible rule 1: Wikipedia article about every single piece of territory that the Russian state has any historical connection to (it was occupied by Russian trooops, dominated by Russian traders) shall have its cyrillic transliteration given prominently in the lead. This would include Warsaw obviously, but also Berlin, Anchorage, California, Budapest, Vienna, just for starters. Plainly ridiculous and completely untenable. Yet this edit can only be justified by such a rule.
Possible rule 2: Wikipedia article will only use the Russian name in the lead for a placename outside Russia proper if that name can be demonstrated to be in significant use in English language publications. Thus Modlin can and should have the Russian name Novogeorgievsk given, Dęblin should have Ivangorod in the lead. But you will not find any English language publications using Варшава to refer to Warsaw, now would you? I didn't think so.
Which approach makes more sense? Please make your choice and then pursue it with consistency. Do not experiment with Wikipedia, disrupt it, or make edits only to prove a point in some dispute. 99.236.70.174 ( talk) 02:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
In the above exchange concerning Warsaw, I was asked why I added the Cyrillic Russian version of the city's name. Here's the diff... [7]. I responded..."Hi back, I noticed that you highlighted the Russian version, but not the Yiddish version." In a nutshell, you found the Russian version objectionable, but not the Yiddish one. Any particular reason? The question, I believe, remains unanswered. Perhaps I missed it. I'd still like Loosmark to explain why, however? Dr. Dan ( talk) 18:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
A user requested informal mediation for the current dispute at the Paneriai page. Please go here to take part. Please note that in the event you refuse, the end result of this dispute may be penalties for both sides for disruption. Please take part in informal mediation. -- Raziel teatime 19:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Whoa! What personal attack? Break it [13] down for everyone. What personal attack? Dr. Dan ( talk) 19:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, my apologies. I thought you meant that he reverted your edit without giving a reason. In any case, I still view your comments as a personal attack, but we'll agree to disagree. It doesn't really matter at this point anyway. -- Raziel teatime 19:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I found Your question about Blondi's age. I've checked it and You were right. She was prob. born in 1941 cos Bormann gave her to Hitler in 1941 when she was a young bitch. I've changed it (and a few other thing in the article) - I hope did not make too many grammar errors there.
Sorry - I've got some personal question: have You ever lived in Britain (some spa town) or in Spain (ca 2005-2006). I've prob. mistaken You with somebody I had met near some Moorish castle in Spain (he was going to be a teacher in Masuria, Poland and he knew quite a lot about history). Sorry for that stupid question; I'm just curious (especially when I looked at your picture) and You don't have to answer it :). V1 t 23:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Dr. Dan, I do not much like you but hey, that's life. How about instead of this endless bickering we try to do something productive together. I notice that's there's A LOT of Lithuanian places that are still red-wiki linked. To pick a random example, Adutiškis. I'm bringing this up now because recently I was trying to write an article and had trouble finding anything about Onuškis (which I stubbed - but it took me like an hour and a half to figure out what the non-Yiddish name of this place was). So instead of fighting about alternative names and so on, why not we try to knock out as many of those red wiki links as we can, even if it's just stubs. Seriously, the time that's been devoted to fighting over Paneriai and Ponary could've been better used to create articles on the multitude of Lithuanian places that are missing - I'm speaking as an economist here, I hate this kind of inefficiency. For myself, I promise not to bring the issue of alternative names up in any new articles that are created through this collaboration (should you agree. If I'm on my own here, I'll do it my own way), and will leave that up to the mediation case when and if it ever concludes.
So how about some help here? Something simple. A list of all Lithuanian places which are mentioned somewhere but which are still red. Help me out. radek ( talk) 02:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The Russian bashing continues at the circus unabated, and not reprimanded. What's up with that? Dr. Dan ( talk) 05:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Reading on my real project here. "Largest" of the Baltic states. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 03:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
See the Wikipedia 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)
(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 ► talk 18:27, 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)
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)
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)
(moved from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision
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)
(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 [17] was "provocative, unnecessary and undue", and totally so. Dr. Dan ( talk) 18:49, 21 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)
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)
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)
Hi, could you please copy edit this article in my sandbox? If you going to c/e it please don't forget to add {{ inuse}} template, then editing it (by this we will avoid edit conflicts). Thanks, M.K. ( talk) 08:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Linksmų Kalėdų ir laimingų Naujųjų Metų! Novickas ( talk) 23:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
And Best Wishes. Please be sure to turn up the volume. Dr. Dan ( talk) 00:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1qpwag8ddM
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.
3. Chopin's French passport: In my opinion, his French passport is no proof of citizenship:
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.)
Meilleurs vœux pour 2010.
Frania W. ( talk) 03:53, 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 Wikipedia 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 [22] are enough for Wikipedia'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.
Do you "readez" French?
Cordialement, Frania W. ( talk) 05:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Great, only that I don't read cyrillic so a translation would be welcome. Dr. Loosmark 04:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Would you stop your anti-Polish POV pushing? thanks. Dr. Loosmark 04:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Re the article - glad you liked the edits - I think it's in pretty reasonable shape now. The lead - perhaps you're right and it's too much info, but we should probably discuss that at article talk. I don't feel strongly about it tho. Later, Novickas ( talk) 15:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't even understand it very well. Dr. Loosmark 03:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Merci! -- Frania W. ( talk) 03:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Yup, the conventions are in force everywhere in Europe (and not only in Europe). I believe it was either CIV or COTIF (both are in force), you can easily google it. Anyway, that's why Russian trains from Moscow to Paris passing through Warsaw have "Moskva-Warszawa-Paris" written on their sides rather than "Москва-Варшава-Париж". Polish trains to Moscow also call it Moskva, even though the letter V is not even in Polish alphabet. And yes, Polish coaches to Vilna (no direct rail link) operated by the Polish State Railways go to Vilnius rather than Wilno. Which does not mean that Vilnius is the Polish name for that place. // Halibu tt 23:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know whether you noticed, but I replied to your question posed at Talk:Vilnius#German. Knepflerle ( talk) 10:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 12:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
...for that one. Skäpperöd ( talk) 16:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Hitler Youth Quex - while we're on it, will do the movie within the next days... Skäpperöd ( talk) 21:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Dan, there is again a section up on human soap production at the Stutthoff page. What are you thoughts on deleting it at this time?-- TL36 ( talk) 02:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Have you seen this ? I hope you understand exactly what's written there. In my opinion Jacurek should be blocked for writing this FOREVER. BTW, I'm 100% Polish, but I rather read Wikipedia than edit this. I can't agree with some of your edits, but still I think that doing wrong edits (well, in my opinion wrong) it's not the same like calling someone 'jebanytroll' and 'h zlamany' on Wikipedia ! I'm sad that they are so many Polish NPOV pushers on Wiki. Well, in fact many of them are hardcore nationalists and shouldn't edit Poland/Eastern Europe related articles .. Another sad thing is, that ppl like Jacurek don't understand and don't believe that someone can be Polish and have different (not Polish-nationalistic) point of view. I know I should write it to him but I'm afraid it would be waste of time ... Greetings/Pozdrowienia ( 81.190.211.58 ( talk) 09:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC))
de Chopin est écrit en polonais. J'ai déjà laissé un mot à ce sujet au restaurant chaud chez Chopin. Je suis aussi en train de travailler à une traduction, mais n'arrête pas de m'interrompre pour suivre la discussion chez Chopin, où la tambouille commence à brûler...
-- Frania W. ( talk) 01:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Dr. Dan. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18#Richard Tylman, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard ( talk) 02:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Kotniski or anybody else wants to censor your arguments. The problem on the Chopin talk was the discussion drifted completely off-topic, because another editor tried to hijack the thread and nothing good was going to come out it. Sometimes it's just better to take a time-out so to say and restore a bit of order. Let's wait and see what the admins say, they have experience with handling such situations and I have maximum confidence in their abilities. (Your comments can easily be restored from history anyway if they decide it's better not to delete.) Dr. Loosmark 18:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
User:Dr. Dan has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Êtes-vous médecin généraliste ou bien spécialiste, par exemple psy, car si cela continue, je vais bien vite avoir besoin d'en consulter un.
Cordialement, -- Frania W. ( talk) 19:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page.-- Tznkai ( talk) 20:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Mon cher Docteur, vu le ridicule de la situation, au lieu de prendre mal ce qu'il me disait, j'ai préféré me marrer avec mes petits insectes; mais je doute fort qu'il comprenne la légèreté de mon esprit de papillon. Cordialement, -- Frania W. ( talk) 04:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
If you understand polish (you have declared it) - i'm able to show you point: Nie wiem na jakiej podstawie umieszczasz Mickiewicza wśród polsko-litewskich pisarzy - problem polega na tym, że on nie był Litwinem, tworzył po polsku - ma wkład w polską kulturę a nie w litewską. Na polskiej Wikipedii jest to jednoznacznie opisane, możesz przeczytać. Andrew18 @ 15:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Shortest jokes "considered to be" the best, I chose not to develop as I was tempted with "Local Interstellar Cloud in the Local Bubble zone", which could explain the catastrophic fallout caused by the recent volcanic eruption in Iceland & the stock market bubble explosion over our galactic financial universe. NASA might be a shoot off NASDAQ. Et savez-vous que la plus appréciées des astrologues en France s'appelle Madame Soleil?
Cordialement, -- Frania W. ( talk) 17:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Since this is not the first time you have done so, I have brought this matter up here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
This block is made as a result of this AE thread. You are also banned from commenting on or otherwise directly interacting with Piotrus ( talk · contribs) and Nihil novi ( talk · contribs) for three months, except for the purpose of necessary dispute resolution (as determined by uninvolved administrators in their sole judgment). Sandstein 08:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 03:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
[31] radek ( talk) 00:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Dan, what's with the renewed campaign to remove information about Polish names from Lithuania-related articles? I know you have some kind of ongoing conflict with Polish editors, but there's no reason why Wikipedia should have to suffer for it. We're trying to provide information here. If you know of any Polish editors actively removing Lithuanian/German/etc. names from articles about Polish places, let me know - I'll be just as strongly opposed to that. But it can't be right to respond to information-destroying actions in one place with similar actions in another place. (Or whatever else your motivation is.)-- Kotniski ( talk) 07:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
As somebody who has taken part in the previous discussions on this topic, you may be interested in the current move discussion here. Varsovian ( talk) 17:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for digging out the self-reverted edit from the trash, great job. btw I found your claim that, quote: "The bottom line here regardless of all of this OT stuff is that Johann Dzierzon used Johann himself in the first person. The preponderance of reliable sources use Johann. And the majority of the contrary claims come out of Communist Poland." most interesting. I didn't know that Encyclopaedia Britannica and many other reliable sources were published by Communist Poland. Dr. Loosmark 13:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
(OD) We don't seem to be making a lot of progress here, perhaps more clarity will be established at this talk page [36]. I hope so. Dr. Dan ( talk) 16:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand you questioning my sincere welcoming attitude, because my first remark was far too generalised. I was referring to the personal nature of some of the comments (which I am sure you agree are never helpful), not to the constructive ones (though I am still not convinced that one small remark in the lead of an article is worth all this fuss). We are all contributing to the same cause (which is: making all human knowledge available to the whole world, is it not?), and pls believe me: some of that knowledge comes from people who are commonly referred to as elitist snobs, even if they are not. Francesco Malipiero ( talk) 21:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
help? You sound rational. What am I missing, what am I doing wrong? I will not post here again unless you ask me to. I just don't understand. Thank you. Wm5200 ( talk) 17:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
What did Hermann Karnau think when he “kicked” the ashes? Did he respectfully say goodbye to the boss? Did he mechanically just do his duty? Did he kick them in rage? I think that "Smokey Joe" Goebbles is the most impressive artifact that I have ever known. Pure evil. I think he should have been put in a glass case at Auschwitz, so jews could spit in his face. And Joe was evil his entire career, he made it happen, as well as being evil at home. Poor Magda, I guess, I don't know the story. My interest is mainly four hours and a couple of hundred yards. Maybe I'll see the headline "Russian historian finds Hitler"s teeth, DNA confirmed", maybe not. Wm5200 ( talk) 01:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Frania, you made an excellent point yesterday with your factual remark "He (Chopin) initially went there (France) to study for three years, but did not return to Poland, and never attempted to move anywhere else." I was a little tired and it was late so I waited until today to give you some of my thoughts on the matter. I think in all of this nationality "ruckus", one thing that is neglected is that Chopin was above all an artist, and to some degree even a bit of a showman. Like Liberace with his candelabra,
but not as gaudy as Lee later became. (Mon Dieu, j'espère que le commentaire ne cause pas de personne à se suicider, ou essayer de me tuer)
Although some would like to think that our hero, left Poland-Russia, because of political motivations, and melancholically lamented its fate, let's face it, Poland at that time was not a concentration camp. His parents and sisters remained there and had a rather comfortable life. Like many artists, Chopin sought the limelight and fame, and Paris made Żelazowa Wola become a nostalgic memory. He could have returned for Wigilia anytime he wished. I'm not sure this possibility has been given enough consideration. Fortunately for him, the fame and the limelight was in his father's original homeland, and that made it easier for him to live half of his life there. Not to mention the champagne. Dr. Dan ( talk) 01:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Dan,
"...it was destroyed on 16 May 1871, during the Paris Commune"
vs
"...it was taken down on 16 May 1871..."
Did not it break into zillions of little pieces when it was "taken down"???
http://bjazz.unblog.fr/files/2009/05/disderichutedelacolonnevendome.jpg
in which case, it could not be "re-erected", but "rebuilt".
It reminds me of the story of Humpty Dumpty:
Cordialement,
Frania W.
-- Frania W. ( talk) 04:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Cher Docteur Dan, ""Re-erected" or "rebuilt" is not worth spending too much time on." Which is the reason I put the matter on your talk page with the HD rhyme, as writing such a comment on the subject talk page would start another revolution! So, contrary to Humpty Dumpty, it was "put together again". Had I been there, I would have taken a closer shot so as to see what the "zillions little pieces" looked like. Hoping my signature shows this time. -- Frania W. ( talk) 04:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
(OD) Jusqu'à ce que votre remarque, je fait ne savait pas que Chopin est mort à la place Vendôme. Il est toujours agréable d'apprendre quelque chose de nouveau, surtout quand on se rend compte qu'ils ne le saurons jamais assez. Cordialement. Dr. Dan ( talk) 05:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that I fixed whatever I "did upstairs". Aurevoir. --
Frania W. (
talk) 04:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I did fix it, but I thought I had seen my signature at one of your comments. How weird!
RE your above comment on Chopin, Frédéric, that is: why did he remain in France if he felt no attachment to that country? He initially went there to study for three years, but did not return to Poland, and never attempted to move anywhere else. He adored Paris and certainly was not unhappy in the springs, summers & autumns he spent at Nohant. If people would only take the time to read his letters, they might see the man as he really was. Aurevoir!
-- Frania W. ( talk) 05:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Mon cher, Non, je ne pense pas que vous ayez changé votre position, ce que j'en disais était pour les grandes oreilles qui sont à l'écoute.
I find it un-encyclopedic to do away with half of someone's ancestry in order to make him/her 100 per cent something he was not entirely, specially when that someone chose to live in his father's native land for the second half of his life. What if that someone had been "the greatest good-for-nothing of French-Polish parentage", would there be as much insistence to make him "the greatest Polish (only) good-for-nothing"?
-- Frania W. ( talk) 12:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Use this whenever you want, if it is of any value. No rush. I’m sick of her. If this is useful and you want more, answer here on your page. I have two Russians coming. Otherwise I’ll leave you alone. Thanks for your time. P.S. Kierzek knows, but he’s busy, too.
The will. Joach p129 has Gertraud Junge testifying on 24 Feb 1954.
Hitler’s dog. Joach text starts on p132, on p134 Gunsche testifies to the actual poisoning. Actually, Joach pretty much backs up everything before, too. I don’t see Haase recommending a method (maybe I missed it), but he is with the dog.
The actual suicide. Joach Text addresses this p153-161.
The actual cremation. Joach text addresses this p197-222, when the Soviets become involved. Beyond this there may be conflict, waiting on info from Soviet/Russian sources. Wm5200 ( talk) 22:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
[42]. Seriously, enough is enough. Discuss content not editors. radek ( talk) 01:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I have posted a "rant" on my talk page which may interest you, if the "Galetroopers" have not disappeared me. All these years, I thought the nazis were wrong. Anyway, I assume that Kiersek and you can count to "TWO", and will understand. Thanks. Wm5200 ( talk) 15:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
F.Y.I., I have posted some AH death myth stuff at my place, I think I will hang out there more. Should be less O.R. and P.O.V. problems, more control, right? I won’t push this stuff, if someone wants to, they can come and get it. Feel free to delete this whole section, if you want to clean up your place. Thanks. Wm5200 ( talk) 17:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
U edit warring here Dan.[ [43]]-- Jacurek ( talk) 04:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
[ [45]] [ [46]] [ [47]] [ [48]] [ [49]] [ [50]] Friendy warning today to play by the rules and do not edit war...-- Jacurek ( talk) 17:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but just idly clicking on your edit history brought up this, from just a few days ago. I find this behaviour absolutely cynical - no attempt at all to preserve the information anywhere in the article, even though this is clearly a place with significant Polish history. Sad that a potentially good editor like you should be continuing to let this nationalist obsession get the better of you, after all the discussions on this matter we've had and the solution that I thought we'd reached.-- Kotniski ( talk) 17:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I've put down some points to be added to the article on Litvin:talk page. Why don't you come up and share your view on which of those should be added to the article. Rasool-3 ( talk) 09:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
There will be no apology coming from me. I assumed “read and delete”, your policy left that post up far longer than it had to be. For the record, in my world “whore” is a common term which has NOTHING to do with sex. News whore, sales whore, when working I openly refered to MYSELF as a road whore, as well as a land raper. I don’t get the difference between that and cute links to insults, I seem to recall anal retentive somewhere. There are quite a few of these links floating around in Wiki, none by me. The only reason I used whore was the sound connection to horse. I have tried to dispute only one person at Wiki, and I feel that I have reason. I no longer feel welcome to post here, and will not. Wm5200 ( talk) 14:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Bonne Année 2011 ! -- Frania W. ( talk) 22:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Although she prefers champagne
the one & only Frania de Lutèce, a.k.a.--
Frania W. (
talk) 19:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
I'd like to express my deepest sympathy and condolences to my Russian friends on Wikipedia, and to the great Russian nation and people, as a result of the tragedy committed by evil and deranged people at the Domodevo Airport. I know many others share my sadness. Dr. Dan ( talk) 02:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Dr. Dan, Je viens juste de trouver votre note écrite le 5 février à ma page. Vous êtes très amusant! So, there was no consensus to change Napy's title, but je suis sûre que le sujet sera remis sur le tapis d'ici quelque temps. Just waiting for a certain acquaintance of mine to step in, then we'll be waltzing on Chopin's Marche funèbre ! Mon Dieu ! Now, le "moulin" à la mode est *l'eau de Vichy*, or *Vichy sans eau*..., in which you can replace *eau* by *armée*, then you get the picture...
Aurevoir, mon cher !
-- Frania W. ( talk) 02:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
So, our dog as it turned out had melanoma in one eye and the vet surgeon took it out. From our point of view it coincided strangely with reading the recent Oliver Sacks book which has an extended discussion of same (only about humans; can understand his reluctance to anthropomorphise in print). Anyway, hope you and yours are well and it's good to see you editing - thanks for grammar improvements and wikilinks. Viso gero, Novickas ( talk) 20:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Where do you come off insulting me and trying to judge my motives? Have you even bothered to look up my contributions before you try to lump me in with others as some kind of Polish nationalist?
In regards to your question, yes, no sources in English about the Zakopane Style outside of Podhale that I was able to find refer to the town in its Lithuanian form, since most of the scholarship is still written by Poles. Only by looking at sources about Saldutiškis in Lithuanian was I able to confirm that Saldutiškis was in fact Syłgudyszki.-- Orestek ( talk) 07:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Dan: Note: I have just gone through the article in recent days for "c editing" work. See what you think. Cheers Kierzek ( talk) 16:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Dan: it would be good to have your input as to the lede of the article as that has come up again in discussion by PBS; have a look when you get a chance. Cheers, Kierzek ( talk) 17:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
See [54]. Novickas ( talk) 02:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
In application and enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, in consequence of this AE request, you are
You can appeal this ban as described at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, but if you disregard the ban before it is successfully appealed or lifted, you may be blocked without further warning. Sandstein 07:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to a discussion of Pilsudski dictatorship on the Talk page of the article about Pilsudski.
There is an on-going discussion and edits of this article related to this matter. Your contributions to this discussions and edits will be most appreciated. See the talk page of the Pilsudski article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J%C3%B3zef_Pi%C5%82sudski#Sources_on_Pilsudski_dictatorship:_Britannica_Concise_Encyclopedia.2C_The_Oxford_Companion_to_Military_History.2C_Gale_Encyclopedia_of_Biography.2C_Columbia_Encyclopedia_and_Time_Magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.172.86 ( talk) 08:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I reverted your move of Washington Harbour. Did you look at their website? - If Harbor was right, please change consistently, but I think it's fine now, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
precise reduction
Thank you for quality contributions, based on historic knowledge and language skills, to articles about
people,
places,
music, wording with precision and reducing excess with a focus on content and accuracy, - repeating: you are an
awesome Wikipedian (30 April 2010)!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Much discussed on the talk page and a move request to Der fliegende Holländer has failed in the past but feel free to start a new move request. Also, do you seriously want to include both in the title? That's a really bad idea. -- regentspark ( comment) 17:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't notice that a massive recent move request closed as "no consensus" - or do you just not care? [[Talk:Der_fliegende_HollC3%A4nder_The_Flying_Dutchman_%28opera%29#Move_request]] i suggest you move it back. Johnbod ( talk) 17:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, sorry to bother you but I am leaving a message because I have seen that you have been previously involved in discussions with user Nihil novi, that are quite similar to the one I am currently having on the Marie Curie talk page. Basically, this is again a silly issue with the lead sentence of the article, with a few editors that seem to be very protective of anyone somehow Polish being called by anything else that only "Polish" in the lead sentence. I do think my views on the issue are the one reflecting the established Wikipedia practice. But since I am currently alone supporting them, it is quite time-consuming for me. So, if you had time to have a look at the discussion on the Marie Curie talk page, that would be interesting :-) Tokidokix ( talk) 03:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dr. Dan,
There is a requested move discussion on Talk:Free City of Kraków that I thought you might be interested in.
Genealogizer ( talk) 20:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)