Can you provide a reference for this? Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
When you can sight a specific rule in the BLP that would preclude the use of a valid adjective in the title sentence of an article that describes a topic of that article, then please do so and stop making false claims of vandalism. You have not made a single claim, logical arguement, or cited any rule that would give cause to not use the adjective sex offender or for that matter any other word that aptly applies. When you can do this do it in the discussion page and refrain from acting out of your own personal opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.108.47 ( talk) 22:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I've put it up for FAR: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Warsaw Uprising. DrKiernan ( talk) 11:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, could I kindly ask you to please stop removing info from this article without citing WP guidlines? The info is not 'tabloid' as you have claimed - it has been covered by many respectable Polish newspapers such as Wyborcza, Dziennik, Polska... As for BLP arguments - they are spurious. We are not saying he is gay - just that many notable people (Walesa, Palikot...) have suggested he is and that this has garnered a lot of media coverage. That is true and irrefutable. Thank you for your cooperation. Malick78 ( talk) 15:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You forgot to sign :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I just left a comment there. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 21:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I haven't heard anything about it before except perhaps for the fact that only Catholics were recruited (I think). Maybe if one stretches the definition of "Pole" to "pre war Polish citizen"? At any rate, until a reliable source is provided it shouldn't be in there. radek ( talk) 01:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd have to dig in sources. For now, ask User:Molobo, he is our resident expert on those issues, I'd think.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi
First let me say that I have an opinion on this matter but I have to approach this in Wikiworld, with neutrality and without PoV
I know, I have been watching his edits, and that is why I mentioned all the stuff in my last post on the 14th SS page. He has been trying to get his point across, mostly it seems about antisemitism, even to the point of saying that Herge Tintin has a character which a Nazi collaborator claimed to be modelled on himself. On the Joe Redner chat page - "What is Joe's ethnicity ? Some claim his name is originally Jewish, while others claim he is from Gypsy background.....I asked Joe if his name was Jewish, he would not answer" I cannot understand why he asked this question.
I don't think he has bad intention, it seems more like he cannot understand why no-one wants to accept his point. It shows me that he is inexperienced with dealing with others so I am hoping he will calm down now and stop. He also seems to say contradictory things, "In Poland as in France, a number of fools at first resisted the Germans entering their countries" and then "My Polish grandmother's family in Krakow had no problem with the Germans at all, they knew the real terror was from the Soviets" obviously ignoring the fact that his grandmother must have turned a blind eye to the thousands of Jews and Communists being taken away or executed for the privelidge of not having the Soviets in charge anymore, a rather heavy price to pay I think
On the one hand it is either he has Nazi tendencies, and yet on the other he is defending Friedwardt Winterberg by saying that he had nothing to do with Larouche - who I assume is the LaRouche of the LaRouche_movement - basically saying that Winterberg is not an anti-semite and shouldnt be associated with one.
My problem is that if what he says is right, that the reference does exist, then he should have been allowed to include that in the page as he has done with his comment. "However, the Waffen SS and the Wehrmacht both enlisted Ethnic Poles into their ranks.[56]" The difficulty is that we normally would not challenge that information if he has cited the reference correctly and so without any evidence to the contrary it should be left to stand. The problem is that he has now cited it correctly, and we would have to disprove this statement to get it removed by stating contrary evidence and sources.
The article Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II even says in the closing paragraph of the Poland section, "In 1944 Germans clandestinely armed a few regional Armia Krajowa (AK) units operating in the area of Vilnius in order to encourage them to act against the Soviet partisans in the region"
I cannot stress enough that if he is right in some way - what then ? Is it such a big deal that Poles were collaborating. I think it should be pointed out to him that the article already says that there was collaboration at the end of the war with a small number of Poles to fight the Russians.
On a much more important note, it must be made clear where, if he does say it, Rikmenspoel got his sources and then we need to assess him as a credible or not credible source.
It is a very difficult subject, and without understanding hi intent, it is difficult to say which way to go, exclusion or inclusion with helpful advice and strong "reference it or else". I need to follow up on the Feldgrau forum to see what the author has to say himself and then hopefully we can asess the merits/demerits corectly.
If his part is to be included we could water it down to a more truthful statement "However there were a small number of Poles that did join the ranks of the occupying German forces"
I am sorry I cannot be more helpful apart from to keep battering him with "references, truth, discussion etc" and lets hope some of it sinkcs in and he can become a valid contributor instead of an ouitcast in need of proving something of which he is not himself sure yet.
Thansk-- Chaosdruid ( talk) 01:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The photos currently in this article were selected after a long discussion and there's an ongoing effort to prevent the number of photos from crowding out the text. Could you please discuss the photo on the article's talk page before re-adding it? Nick-D ( talk) 06:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You were mentioned and thanked by Greg in his final remark (I just found about it today by accident). Read his post here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I've reported what appears to me to be block evasion at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible block evader continuing their edit warring Nick-D ( talk) 22:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
lol I wondered where that came from - I thought I must have missed seeing it then realised you added it between edits lol
That will be my next mission I suppose - two hours without a coffee and still I go on..... lol
--
Chaosdruid (
talk)
23:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
No Jacurek, there were no Poles in Waffen SS to the extent of my knowledge.
Cheers ! -- Molobo ( talk) 22:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
At Talk:Rescue_of_Jews_by_Poles_during_the_Holocaust#GA_Review. Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Morning
Youre at it early lol
I have started an archive for the collaboration chat page (message at bottom of that chat)
Are you around later, or can you say any of the sections you wwant left there for a while and I'll get miszabot set up later today
cheers -- Chaosdruid ( talk) 08:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC) PS - u in UK ? I just noticed the flag lol
Hi. I think the quote on your User page is very true. I think editors sometimes take extreme positions to counter what they perceive to be the extreme positions of others, and it's nice to be reminded that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 18:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you guys. I am really happy that you agree and like it.-- Jacurek ( talk) 22:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Hope all is well with you. In regard to your "will this work?" edit - that seems fine by me - on another note though...
Molobo says there were no Poles in the Waffen SS, but if there weren't then they couldn't go and join the Polish army, so one of the views must be wrong, either there were and they left to join Polish army or there weren't and it was Ukrainians who joined the Polish army to try and get back home - it's getting too confusing lol.
I'm thinking that may be where the qoute originated, someone may have thought that "the 170 that joined Polish army after Rimini must have been ethinic Poles" and so we get the references in the book our pet Troll quoted.
Anyway, I have had no reply as yet from the authors of either book so I will cary on waiting...
Cheers-- Chaosdruid ( talk) 23:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi
I have to say that the wording you have used is not good.
We had consensus on the term collaborator so the section "...occupied by the Nazis to collaborate with the Axis Powers." was to remain as we had all agreed that it meant to co-operate traitorously, and to remove or rewrite the phrasing that talked about "Collaboration ranged from urging the civilian population to remain calm and accept foreign occupation,"
I ask you to revert or undo your edit on that basis - I do not wish to do it
thanks-- Chaosdruid ( talk) 06:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
(You wrote)
Hi and thanks for your recent edits.
I would like to point out that this line .. participation in controlled massacres formulated by Reinhard Heydrich in
Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust page is a little unclear and confusing. Can we rewrite this somehow or leave it as it was before? In my opinion this looks like an excuse for a behaviour of a bunch of primitive mobsters. The sad truth is that in most cases like Jedwabne the angry mob simply took revenge on innocent people for collaboration of a few and it is better to just clearly say it.
Thanks again.--
Jacurek (
talk)
08:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I really hope you change your mind and continue your contribution to this article which needs editors like you. Why don't we ask what others think? Would that be o.k.?-- Jacurek ( talk) 22:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
See eg History_of_Poland_(1945-1989)#Creation_of_the_People.27s_Republic_of_Poland_.281944.E2.80.931956.29, I'm not saying there were NO Communists, but they were not the only ones active. They were the ones to succeed, but this took some time. Skäpperöd ( talk) 17:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I am responding to a report at WP:AN3, where you have been reported for edit warring. An explanation of what you plan next would be appreciated. Either there or here, it doesn't matter. Kevin ( talk) 03:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jacurek. Let's go through that briefly again here, and keep the real discussion on the article's talk, ok? I just understood after your message that I have to make myself a little more clear:
A final note regarding your most recent comments: This is not about making Poles look bad. First of all, nowhere in the article it reads "The Poles did ...", but it is always qualified who did/said what. Second, don't over-identify with your nation, or you will ultimatively end up identifying with fools and criminals, or even lawyers and politicians, who are part of every nation. Regards Skäpperöd ( talk) 12:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
What dispute besides the ethnicity of the authors? Please outline at talk or self-revert. Maybe you confused Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II with Expulsions of Germans after WWII? Skäpperöd ( talk) 17:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I will work on expulsions as my next project after Wielkopolskie Uprising 1848. Will notify you about that-- Molobo ( talk) 22:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Nice work. Congratulations on bringing the article to Good Article status. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 20:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
First, in addition to adding an external link, please describe it! So instead of <ref>ref link</ref> please use <ref>ref link and description</ref>. Second, how to combine references if they are the same: Use <ref name=blabla>ref link and description</ref> instead of <ref>ref link and description</ref> for the first time you use such a reference, and <ref name=blabla/> for the second and so on times you use it. Read more at Wikipedia:Footnotes.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I largely agree with you. France in 1944/45 was a junior partner at best and the Big Three had the last say. However, France unlike Poland subsequently gained importance and the "Big Three" became the "Four Powers" in the war's aftermath. Thence, France unlike Poland did not really join a bloc, but largely acted independent and pursued her own policies. Despite the differing self-perseption of the grande nation, she never reached up to the role of the US or the USSR, yet she needs to be considered to be one of the "great players" in post-war Europe, also (and most important in the context) in regard to post-war Germany.
So while indeed France' "yes" did not really matter whether or how the expulsions were carried out in 1945, I think the French perspective is nevertheless notable because of her future role in European and especially Germany-related politics. I am not arguing for giving it more room than currently, which after all is a mere four words in the intro. Regards Skäpperöd ( talk) 20:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your input at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_12#Category:Holocaust_victims and below.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jacurek: Regarding the two CfDs at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 12#Category:Holocaust victims and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 12#Category:Nazi concentration camp victims, while I agree that the categories need to be sharpened, but if they are going to become categories about people who DIED only in Category:People who died in The Holocaust and Category:People who died in Nazi concentration camps respectively, then in all fairness and following good logic and historiography, following that reasoning, there should now therefore be two categories. ONE for those who DIED and one for those survivors who LIVED such as Category:Holocaust victims who survived and Category:Survivors of Nazi concentration camps that would allow for that. I am positive you will agree and kindly take a look at the two above CfD discussions again and note that that should be so, that both those who died and those who survived and lived, and who were/are of course notable, such as Elie Wiesel; Joel Teitelbaum; Yekusiel Yehudah Halberstam and many others that I know as being important to Jewish history, and there are many others like this from many other groups. It would be a great shame and travesty if those names were expunged only "because" they survived and escaped the fate the Nazis had wanted for them by having lived and not died in the Holocaust and/or the death and concentration camps. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 06:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I had to set back some expansions because of disruptive violations of wiki policies. Probably some of your edits were accidentally affected. Please check. Regards Skäpperöd ( talk) 08:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, yes, but how can we know it will be "Excellent"? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland has awarded you a status of a honorary member (you have never officially joined the project by signing on its front page...). Thank you for your Poland-related encyclopedic contributions! Please consider officially joining the project by moving yourself from the "Honorary members" list to the "Active members" list here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. It looks like a very interesting film. I'll keep an eye out for it. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 03:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Nie przeinaczaj tekstu. Tajny współpracownik to po angielsku secret collaborator. Informer to informator a był to szczebel niższy współpracy (Kontakt Operacyjny, Kontakt Obywatelski). Mathiasrex ( talk) 18:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
As a heads up, the analogy you deleted looks like something thrown together, but it is actually straight out of the listed source, including the onion analogy. Also, the sentence around it, re the Russia's domination of the USSR and the USSR domination of the Bloc are obviously pretty basic historical points, and they are both contained in a boatload of sources (and are not exactly disputed by many, if anyone). None of that is particularly controversial stuff. Mosedschurte ( talk) 17:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Anybody can give out wiki awards, so if you think it is time, go ahead and give them out! :) PS. You have not activated your email? If you want to discuss awards "in secret", activate your email and email me :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
No, no, help out! Messing up is part of the process. I've also started Częstochowa Ghetto since that was missing as well. radek ( talk) 03:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Jasenovac concentration camp -- Molobo ( talk) 23:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks-- Jacurek ( talk) 00:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
...look at what actual content you are reverting to instead of just assuming that it must be right if a co-national wrote it. Give your thoughts at talk, it's all listed there. Skäpperöd ( talk) 10:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me for adding the correct diacritics. Regarding your post at the JP article. Sorry you are out of here, but do you think Vilna, (now Vilnius) is the way to go? But Cracow, (now Kraków) is not? How should we resolve this inconsistency on WP? What policy do you think would best address this conundrum? Dr. Dan ( talk) 04:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
A nie mówiłem. WP:DFTT. A przy okazji: [1]. Czemu nie? Bo nikt tak tam nie mówił... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Spieprzaj dziadu! Is this article notable? Ostap 03:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Noticed I said survived, I did not detail how they died. The edit is factualy correct. Any way, Wikipedia is wasting my time. -- Woogie10w ( talk) 21:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
BTY did you read Unequal Victims by Gutman?-- Woogie10w ( talk) 23:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia has a bad reputation because the citiation does not often agree with the posting, you made the post off the top of your head. The source has different information. Wikipedia is a dog and pony show, a joke.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 23:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I am definitely wasting my time on wikipedia, you have proved it beyond any shadow of a doubt Thank you-- Woogie10w ( talk) 00:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
You need to place a warning on the vandal's talk page. Then if the vandalism is repeated (you seem to be suffering from repeat vandalism by one individual) it is easier to ask an admin to block the user at WP:AIV This is generally faster than asking for page protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads ( talk • contribs) 20:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Please leave your impressions, opinions, and preferences outside Wikipedia. "KGB killed A, B, and C." It's a fact. That A and B had problems with each other is totally irrelevant. Renata ( talk) 15:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
It might be best to discuss your edit on the article talk-page rather than edit-warring (see WP:BRD for more information). I've opened a discussion there. EyeSerene talk 16:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you have AIM or MSN? Yahoo perhaps? I would like to contact you so we can discuss the Enver Hoxha article. -- Mrdie ( talk) 23:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I put that photo on Leon Feldhendler page. I am currently working on Sobibor. My goal is to get as many of the killers and survivors up as I can. Since I see you are intrested, i am going to do the bios of the Sobibor survivors from the Eichmann trials. Right now I did a 100% rewrite on Alexander Pechersky and wrote new articles on Hermann Michel, Erich Bauer and Kurt Bolender. If you have anything to add, please let me know. Meishern ( talk) 19:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I updated Polish Areas annexed by Germany [3] As your contributions have been productive I would welcome any comments on how to improve the article further.-- Molobo ( talk) 14:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd tend to use "Polish forces", since the Polish government in exile was
The above would be from the viewpoint that Poland cannot be considered a "state" during the war, as defined as being in charge of a territory's legislature, executive, and judicative. Which simply was not the case.
Yet I see the rationale behind the argumentation that Poland, though her government was not in charge of any territory, did exist in a kind of virtual nature during the war, and that this virtual nature even materialized to a limited extend in form of a so-called underground state. I see the government in exile was also in command of forces, though the command was primarily of theoretical nature ("fight and do what our allies say!") and did not extend to all Polish forces (eg the Soviet recruited ones).
So we have a body that in theory resembles a state but in practice does not (or only very limited). I tend to use "Polish forces" due to the definition of "state" being a practicle one - that is factual assertion of power in a given territory. Yet in terms of international law and recognition, "virtual" states are also possible.
So imho none of the rationales behind the conflicting positions is based on a logical fallacy, they are both reasonable. For now, I have not given it enough thought to weigh in the discussion. Regards Skäpperöd ( talk) 13:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
You know I respect your work, but you have to learn quickly what most of us have to learn: WP:PLAGIARISM. Rewriting takes time, but it is necessary. Attribution is crucial per WP:V anyway. Worst case, not respecting those policies means that your work will be wasted - articles will be deleted, and you may even find yourself banned. I'd suggest you take your time and review your past contributions, adding references and rewriting as needed where you can. Otherwise, others will have to do it for you - and they may be less forgiving :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your willingness to help address this matter. I am currently reviewing the History of Polish Jews article, but it would be very helpful if you could identify any text you believe may be a problem in other articles. If you don't know, it would be helpful if you simply identified articles to which you contributed extensively in the past.
Unless you know that text is free for use (such as public domain material or material that is licensed elsewhere under GFDL), you can't use it in Wikipedia without using quotation marks (and only small amounts of quotation). This is true even if it has no copyright notice at all, since United States law (which governs Wikipedia) automatically grants copyright protection. (See WP:C and WP:NFC for policies on that.)
I am making notes at the talk page of this article, and I will identify any problem materials I find. Once I've finished, this article can either be restored (if it's clean) or cleaned up more if necessary. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Germany's victory over Poland in the Warsaw Uprising was pyrrhic. Germany put all of its resources in Poland to squash the rebellion, therefore when the Soviet Union came they faced almost no resistance by the Germans in Warsaw. There isa saying that the only things the Soviets liberated were stray cats and rubble. If the Uprising did not occur, the Soviets would have faced heavy resistance in Warsaw therefore the German victory was pyrrhic. see "The Polish Way" by Adam Zamoyski (born in New York, graduate of Oxford)
It was just a mistake, and the article needs a major rewrite anyhow. radek ( talk) 18:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
(Whether or not that's too close might depend on if you are giving credit to the source in the text itself. For example, if you said, "According to Gutman, the new details about Jedwabne mass murder were a shock to many Poles because it clashes with the popular knowledge of the war years, anti-Semitism and Polish-Jewish relations during the WW2." That allows you to stick a little closer to the source. Otherwise, you've got a very good start on revision and certainly what you have is nothing in the order of copyright infringement, as long as you don't have a whole lot of it. But I would try to change a few more key words, maybe like:
I just wanted to stop by and thank you for helping with the clean-up in that article. I know the issue can be complicated. Please feel welcome to come by my talk page any time if I can provide assistance with these matters or, really, anything else. This is what I do, but if you need help with something else, I'm pretty good at tracking other people down. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
It's my honor to give you this barnstar in recognition of your resilience in returning to Wikipedia after being blocked and in learning from your early mistakes. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC) |
Don't let trolls bait you into violating CIV/AGF/NPA and such. They may be socks or meatpuppets working with more established editors, created with the sole purpose of doing just that, and getting a content opponent banned. Never lose your cool, no matter how disgusting their views are. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
... for the barnstar. :-) — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 20:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, thanks! radek ( talk) 21:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at what I wrote at User talk:Jjaggeropen#Rescue_of_Jews_by_Poles_during_the_Holocaust in responce an apeal for my informal mediation. Thanks. -- Poeticbent talk 15:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I have removed your rollback access. Even ignoring these [4] [5] [6] [7], these reverts [8] [9] are a complete abuse of the feature. Please familiarise yourself with WP:Rollback before reapplying for access.
And for this and other recent edit-warring here is notice of Digwuren editing restrictions:
Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.
Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.
Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 18:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Jacurek's use of rollback power is inappropriate, he should have edit with calm head and use normal undo or simply explain his reverts. Removal of his rollback power and editing restrictions are nonetheless premature and simply wrong. Intervening admin should have consulted other people or seek ways through WP:ANI. These actions should be reconsidered again. - Darwinek ( talk) 14:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I've filed a report on this matter at AE [10]. radek ( talk) 15:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Deacon seems to have reverted his ill thought actions; but please be careful with rollback in the future - he was right that few times you have misused it. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I support your rollbacks. Too many people try to hide the truth about what really went on during the German 'occupation' of the Baltic States. The willing collaboration with the Nazis and the joy of the local population during mass murder of Jewish women and babies has been well documented. Keep up the good work and don’t let this new breed of apologists and neo-nazis hold you back. Meishern ( talk) 01:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jacurek. I'd been looking into getting a good quality copy of that image, but just so you know I don't think its captioned correctly. See the IWM collection here. Cheers Ranger Steve ( talk) 23:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. It looks like a very interesting site. I'll have to spend some time there. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 18:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
We talked about this before, this "Spieprzaj dziadu!" article should really be deleted. Do you know how to do an WP:AfD? I have never done one before... Ostap 04:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 25 Ostap 03:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Jacurek, that's very kind of you. Article should be finished very soon, just one more map and some cleaning up to do! Ranger Steve ( talk) 09:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
[11] I saw you reverted the img caption with the summary "this is not what the description of the picture is. Nalot Niemczyzny 1910-1931". I had copied the caption from the commons description side [12], as it was at the time of your revert. A day later it was vandalized but is now restored. What do you think is wrong with the caption? Skäpperöd ( talk) 15:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Skäpperöd just started another WP:AE against me and he also mentioned you Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Loosmark ( talk) 17:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, "any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."
Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.
Editors are cautioned that the purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia that approaches its subjects from a neutral point of view. While it is possible for editors with strongly held opposing viewpoints to collaborate and produce neutral articles, it is extremely difficult, and requires editors to be patient, flexible, respectful of their fellow editors, and willing to negotiate and compromise. Editors are further cautioned that when a change to an article becomes contentious, such as through a few early reverts or a strong objection on the talk page, they should stop reverting and discuss on the talk page until a compromise or consensus is reached. Use the content dispute resolution mechanisms including content request for comment, request for third opinion, mediation, or the content noticeboard. Reverting without discussion is very bad. Reverting during discussion is almost as bad, as it shows disrespect to the editors participating in the discussion. Thatcher 11:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
Hey Jacurek, I looked at the history of Radio Maryja and saw that you edited it. I don't follow Radio Maryja, but I thought something was a little odd. After reading the article, it seems that aside from being the root of all evil on the planet, RM has also been rejected and reprimanded by the Vatican and the Church in Poland (which it, according to the article, threatens to divide). Is this really the case? Or is this just more biased writing? Please review the article if you have the chance. Thanks, Ostap 05:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm adding states based on the World War II casualties list. I find it unfair that thousands of people died in a particular country yet their contributions are not recognized.-- 23prootie ( talk) 07:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
at the Expulsion of Germans article, concerning the government linked. See my rationale here - the link you inserted was the wartime government, while the sentence said postwar government. Regards Skäpperöd ( talk) 15:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I would appreciate your comments regarding the use of sources
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sources for WW2 losses in Asia
Thanks -- Woogie10w ( talk) 23:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Given 23prootie's long history of edit-warring on this article (and others), and failure to abide by consensus views on talk pages, I'd suggest that you lodge an edit-warring report. The most recent report on this editor (which led to a one month block which was sadly revoked after a few hours) is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive104#User:23prootie reported by User:Nick-D (Result: 1 month). Nick-D ( talk) 01:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jacurek, I feel you react with too much temper and regard my edits bad-faithed, so I feel obliged to send you this message.
Concerning my reverts: These reverts had nothing to do with the dispute itself. It was merely the restauration of the piped link to the discussion, which I pointed out in both my edit summary and on talk. Please have a closer look at how piped links in templates work and I am sure that after you did so, you will change your mind about my reversions. There was no bad faith or intention to revert war whatsoever, I merely ensured that the piped link works (which it does not if you alter it).
Concerning the disputed sentence: Please understand that it is a very serious matter if (a) the historians on whose works the ranges given in the sentence before are based, and (b) the federal German government to which these ranges are referenced, are wrongly accused of inflating numbers for political reasons. If such a claim is issued, there needs to be an unambiguous solid basis. Eg Overmans' preference for the verified-deaths counting method does not imply that he thinks that th population balance method turns out result inflated for political reasons. We should at least assume that the scholars using the population balance method were doing their research properly and independent, and tried their best to reduce the chance of false positives in the result. We should further accept that the verified-deaths counting method is - per definition - missing the unverified deaths. If we state the methods and the respective attributed ranges, we are well within an NPOV. Skäpperöd ( talk) 07:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Images are free, or non-free- nothing else. If an image is non-free, its use must meet our non-free content criteria, whether its an album cover, historical image, logo or whatever. If you do not believe that removing images that do not meet our non-free content criteria is helping the encyclopedia, I think you're on the wrong project. I'm not looking for excuses to remove images, at all- if a use is legitimate, I will happily add/cleanup rationales. If a use is not legitimate, then I, like any other editor with a respect for our policies, will remove the image/nominate it for deletion as appropriate. J Milburn ( talk) 01:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your recent changes, and I expect you to provide satisfactory arguments supporting your point before doing further edits of this section. Your very brief comment cannot be considered an explanation, because it doesn't address my arguments, Caranorn's arguments and the section's comment that explicitly states that the USSR was not a Germany's ally.
With regards to Mongolia and Tuva, do you seriously think there were no such states in 1941? If we follow you strategy, we must exclude many Latin American states, because most of them were not fully independent from the USA at that time.--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
00:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Paul..I'm sorry to say that but .. you are very wrong. If my argument are not satisfactory to you then nothing will be. ... and the link you provided ?? What is is this? .-- Jacurek ( talk) 02:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I feel a little uncomfortable with the fact that only the Lithuanian name is shown in the heading of the article. The Lithuanian name was fist written in the 17th century (and officially introduced only in 1939), while Latin, Belarusian and Polish are far more ancient and original. Do you think it is possible to do any rephrasing, so it will be clear thet Vilnius is rather a new official name and Wilno/Vilna is the ancient and original?-- Mikej007 ( talk) 02:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You challenged the accuracy of edits in article Massacres of Poles in Volhynia by deleting them and labelling them dubious. Please explain how this is inaccurate as it is well sourced by a reliable source. Bobanni ( talk) 07:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I wrote today List of Lithuanian Places and I will be happy if you'll help me to improve it and to incorporate it into the right categories. Thank you.-- Mikej007 ( talk) 10:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I think user 84.240.27.89 ( talk · contribs) is actually M.K, judging by past actions. Just giving you a heads up. 124.190.113.128 ( talk) 14:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
yes but its too complicated.. where is a live chat? to talk faster? its complicated... thank you for your help :-) if i make alterations to any articles, then only if i think that they are right. otherwise i wouldnt do it. Each time i make the letters in the article wroclaw of breslau big, then someone makes them small again... but breslau is the name... how can i talk faster? thank u again for the help :-) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jadran91 (
talk •
contribs)
01:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I have been stupid enough to engage myself in a conversation with a troll, who does not contribute anything useful and limits his activities to asking pointless questions. The only way is to ignore all trolls, and I think you will agree with me. Regards. Tymek ( talk) 17:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
"Dan! This is fantastic! We can actually work together! Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)"
Let's keep this going. Kindly look into the Cracow situation. Maybe you can persuade Poeticbent to get on board. That way this waste of time doesn't have to start up all over again. Dr. Dan ( talk) 19:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Now that it seems we are moving in a new direction, I wanted to be sure I understood a recent edit summary you posted at the Narutowicz article..."He is a brother of the President of Poland born on the once Polish lands...specifically ...the once Polish lands". Don't recall that being the case, unlike Vilnius. Was Marie Curie born in Poland, or on the once Russian lands? Was Chopin born in Poland or on the once Russian lands? I like this new consensus but it's still new and somewhat fragile. Btw, you realize that due to the relentless efforts by you and Radeksz, you have changed the playing field. I hope you are not chided by any Polish nationalists, as some will especially find Russian toponyms (in Cyrillic to boot) borderline neo- Russification and may object to it. Adding the German versions may not be that easy either, but we are not going to take into consideration "feelings" (regardless of WWII, etc.). Naturally, I'm sure the addition of Yiddish will be welcomed vociferously due to the long standing association of Poland with the Jewish community, and appreciation of its many contributions to Poland. Just the same your Narutowicz edit summary seems strange. Dr. Dan ( talk) 15:21, 21 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 19:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand your feelings, but such link should be explained in Erika Steinbach. Xx236 ( talk) 10:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The article is being rewritten. Xx236 ( talk) 13:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I linked Nazi occupied Europe a little further in the same paragraph. Skäpperöd ( talk) 15:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, i don't know if you have noticed it but Scurinae went to badmouth you on the on Thatcher's talk page. [19]. Loosmark ( talk) 13:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The structure of the article is absurd, the longest part of it being "The other version' - other to which one? Xx236 ( talk) 09:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The Poles are allegedly responsible for the biggest part of the Expulsion. I have quoted texts about every aspect of this ideology. Xx236 ( talk) 06:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I mean your support for Skaperod. Xx236 ( talk) 06:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Loosmark hasn't been involved in the massacres article in any significant way: [20] so this is not at all about keeping him from making edits; he's hardly making them. It's about making very ugly accusations about me and lowring the tone ofthe discussion which gets in the way of collaborative work. That kind of behavior should not be tolerated. Faustian ( talk) 21:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for help.-- Paweł5586 ( talk) 13:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the heads up. The discussion was already closed by the time I went to leave my comments. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 20:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
A mediation case has been opened regarding the Polish-Ukranian WWII dispute. I have picked up that case. Here's the link:
Polish-Ukranian WWII disputes.
If you choose not to participate, please tell me on my talk page. Thanks! :-) Xavexgoem ( talk) 00:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.
You are receiving this notification as you participated in the administrators' noticeboard thread on the issue.
The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.
Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (
talk)
01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Wishing you a Happy Rosh Hashanah-- Woogie10w ( talk) 02:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee recently passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.
You have been named as one of the parties to this case at the request of the Arbitration Committee, here. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.
The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.
Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (
talk)
06:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Piotrus/ArbCom. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
why do you change the captions under maps of concentration camps in germany and gg into poland? -- Dert45 ( talk) 19:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jacurek, your latest edits [22], [23] [24] [25] seem to violate WP:hounding. In this case you removed an external link to the movie Siege (film) by calling it "propaganda". this movie was made by the American journalist Julien Bryan in Warsaw in 1939. It was nominated for The Oscar and is archieved by the Librarian of Congress as "a unique, horrifying record of the dreadful brutality of war" and shows some impressive scenes of the besieged city. It's in fact totally incomprehensible why you call such a movie "propaganda". Please take more care of your edits and edit summaries. Thanks HerkusMonte ( talk) 09:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Abkhazia has declared independence but its ability to maintain independence is solely based on Russian troops deployed on Georgian territory and Russian aid. Abkhazia, unlike South Ossetia, is not lanlocked as it borders the Black Sea and does not wish to become a part of the Russian Federation through reunification.
I'm giving a friendly warning to watch your reverting on West Germany (which has now been full-protected by another administrator) as well as on Expulsion of Germans after World War II. While you will not break 3RR on the former and is not yet at 3RR on the latter, I have to remind you that you may still be blocked for general edit-warring regardless if you broke 3RR or not. I do appreciate, however, that you have went to the talk pages and seem to be participating there. Remember, if a change is going to be controversial or contentious, it doesn't hurt at all to discuss first before making the change in the article. Thank you, and hope that helps, MuZemike 22:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Sticking to voluntary 1RR is a good idea, Jack. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacurek for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Wuh Wuz Dat 17:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. It was no big deal. I'm aware of the mailing list business, and I know you have enough to deal with without worrying about this silliness. Also, sometimes the best defense is a strong offense. :-) Take care, and illegitimi non carborundum. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 00:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh wait, there isn't one. I saw someone complaining about you, made a comment, then that was it. You started casting aspersions so I replied. You are biased. Who gives a good god damn that when to germans invaded poland, the soviets did too? What does that have to do with Roman Polanski? Nothing. You may as well say "During the period following WWII when the United States and Great Britain allowed the Soviet Union to sponsor communism in Poland." Its irrelevant in every possible way. WookMuff ( talk) 01:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
First, I am very calm, you can't judge mood or context very well over the internet. Second, I am here because you asked me to come here before you said THE END. So, THE END WookMuff ( talk) 01:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
What I worry about is that in my opinion I'm being followed around by somebody or group of people who are trying to set me up, see my comment above
Maybe you should ask yourself what you are doing wrong that you piss people off to the point they allegedly form a Cabal and stalk you, waiting for you to break wikipedia policy and then pouncing? WookMuff ( talk) 09:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see the recent edit history of Volksdeutsche and its talk page. This is a potentially difficult situation; your help is appreciated. Feketekave ( talk) 14:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have violated the WP:3RR rule at Roman Polanski. You may be able to avoid a block if you will confirm your adherence to a voluntary 1RR, which is hinted above at User talk:Jacurek#Watch your reverting. If you choose to accept this restriction, you can avoid being blocked for the Polanski 3RR case, but admins will be expecting you to adhere to the rule in future. I suggest that you agree to accept this restriction for three months. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jacurek. Some IP editors seemed to be reverting your user page to include a sock template, so I have semiprotected the page. If you disagree, please let me know. EdJohnston ( talk) 05:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Despite this user agreeing to a 1RR, twice today he has edited the London Victory Parade of 1946 article in a way which seems very much like reverting: once he yet again removed the word 'claims' with regard to invitations to Polish forces; the second time he reverted to a version which was made by another editor but which does not say what the sources given actually say (i.e. the article says "almost all" while the sources say "all"). Varsovian ( talk) 17:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
As you probably know, I have been partially banned: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Xx236&diff=314527493&oldid=312602264
I don't care about their opinion about me, if they don't like me, I have other things to do. German Wikipedia is probably more "politically correct" and limits nationalistic propaganda. This Wikipedia allows "We were the main victims" stories, supported by "sources" created by Western ignorants. Xx236 ( talk) 12:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I was never asked to join
that club...
But seriously: thank god (a.k.a.
Jimbo Wales) I had never got anything to do with that.... —
Mariah-Yulia •
Talk to me! 23:26, 22 October 2009
Please don't alter or remove sourced content, as you repeatedly did in History of Pomerania (1945–present). Skäpperöd ( talk) 21:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I have requested arbitration enforcement here. Skäpperöd ( talk) 08:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
hi Jacurek, I have filled an ANI report on user:Varsovian because of his edit-warring on the London Victory Parade of 1946. Loosmark ( talk) 13:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
With your inquisitorial exchange with User:Varsovian, you have seriously crossed the line into personal harassment. You were already under WP:DIGWUREN warnings for disruptive behaviour, so you now get sanctioned. You are blocked for a month for edit-warring, battleground behaviour and harassment, and placed on a 1R/d restriction on all Eastern Europe related pages for another six months. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jacurek. I restored "1990" as the correct year of the end of communism in Poland. The first reason is a strict relationship with officiality: in this note (and you know that coins/notes are one of the biggest evidences of statehood in all history)
[44] of February 1, 1990, Poland is still "PRL", in this one of April 20, 1990, the name
[45] has changed into "RP" (Question: "Polska" in genitive (of Poland) or adjective (Polish)?)
More generally, Jaruzelki maintanance to power in 1989, did not allow to choose that year as the end of communism in Poland. There are no semi free democracies: a democracy is full, or it is not a democracy (even if, certainly, 1989 events are a masterpiece not only in Polish, but in all European history). So, 1990 becomes a right date not only officially, but even substantially: PZPR disbandment (January 30) and, later, Walesa election to presidency (December 9) mark the real birth of nowadays Democratic Poland. A very, very famous parallelism can clarify you. When the French Revolution began? In 1789 (exactly 200 years before 1989), with the Bastille and first semi free elections. But when France became the "French Republic"? In 1792
[46], when the Head of State of the Ancien Regime (Louis XVI) was substituted. Thanks for your attention.--
Cusio (
talk)
15:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't have time to review who dunnit but I want to recommend that Varsovian tries to stay away from Loosmark and Jacurek, and vice versa. A voluntary restriction on commenting about others and reverting them may be a good idea. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
|}
I'm sorry to see that you're on an involuntary Wikibreak. Enjoy the relatively stress-free days away from this place. :-)
I hope we'll see you back here in a month. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 00:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I'd like to get involved in loosmark's threads about your ban but I'm posting on my iPhone and that means I can't post diffs and any time there's an edit conflict (which is common given the time it takes to type a post with one finger) I lose the whole post. I most certainly will not in any way change my attitude towards you due to his posts.
BTW: from my home and my office I can see one of Warsaw's world records: the skyscraper which took the longest time ever to build. Would you, as a native Varsovian, like to tell me which company used to sponsor the sign on the top of the building? And in your answer, perhaps you could pose me a trivia question about our city? Not because I have any doubts that you lived here, simply as a friendly contest: ask anything but make sure: a) it's not googleable; b) it relates to something from the last ten years; and c) it's not on the east side of the river! Varsovian ( talk) 21:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
1) who officially lifted 'the curse' from that site? An easy one!
2) what nationality finished the construction of the tower?
3) what building is between the tower and the river?
4) what caused the floor of the lobby of that building to have its current colour?
5) whose milkcans?
6) the building next to the saski hotel has had three uses, name them;
7) your ultima trivia, when did the saski hotel close?
I'd really love to see your answers. Better yet, could you copy this to WP Poland? No copy paste on iphone2.0! Varsovian ( talk) 22:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Jacurek ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
After thinking for a while I would like to request my account to be unblocked for several reasons. First, I think that I was treated too harsh by the administrator who executed the block and who is listed as involved person here[ [47]] together with me. Here is my actual conversation just before my account was blocked[ [48]] and my last message to the person who blocked me few minutes before the execution of block[ [49]] I was blocked 5 minutes later for disruptive battleground behaviour, harassment of Varsovian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I would like to point out the reason I (and not only I) was so suspicious of the new account of Varsovian is that I thought he is a "sock" of other user. In the last few weeks I was attacked several times by anonymous IP's and I thoght that this is just yet another attack. Howver since that time ma and Varsovian we put our differences apart[ [50]] and he has nothing against my unblock. We are quite friendly now[ [51]]. Since then I cooled down and I do not anticipate anymore heated discussions with user Varsovian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) with whom I'm in a friendly connection since. My unblock is also supported not only by Varsovian but also by some other users (notification post)[ [52]] Thanks for the time of whoever will be examining this request. I would like the reviewer to look a little deeper into the whole incidents. Should you have any questions please ask. Thanks again.
Decline reason:
There is not indication that Jacurek will not return to the former battlezone behavior. Eastern European disputes are well known. Editors who run afoul of those restrictions, in spite of warnings and past blocks for infractions, need to be sanctioned sternly and resolutely. Jehochman Talk 13:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Note to reviewing admin: There was also an ongoing AE case concerned with Jacurek, which was archived as moot because of the block. Jacurek is also a subject to WP:EEML where his involvement in off-line coordinated editing is currently being investigated. He also just avoided a block for revert-warring by accepting a 1rr restriction two weeks ago [53]. Skäpperöd ( talk) 21:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: seeing as this unblock request has sat unanswered for a long time, I have opened a review discussion myself at WP:AE to move things along and get the situation resolved one way or another. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Please note that I said I do not want to make any comment on the actions of admin. If I said I supported your request for an unblock, I'd be making a comment on the action of admins. While I very much look forward to seeing you once again making the positive contribution to WP that you usually make, I'd be grateful if you could make it clear to admin that I do not oppose your request. Thank you.
Also, I'm still waiting for your answers to my questions above. If you want to throw it open to Poland project, please do. We can add the info to the relevent articles afterwards Varsovian ( talk) 20:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Note from reviewing admin I will be reviewing this block so in the mean time could we all just carry on editting the wiki and not cause too much drama here. Seddon talk| WikimediaUK 20:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Jacurek ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I apologize for repeating my request but I believe that user Jehochman is not neutra involvede is heavily involved here[ [58]] just as the blocking administrator is. I will link this request to this discussion[ [59]] for more details. I also do not think that because (as per Jehochman) I'm nationalis much effr, not worth much effort[ [60]] and a little kitty who just died[ [61]] I should be denied a fair and unbiased hearing by UNINVOLVED administrator. Thank you. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to ask.
Decline reason:
Having reviewed the situation, I have decided that I'm not going to unblock you. Making unsubstantiated socking accusations based on gut feeling cannot be tolerated and you should have the sense to realise that without hard evidence, such accusations would never have stood up. However, I am going to shorten the block to 2 weeks, based on the peace making with the person you were in conflict with plus in addition to your last block being some time ago so I am going to give a little good faith. Please use this time to get yourself into the right frame of mind that promotes an atmosphere conducive to collaborative editting. Please note that if there is any severe disruption following on from the end of your block, the good faith show here is likely to be deminished and the resulting block length will likely be longer. See this as an oppotunity to get yourself on track. Seddon talk WikimediaUK 14:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Can you provide a reference for this? Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
When you can sight a specific rule in the BLP that would preclude the use of a valid adjective in the title sentence of an article that describes a topic of that article, then please do so and stop making false claims of vandalism. You have not made a single claim, logical arguement, or cited any rule that would give cause to not use the adjective sex offender or for that matter any other word that aptly applies. When you can do this do it in the discussion page and refrain from acting out of your own personal opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.108.47 ( talk) 22:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I've put it up for FAR: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Warsaw Uprising. DrKiernan ( talk) 11:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, could I kindly ask you to please stop removing info from this article without citing WP guidlines? The info is not 'tabloid' as you have claimed - it has been covered by many respectable Polish newspapers such as Wyborcza, Dziennik, Polska... As for BLP arguments - they are spurious. We are not saying he is gay - just that many notable people (Walesa, Palikot...) have suggested he is and that this has garnered a lot of media coverage. That is true and irrefutable. Thank you for your cooperation. Malick78 ( talk) 15:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You forgot to sign :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I just left a comment there. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 21:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I haven't heard anything about it before except perhaps for the fact that only Catholics were recruited (I think). Maybe if one stretches the definition of "Pole" to "pre war Polish citizen"? At any rate, until a reliable source is provided it shouldn't be in there. radek ( talk) 01:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd have to dig in sources. For now, ask User:Molobo, he is our resident expert on those issues, I'd think.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi
First let me say that I have an opinion on this matter but I have to approach this in Wikiworld, with neutrality and without PoV
I know, I have been watching his edits, and that is why I mentioned all the stuff in my last post on the 14th SS page. He has been trying to get his point across, mostly it seems about antisemitism, even to the point of saying that Herge Tintin has a character which a Nazi collaborator claimed to be modelled on himself. On the Joe Redner chat page - "What is Joe's ethnicity ? Some claim his name is originally Jewish, while others claim he is from Gypsy background.....I asked Joe if his name was Jewish, he would not answer" I cannot understand why he asked this question.
I don't think he has bad intention, it seems more like he cannot understand why no-one wants to accept his point. It shows me that he is inexperienced with dealing with others so I am hoping he will calm down now and stop. He also seems to say contradictory things, "In Poland as in France, a number of fools at first resisted the Germans entering their countries" and then "My Polish grandmother's family in Krakow had no problem with the Germans at all, they knew the real terror was from the Soviets" obviously ignoring the fact that his grandmother must have turned a blind eye to the thousands of Jews and Communists being taken away or executed for the privelidge of not having the Soviets in charge anymore, a rather heavy price to pay I think
On the one hand it is either he has Nazi tendencies, and yet on the other he is defending Friedwardt Winterberg by saying that he had nothing to do with Larouche - who I assume is the LaRouche of the LaRouche_movement - basically saying that Winterberg is not an anti-semite and shouldnt be associated with one.
My problem is that if what he says is right, that the reference does exist, then he should have been allowed to include that in the page as he has done with his comment. "However, the Waffen SS and the Wehrmacht both enlisted Ethnic Poles into their ranks.[56]" The difficulty is that we normally would not challenge that information if he has cited the reference correctly and so without any evidence to the contrary it should be left to stand. The problem is that he has now cited it correctly, and we would have to disprove this statement to get it removed by stating contrary evidence and sources.
The article Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II even says in the closing paragraph of the Poland section, "In 1944 Germans clandestinely armed a few regional Armia Krajowa (AK) units operating in the area of Vilnius in order to encourage them to act against the Soviet partisans in the region"
I cannot stress enough that if he is right in some way - what then ? Is it such a big deal that Poles were collaborating. I think it should be pointed out to him that the article already says that there was collaboration at the end of the war with a small number of Poles to fight the Russians.
On a much more important note, it must be made clear where, if he does say it, Rikmenspoel got his sources and then we need to assess him as a credible or not credible source.
It is a very difficult subject, and without understanding hi intent, it is difficult to say which way to go, exclusion or inclusion with helpful advice and strong "reference it or else". I need to follow up on the Feldgrau forum to see what the author has to say himself and then hopefully we can asess the merits/demerits corectly.
If his part is to be included we could water it down to a more truthful statement "However there were a small number of Poles that did join the ranks of the occupying German forces"
I am sorry I cannot be more helpful apart from to keep battering him with "references, truth, discussion etc" and lets hope some of it sinkcs in and he can become a valid contributor instead of an ouitcast in need of proving something of which he is not himself sure yet.
Thansk-- Chaosdruid ( talk) 01:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The photos currently in this article were selected after a long discussion and there's an ongoing effort to prevent the number of photos from crowding out the text. Could you please discuss the photo on the article's talk page before re-adding it? Nick-D ( talk) 06:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You were mentioned and thanked by Greg in his final remark (I just found about it today by accident). Read his post here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I've reported what appears to me to be block evasion at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible block evader continuing their edit warring Nick-D ( talk) 22:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
lol I wondered where that came from - I thought I must have missed seeing it then realised you added it between edits lol
That will be my next mission I suppose - two hours without a coffee and still I go on..... lol
--
Chaosdruid (
talk)
23:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
No Jacurek, there were no Poles in Waffen SS to the extent of my knowledge.
Cheers ! -- Molobo ( talk) 22:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
At Talk:Rescue_of_Jews_by_Poles_during_the_Holocaust#GA_Review. Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Morning
Youre at it early lol
I have started an archive for the collaboration chat page (message at bottom of that chat)
Are you around later, or can you say any of the sections you wwant left there for a while and I'll get miszabot set up later today
cheers -- Chaosdruid ( talk) 08:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC) PS - u in UK ? I just noticed the flag lol
Hi. I think the quote on your User page is very true. I think editors sometimes take extreme positions to counter what they perceive to be the extreme positions of others, and it's nice to be reminded that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 18:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you guys. I am really happy that you agree and like it.-- Jacurek ( talk) 22:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Hope all is well with you. In regard to your "will this work?" edit - that seems fine by me - on another note though...
Molobo says there were no Poles in the Waffen SS, but if there weren't then they couldn't go and join the Polish army, so one of the views must be wrong, either there were and they left to join Polish army or there weren't and it was Ukrainians who joined the Polish army to try and get back home - it's getting too confusing lol.
I'm thinking that may be where the qoute originated, someone may have thought that "the 170 that joined Polish army after Rimini must have been ethinic Poles" and so we get the references in the book our pet Troll quoted.
Anyway, I have had no reply as yet from the authors of either book so I will cary on waiting...
Cheers-- Chaosdruid ( talk) 23:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi
I have to say that the wording you have used is not good.
We had consensus on the term collaborator so the section "...occupied by the Nazis to collaborate with the Axis Powers." was to remain as we had all agreed that it meant to co-operate traitorously, and to remove or rewrite the phrasing that talked about "Collaboration ranged from urging the civilian population to remain calm and accept foreign occupation,"
I ask you to revert or undo your edit on that basis - I do not wish to do it
thanks-- Chaosdruid ( talk) 06:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
(You wrote)
Hi and thanks for your recent edits.
I would like to point out that this line .. participation in controlled massacres formulated by Reinhard Heydrich in
Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust page is a little unclear and confusing. Can we rewrite this somehow or leave it as it was before? In my opinion this looks like an excuse for a behaviour of a bunch of primitive mobsters. The sad truth is that in most cases like Jedwabne the angry mob simply took revenge on innocent people for collaboration of a few and it is better to just clearly say it.
Thanks again.--
Jacurek (
talk)
08:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I really hope you change your mind and continue your contribution to this article which needs editors like you. Why don't we ask what others think? Would that be o.k.?-- Jacurek ( talk) 22:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
See eg History_of_Poland_(1945-1989)#Creation_of_the_People.27s_Republic_of_Poland_.281944.E2.80.931956.29, I'm not saying there were NO Communists, but they were not the only ones active. They were the ones to succeed, but this took some time. Skäpperöd ( talk) 17:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I am responding to a report at WP:AN3, where you have been reported for edit warring. An explanation of what you plan next would be appreciated. Either there or here, it doesn't matter. Kevin ( talk) 03:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jacurek. Let's go through that briefly again here, and keep the real discussion on the article's talk, ok? I just understood after your message that I have to make myself a little more clear:
A final note regarding your most recent comments: This is not about making Poles look bad. First of all, nowhere in the article it reads "The Poles did ...", but it is always qualified who did/said what. Second, don't over-identify with your nation, or you will ultimatively end up identifying with fools and criminals, or even lawyers and politicians, who are part of every nation. Regards Skäpperöd ( talk) 12:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
What dispute besides the ethnicity of the authors? Please outline at talk or self-revert. Maybe you confused Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II with Expulsions of Germans after WWII? Skäpperöd ( talk) 17:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I will work on expulsions as my next project after Wielkopolskie Uprising 1848. Will notify you about that-- Molobo ( talk) 22:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Nice work. Congratulations on bringing the article to Good Article status. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 20:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
First, in addition to adding an external link, please describe it! So instead of <ref>ref link</ref> please use <ref>ref link and description</ref>. Second, how to combine references if they are the same: Use <ref name=blabla>ref link and description</ref> instead of <ref>ref link and description</ref> for the first time you use such a reference, and <ref name=blabla/> for the second and so on times you use it. Read more at Wikipedia:Footnotes.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I largely agree with you. France in 1944/45 was a junior partner at best and the Big Three had the last say. However, France unlike Poland subsequently gained importance and the "Big Three" became the "Four Powers" in the war's aftermath. Thence, France unlike Poland did not really join a bloc, but largely acted independent and pursued her own policies. Despite the differing self-perseption of the grande nation, she never reached up to the role of the US or the USSR, yet she needs to be considered to be one of the "great players" in post-war Europe, also (and most important in the context) in regard to post-war Germany.
So while indeed France' "yes" did not really matter whether or how the expulsions were carried out in 1945, I think the French perspective is nevertheless notable because of her future role in European and especially Germany-related politics. I am not arguing for giving it more room than currently, which after all is a mere four words in the intro. Regards Skäpperöd ( talk) 20:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your input at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_12#Category:Holocaust_victims and below.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jacurek: Regarding the two CfDs at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 12#Category:Holocaust victims and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 12#Category:Nazi concentration camp victims, while I agree that the categories need to be sharpened, but if they are going to become categories about people who DIED only in Category:People who died in The Holocaust and Category:People who died in Nazi concentration camps respectively, then in all fairness and following good logic and historiography, following that reasoning, there should now therefore be two categories. ONE for those who DIED and one for those survivors who LIVED such as Category:Holocaust victims who survived and Category:Survivors of Nazi concentration camps that would allow for that. I am positive you will agree and kindly take a look at the two above CfD discussions again and note that that should be so, that both those who died and those who survived and lived, and who were/are of course notable, such as Elie Wiesel; Joel Teitelbaum; Yekusiel Yehudah Halberstam and many others that I know as being important to Jewish history, and there are many others like this from many other groups. It would be a great shame and travesty if those names were expunged only "because" they survived and escaped the fate the Nazis had wanted for them by having lived and not died in the Holocaust and/or the death and concentration camps. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 06:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I had to set back some expansions because of disruptive violations of wiki policies. Probably some of your edits were accidentally affected. Please check. Regards Skäpperöd ( talk) 08:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, yes, but how can we know it will be "Excellent"? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland has awarded you a status of a honorary member (you have never officially joined the project by signing on its front page...). Thank you for your Poland-related encyclopedic contributions! Please consider officially joining the project by moving yourself from the "Honorary members" list to the "Active members" list here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. It looks like a very interesting film. I'll keep an eye out for it. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 03:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Nie przeinaczaj tekstu. Tajny współpracownik to po angielsku secret collaborator. Informer to informator a był to szczebel niższy współpracy (Kontakt Operacyjny, Kontakt Obywatelski). Mathiasrex ( talk) 18:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
As a heads up, the analogy you deleted looks like something thrown together, but it is actually straight out of the listed source, including the onion analogy. Also, the sentence around it, re the Russia's domination of the USSR and the USSR domination of the Bloc are obviously pretty basic historical points, and they are both contained in a boatload of sources (and are not exactly disputed by many, if anyone). None of that is particularly controversial stuff. Mosedschurte ( talk) 17:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Anybody can give out wiki awards, so if you think it is time, go ahead and give them out! :) PS. You have not activated your email? If you want to discuss awards "in secret", activate your email and email me :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
No, no, help out! Messing up is part of the process. I've also started Częstochowa Ghetto since that was missing as well. radek ( talk) 03:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Jasenovac concentration camp -- Molobo ( talk) 23:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks-- Jacurek ( talk) 00:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
...look at what actual content you are reverting to instead of just assuming that it must be right if a co-national wrote it. Give your thoughts at talk, it's all listed there. Skäpperöd ( talk) 10:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me for adding the correct diacritics. Regarding your post at the JP article. Sorry you are out of here, but do you think Vilna, (now Vilnius) is the way to go? But Cracow, (now Kraków) is not? How should we resolve this inconsistency on WP? What policy do you think would best address this conundrum? Dr. Dan ( talk) 04:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
A nie mówiłem. WP:DFTT. A przy okazji: [1]. Czemu nie? Bo nikt tak tam nie mówił... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Spieprzaj dziadu! Is this article notable? Ostap 03:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Noticed I said survived, I did not detail how they died. The edit is factualy correct. Any way, Wikipedia is wasting my time. -- Woogie10w ( talk) 21:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
BTY did you read Unequal Victims by Gutman?-- Woogie10w ( talk) 23:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia has a bad reputation because the citiation does not often agree with the posting, you made the post off the top of your head. The source has different information. Wikipedia is a dog and pony show, a joke.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 23:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I am definitely wasting my time on wikipedia, you have proved it beyond any shadow of a doubt Thank you-- Woogie10w ( talk) 00:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
You need to place a warning on the vandal's talk page. Then if the vandalism is repeated (you seem to be suffering from repeat vandalism by one individual) it is easier to ask an admin to block the user at WP:AIV This is generally faster than asking for page protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads ( talk • contribs) 20:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Please leave your impressions, opinions, and preferences outside Wikipedia. "KGB killed A, B, and C." It's a fact. That A and B had problems with each other is totally irrelevant. Renata ( talk) 15:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
It might be best to discuss your edit on the article talk-page rather than edit-warring (see WP:BRD for more information). I've opened a discussion there. EyeSerene talk 16:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you have AIM or MSN? Yahoo perhaps? I would like to contact you so we can discuss the Enver Hoxha article. -- Mrdie ( talk) 23:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I put that photo on Leon Feldhendler page. I am currently working on Sobibor. My goal is to get as many of the killers and survivors up as I can. Since I see you are intrested, i am going to do the bios of the Sobibor survivors from the Eichmann trials. Right now I did a 100% rewrite on Alexander Pechersky and wrote new articles on Hermann Michel, Erich Bauer and Kurt Bolender. If you have anything to add, please let me know. Meishern ( talk) 19:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I updated Polish Areas annexed by Germany [3] As your contributions have been productive I would welcome any comments on how to improve the article further.-- Molobo ( talk) 14:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd tend to use "Polish forces", since the Polish government in exile was
The above would be from the viewpoint that Poland cannot be considered a "state" during the war, as defined as being in charge of a territory's legislature, executive, and judicative. Which simply was not the case.
Yet I see the rationale behind the argumentation that Poland, though her government was not in charge of any territory, did exist in a kind of virtual nature during the war, and that this virtual nature even materialized to a limited extend in form of a so-called underground state. I see the government in exile was also in command of forces, though the command was primarily of theoretical nature ("fight and do what our allies say!") and did not extend to all Polish forces (eg the Soviet recruited ones).
So we have a body that in theory resembles a state but in practice does not (or only very limited). I tend to use "Polish forces" due to the definition of "state" being a practicle one - that is factual assertion of power in a given territory. Yet in terms of international law and recognition, "virtual" states are also possible.
So imho none of the rationales behind the conflicting positions is based on a logical fallacy, they are both reasonable. For now, I have not given it enough thought to weigh in the discussion. Regards Skäpperöd ( talk) 13:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
You know I respect your work, but you have to learn quickly what most of us have to learn: WP:PLAGIARISM. Rewriting takes time, but it is necessary. Attribution is crucial per WP:V anyway. Worst case, not respecting those policies means that your work will be wasted - articles will be deleted, and you may even find yourself banned. I'd suggest you take your time and review your past contributions, adding references and rewriting as needed where you can. Otherwise, others will have to do it for you - and they may be less forgiving :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your willingness to help address this matter. I am currently reviewing the History of Polish Jews article, but it would be very helpful if you could identify any text you believe may be a problem in other articles. If you don't know, it would be helpful if you simply identified articles to which you contributed extensively in the past.
Unless you know that text is free for use (such as public domain material or material that is licensed elsewhere under GFDL), you can't use it in Wikipedia without using quotation marks (and only small amounts of quotation). This is true even if it has no copyright notice at all, since United States law (which governs Wikipedia) automatically grants copyright protection. (See WP:C and WP:NFC for policies on that.)
I am making notes at the talk page of this article, and I will identify any problem materials I find. Once I've finished, this article can either be restored (if it's clean) or cleaned up more if necessary. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Germany's victory over Poland in the Warsaw Uprising was pyrrhic. Germany put all of its resources in Poland to squash the rebellion, therefore when the Soviet Union came they faced almost no resistance by the Germans in Warsaw. There isa saying that the only things the Soviets liberated were stray cats and rubble. If the Uprising did not occur, the Soviets would have faced heavy resistance in Warsaw therefore the German victory was pyrrhic. see "The Polish Way" by Adam Zamoyski (born in New York, graduate of Oxford)
It was just a mistake, and the article needs a major rewrite anyhow. radek ( talk) 18:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
(Whether or not that's too close might depend on if you are giving credit to the source in the text itself. For example, if you said, "According to Gutman, the new details about Jedwabne mass murder were a shock to many Poles because it clashes with the popular knowledge of the war years, anti-Semitism and Polish-Jewish relations during the WW2." That allows you to stick a little closer to the source. Otherwise, you've got a very good start on revision and certainly what you have is nothing in the order of copyright infringement, as long as you don't have a whole lot of it. But I would try to change a few more key words, maybe like:
I just wanted to stop by and thank you for helping with the clean-up in that article. I know the issue can be complicated. Please feel welcome to come by my talk page any time if I can provide assistance with these matters or, really, anything else. This is what I do, but if you need help with something else, I'm pretty good at tracking other people down. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
It's my honor to give you this barnstar in recognition of your resilience in returning to Wikipedia after being blocked and in learning from your early mistakes. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC) |
Don't let trolls bait you into violating CIV/AGF/NPA and such. They may be socks or meatpuppets working with more established editors, created with the sole purpose of doing just that, and getting a content opponent banned. Never lose your cool, no matter how disgusting their views are. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
... for the barnstar. :-) — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 20:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, thanks! radek ( talk) 21:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at what I wrote at User talk:Jjaggeropen#Rescue_of_Jews_by_Poles_during_the_Holocaust in responce an apeal for my informal mediation. Thanks. -- Poeticbent talk 15:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I have removed your rollback access. Even ignoring these [4] [5] [6] [7], these reverts [8] [9] are a complete abuse of the feature. Please familiarise yourself with WP:Rollback before reapplying for access.
And for this and other recent edit-warring here is notice of Digwuren editing restrictions:
Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.
Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.
Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 18:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Jacurek's use of rollback power is inappropriate, he should have edit with calm head and use normal undo or simply explain his reverts. Removal of his rollback power and editing restrictions are nonetheless premature and simply wrong. Intervening admin should have consulted other people or seek ways through WP:ANI. These actions should be reconsidered again. - Darwinek ( talk) 14:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I've filed a report on this matter at AE [10]. radek ( talk) 15:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Deacon seems to have reverted his ill thought actions; but please be careful with rollback in the future - he was right that few times you have misused it. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I support your rollbacks. Too many people try to hide the truth about what really went on during the German 'occupation' of the Baltic States. The willing collaboration with the Nazis and the joy of the local population during mass murder of Jewish women and babies has been well documented. Keep up the good work and don’t let this new breed of apologists and neo-nazis hold you back. Meishern ( talk) 01:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jacurek. I'd been looking into getting a good quality copy of that image, but just so you know I don't think its captioned correctly. See the IWM collection here. Cheers Ranger Steve ( talk) 23:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. It looks like a very interesting site. I'll have to spend some time there. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 18:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
We talked about this before, this "Spieprzaj dziadu!" article should really be deleted. Do you know how to do an WP:AfD? I have never done one before... Ostap 04:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 25 Ostap 03:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Jacurek, that's very kind of you. Article should be finished very soon, just one more map and some cleaning up to do! Ranger Steve ( talk) 09:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
[11] I saw you reverted the img caption with the summary "this is not what the description of the picture is. Nalot Niemczyzny 1910-1931". I had copied the caption from the commons description side [12], as it was at the time of your revert. A day later it was vandalized but is now restored. What do you think is wrong with the caption? Skäpperöd ( talk) 15:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Skäpperöd just started another WP:AE against me and he also mentioned you Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Loosmark ( talk) 17:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, "any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."
Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.
Editors are cautioned that the purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia that approaches its subjects from a neutral point of view. While it is possible for editors with strongly held opposing viewpoints to collaborate and produce neutral articles, it is extremely difficult, and requires editors to be patient, flexible, respectful of their fellow editors, and willing to negotiate and compromise. Editors are further cautioned that when a change to an article becomes contentious, such as through a few early reverts or a strong objection on the talk page, they should stop reverting and discuss on the talk page until a compromise or consensus is reached. Use the content dispute resolution mechanisms including content request for comment, request for third opinion, mediation, or the content noticeboard. Reverting without discussion is very bad. Reverting during discussion is almost as bad, as it shows disrespect to the editors participating in the discussion. Thatcher 11:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
Hey Jacurek, I looked at the history of Radio Maryja and saw that you edited it. I don't follow Radio Maryja, but I thought something was a little odd. After reading the article, it seems that aside from being the root of all evil on the planet, RM has also been rejected and reprimanded by the Vatican and the Church in Poland (which it, according to the article, threatens to divide). Is this really the case? Or is this just more biased writing? Please review the article if you have the chance. Thanks, Ostap 05:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm adding states based on the World War II casualties list. I find it unfair that thousands of people died in a particular country yet their contributions are not recognized.-- 23prootie ( talk) 07:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
at the Expulsion of Germans article, concerning the government linked. See my rationale here - the link you inserted was the wartime government, while the sentence said postwar government. Regards Skäpperöd ( talk) 15:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I would appreciate your comments regarding the use of sources
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sources for WW2 losses in Asia
Thanks -- Woogie10w ( talk) 23:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Given 23prootie's long history of edit-warring on this article (and others), and failure to abide by consensus views on talk pages, I'd suggest that you lodge an edit-warring report. The most recent report on this editor (which led to a one month block which was sadly revoked after a few hours) is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive104#User:23prootie reported by User:Nick-D (Result: 1 month). Nick-D ( talk) 01:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jacurek, I feel you react with too much temper and regard my edits bad-faithed, so I feel obliged to send you this message.
Concerning my reverts: These reverts had nothing to do with the dispute itself. It was merely the restauration of the piped link to the discussion, which I pointed out in both my edit summary and on talk. Please have a closer look at how piped links in templates work and I am sure that after you did so, you will change your mind about my reversions. There was no bad faith or intention to revert war whatsoever, I merely ensured that the piped link works (which it does not if you alter it).
Concerning the disputed sentence: Please understand that it is a very serious matter if (a) the historians on whose works the ranges given in the sentence before are based, and (b) the federal German government to which these ranges are referenced, are wrongly accused of inflating numbers for political reasons. If such a claim is issued, there needs to be an unambiguous solid basis. Eg Overmans' preference for the verified-deaths counting method does not imply that he thinks that th population balance method turns out result inflated for political reasons. We should at least assume that the scholars using the population balance method were doing their research properly and independent, and tried their best to reduce the chance of false positives in the result. We should further accept that the verified-deaths counting method is - per definition - missing the unverified deaths. If we state the methods and the respective attributed ranges, we are well within an NPOV. Skäpperöd ( talk) 07:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Images are free, or non-free- nothing else. If an image is non-free, its use must meet our non-free content criteria, whether its an album cover, historical image, logo or whatever. If you do not believe that removing images that do not meet our non-free content criteria is helping the encyclopedia, I think you're on the wrong project. I'm not looking for excuses to remove images, at all- if a use is legitimate, I will happily add/cleanup rationales. If a use is not legitimate, then I, like any other editor with a respect for our policies, will remove the image/nominate it for deletion as appropriate. J Milburn ( talk) 01:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your recent changes, and I expect you to provide satisfactory arguments supporting your point before doing further edits of this section. Your very brief comment cannot be considered an explanation, because it doesn't address my arguments, Caranorn's arguments and the section's comment that explicitly states that the USSR was not a Germany's ally.
With regards to Mongolia and Tuva, do you seriously think there were no such states in 1941? If we follow you strategy, we must exclude many Latin American states, because most of them were not fully independent from the USA at that time.--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
00:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Paul..I'm sorry to say that but .. you are very wrong. If my argument are not satisfactory to you then nothing will be. ... and the link you provided ?? What is is this? .-- Jacurek ( talk) 02:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I feel a little uncomfortable with the fact that only the Lithuanian name is shown in the heading of the article. The Lithuanian name was fist written in the 17th century (and officially introduced only in 1939), while Latin, Belarusian and Polish are far more ancient and original. Do you think it is possible to do any rephrasing, so it will be clear thet Vilnius is rather a new official name and Wilno/Vilna is the ancient and original?-- Mikej007 ( talk) 02:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You challenged the accuracy of edits in article Massacres of Poles in Volhynia by deleting them and labelling them dubious. Please explain how this is inaccurate as it is well sourced by a reliable source. Bobanni ( talk) 07:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I wrote today List of Lithuanian Places and I will be happy if you'll help me to improve it and to incorporate it into the right categories. Thank you.-- Mikej007 ( talk) 10:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I think user 84.240.27.89 ( talk · contribs) is actually M.K, judging by past actions. Just giving you a heads up. 124.190.113.128 ( talk) 14:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
yes but its too complicated.. where is a live chat? to talk faster? its complicated... thank you for your help :-) if i make alterations to any articles, then only if i think that they are right. otherwise i wouldnt do it. Each time i make the letters in the article wroclaw of breslau big, then someone makes them small again... but breslau is the name... how can i talk faster? thank u again for the help :-) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jadran91 (
talk •
contribs)
01:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I have been stupid enough to engage myself in a conversation with a troll, who does not contribute anything useful and limits his activities to asking pointless questions. The only way is to ignore all trolls, and I think you will agree with me. Regards. Tymek ( talk) 17:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
"Dan! This is fantastic! We can actually work together! Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)"
Let's keep this going. Kindly look into the Cracow situation. Maybe you can persuade Poeticbent to get on board. That way this waste of time doesn't have to start up all over again. Dr. Dan ( talk) 19:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Now that it seems we are moving in a new direction, I wanted to be sure I understood a recent edit summary you posted at the Narutowicz article..."He is a brother of the President of Poland born on the once Polish lands...specifically ...the once Polish lands". Don't recall that being the case, unlike Vilnius. Was Marie Curie born in Poland, or on the once Russian lands? Was Chopin born in Poland or on the once Russian lands? I like this new consensus but it's still new and somewhat fragile. Btw, you realize that due to the relentless efforts by you and Radeksz, you have changed the playing field. I hope you are not chided by any Polish nationalists, as some will especially find Russian toponyms (in Cyrillic to boot) borderline neo- Russification and may object to it. Adding the German versions may not be that easy either, but we are not going to take into consideration "feelings" (regardless of WWII, etc.). Naturally, I'm sure the addition of Yiddish will be welcomed vociferously due to the long standing association of Poland with the Jewish community, and appreciation of its many contributions to Poland. Just the same your Narutowicz edit summary seems strange. Dr. Dan ( talk) 15:21, 21 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 19:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand your feelings, but such link should be explained in Erika Steinbach. Xx236 ( talk) 10:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The article is being rewritten. Xx236 ( talk) 13:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I linked Nazi occupied Europe a little further in the same paragraph. Skäpperöd ( talk) 15:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, i don't know if you have noticed it but Scurinae went to badmouth you on the on Thatcher's talk page. [19]. Loosmark ( talk) 13:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The structure of the article is absurd, the longest part of it being "The other version' - other to which one? Xx236 ( talk) 09:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The Poles are allegedly responsible for the biggest part of the Expulsion. I have quoted texts about every aspect of this ideology. Xx236 ( talk) 06:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I mean your support for Skaperod. Xx236 ( talk) 06:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Loosmark hasn't been involved in the massacres article in any significant way: [20] so this is not at all about keeping him from making edits; he's hardly making them. It's about making very ugly accusations about me and lowring the tone ofthe discussion which gets in the way of collaborative work. That kind of behavior should not be tolerated. Faustian ( talk) 21:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for help.-- Paweł5586 ( talk) 13:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the heads up. The discussion was already closed by the time I went to leave my comments. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 20:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
A mediation case has been opened regarding the Polish-Ukranian WWII dispute. I have picked up that case. Here's the link:
Polish-Ukranian WWII disputes.
If you choose not to participate, please tell me on my talk page. Thanks! :-) Xavexgoem ( talk) 00:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.
You are receiving this notification as you participated in the administrators' noticeboard thread on the issue.
The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.
Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (
talk)
01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Wishing you a Happy Rosh Hashanah-- Woogie10w ( talk) 02:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee recently passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.
You have been named as one of the parties to this case at the request of the Arbitration Committee, here. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.
The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.
Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (
talk)
06:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Piotrus/ArbCom. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
why do you change the captions under maps of concentration camps in germany and gg into poland? -- Dert45 ( talk) 19:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jacurek, your latest edits [22], [23] [24] [25] seem to violate WP:hounding. In this case you removed an external link to the movie Siege (film) by calling it "propaganda". this movie was made by the American journalist Julien Bryan in Warsaw in 1939. It was nominated for The Oscar and is archieved by the Librarian of Congress as "a unique, horrifying record of the dreadful brutality of war" and shows some impressive scenes of the besieged city. It's in fact totally incomprehensible why you call such a movie "propaganda". Please take more care of your edits and edit summaries. Thanks HerkusMonte ( talk) 09:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Abkhazia has declared independence but its ability to maintain independence is solely based on Russian troops deployed on Georgian territory and Russian aid. Abkhazia, unlike South Ossetia, is not lanlocked as it borders the Black Sea and does not wish to become a part of the Russian Federation through reunification.
I'm giving a friendly warning to watch your reverting on West Germany (which has now been full-protected by another administrator) as well as on Expulsion of Germans after World War II. While you will not break 3RR on the former and is not yet at 3RR on the latter, I have to remind you that you may still be blocked for general edit-warring regardless if you broke 3RR or not. I do appreciate, however, that you have went to the talk pages and seem to be participating there. Remember, if a change is going to be controversial or contentious, it doesn't hurt at all to discuss first before making the change in the article. Thank you, and hope that helps, MuZemike 22:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Sticking to voluntary 1RR is a good idea, Jack. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacurek for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Wuh Wuz Dat 17:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. It was no big deal. I'm aware of the mailing list business, and I know you have enough to deal with without worrying about this silliness. Also, sometimes the best defense is a strong offense. :-) Take care, and illegitimi non carborundum. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 00:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh wait, there isn't one. I saw someone complaining about you, made a comment, then that was it. You started casting aspersions so I replied. You are biased. Who gives a good god damn that when to germans invaded poland, the soviets did too? What does that have to do with Roman Polanski? Nothing. You may as well say "During the period following WWII when the United States and Great Britain allowed the Soviet Union to sponsor communism in Poland." Its irrelevant in every possible way. WookMuff ( talk) 01:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
First, I am very calm, you can't judge mood or context very well over the internet. Second, I am here because you asked me to come here before you said THE END. So, THE END WookMuff ( talk) 01:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
What I worry about is that in my opinion I'm being followed around by somebody or group of people who are trying to set me up, see my comment above
Maybe you should ask yourself what you are doing wrong that you piss people off to the point they allegedly form a Cabal and stalk you, waiting for you to break wikipedia policy and then pouncing? WookMuff ( talk) 09:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see the recent edit history of Volksdeutsche and its talk page. This is a potentially difficult situation; your help is appreciated. Feketekave ( talk) 14:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have violated the WP:3RR rule at Roman Polanski. You may be able to avoid a block if you will confirm your adherence to a voluntary 1RR, which is hinted above at User talk:Jacurek#Watch your reverting. If you choose to accept this restriction, you can avoid being blocked for the Polanski 3RR case, but admins will be expecting you to adhere to the rule in future. I suggest that you agree to accept this restriction for three months. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jacurek. Some IP editors seemed to be reverting your user page to include a sock template, so I have semiprotected the page. If you disagree, please let me know. EdJohnston ( talk) 05:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Despite this user agreeing to a 1RR, twice today he has edited the London Victory Parade of 1946 article in a way which seems very much like reverting: once he yet again removed the word 'claims' with regard to invitations to Polish forces; the second time he reverted to a version which was made by another editor but which does not say what the sources given actually say (i.e. the article says "almost all" while the sources say "all"). Varsovian ( talk) 17:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
As you probably know, I have been partially banned: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Xx236&diff=314527493&oldid=312602264
I don't care about their opinion about me, if they don't like me, I have other things to do. German Wikipedia is probably more "politically correct" and limits nationalistic propaganda. This Wikipedia allows "We were the main victims" stories, supported by "sources" created by Western ignorants. Xx236 ( talk) 12:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I was never asked to join
that club...
But seriously: thank god (a.k.a.
Jimbo Wales) I had never got anything to do with that.... —
Mariah-Yulia •
Talk to me! 23:26, 22 October 2009
Please don't alter or remove sourced content, as you repeatedly did in History of Pomerania (1945–present). Skäpperöd ( talk) 21:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I have requested arbitration enforcement here. Skäpperöd ( talk) 08:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
hi Jacurek, I have filled an ANI report on user:Varsovian because of his edit-warring on the London Victory Parade of 1946. Loosmark ( talk) 13:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
With your inquisitorial exchange with User:Varsovian, you have seriously crossed the line into personal harassment. You were already under WP:DIGWUREN warnings for disruptive behaviour, so you now get sanctioned. You are blocked for a month for edit-warring, battleground behaviour and harassment, and placed on a 1R/d restriction on all Eastern Europe related pages for another six months. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jacurek. I restored "1990" as the correct year of the end of communism in Poland. The first reason is a strict relationship with officiality: in this note (and you know that coins/notes are one of the biggest evidences of statehood in all history)
[44] of February 1, 1990, Poland is still "PRL", in this one of April 20, 1990, the name
[45] has changed into "RP" (Question: "Polska" in genitive (of Poland) or adjective (Polish)?)
More generally, Jaruzelki maintanance to power in 1989, did not allow to choose that year as the end of communism in Poland. There are no semi free democracies: a democracy is full, or it is not a democracy (even if, certainly, 1989 events are a masterpiece not only in Polish, but in all European history). So, 1990 becomes a right date not only officially, but even substantially: PZPR disbandment (January 30) and, later, Walesa election to presidency (December 9) mark the real birth of nowadays Democratic Poland. A very, very famous parallelism can clarify you. When the French Revolution began? In 1789 (exactly 200 years before 1989), with the Bastille and first semi free elections. But when France became the "French Republic"? In 1792
[46], when the Head of State of the Ancien Regime (Louis XVI) was substituted. Thanks for your attention.--
Cusio (
talk)
15:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't have time to review who dunnit but I want to recommend that Varsovian tries to stay away from Loosmark and Jacurek, and vice versa. A voluntary restriction on commenting about others and reverting them may be a good idea. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
|}
I'm sorry to see that you're on an involuntary Wikibreak. Enjoy the relatively stress-free days away from this place. :-)
I hope we'll see you back here in a month. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 00:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I'd like to get involved in loosmark's threads about your ban but I'm posting on my iPhone and that means I can't post diffs and any time there's an edit conflict (which is common given the time it takes to type a post with one finger) I lose the whole post. I most certainly will not in any way change my attitude towards you due to his posts.
BTW: from my home and my office I can see one of Warsaw's world records: the skyscraper which took the longest time ever to build. Would you, as a native Varsovian, like to tell me which company used to sponsor the sign on the top of the building? And in your answer, perhaps you could pose me a trivia question about our city? Not because I have any doubts that you lived here, simply as a friendly contest: ask anything but make sure: a) it's not googleable; b) it relates to something from the last ten years; and c) it's not on the east side of the river! Varsovian ( talk) 21:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
1) who officially lifted 'the curse' from that site? An easy one!
2) what nationality finished the construction of the tower?
3) what building is between the tower and the river?
4) what caused the floor of the lobby of that building to have its current colour?
5) whose milkcans?
6) the building next to the saski hotel has had three uses, name them;
7) your ultima trivia, when did the saski hotel close?
I'd really love to see your answers. Better yet, could you copy this to WP Poland? No copy paste on iphone2.0! Varsovian ( talk) 22:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Jacurek ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
After thinking for a while I would like to request my account to be unblocked for several reasons. First, I think that I was treated too harsh by the administrator who executed the block and who is listed as involved person here[ [47]] together with me. Here is my actual conversation just before my account was blocked[ [48]] and my last message to the person who blocked me few minutes before the execution of block[ [49]] I was blocked 5 minutes later for disruptive battleground behaviour, harassment of Varsovian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I would like to point out the reason I (and not only I) was so suspicious of the new account of Varsovian is that I thought he is a "sock" of other user. In the last few weeks I was attacked several times by anonymous IP's and I thoght that this is just yet another attack. Howver since that time ma and Varsovian we put our differences apart[ [50]] and he has nothing against my unblock. We are quite friendly now[ [51]]. Since then I cooled down and I do not anticipate anymore heated discussions with user Varsovian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) with whom I'm in a friendly connection since. My unblock is also supported not only by Varsovian but also by some other users (notification post)[ [52]] Thanks for the time of whoever will be examining this request. I would like the reviewer to look a little deeper into the whole incidents. Should you have any questions please ask. Thanks again.
Decline reason:
There is not indication that Jacurek will not return to the former battlezone behavior. Eastern European disputes are well known. Editors who run afoul of those restrictions, in spite of warnings and past blocks for infractions, need to be sanctioned sternly and resolutely. Jehochman Talk 13:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Note to reviewing admin: There was also an ongoing AE case concerned with Jacurek, which was archived as moot because of the block. Jacurek is also a subject to WP:EEML where his involvement in off-line coordinated editing is currently being investigated. He also just avoided a block for revert-warring by accepting a 1rr restriction two weeks ago [53]. Skäpperöd ( talk) 21:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: seeing as this unblock request has sat unanswered for a long time, I have opened a review discussion myself at WP:AE to move things along and get the situation resolved one way or another. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Please note that I said I do not want to make any comment on the actions of admin. If I said I supported your request for an unblock, I'd be making a comment on the action of admins. While I very much look forward to seeing you once again making the positive contribution to WP that you usually make, I'd be grateful if you could make it clear to admin that I do not oppose your request. Thank you.
Also, I'm still waiting for your answers to my questions above. If you want to throw it open to Poland project, please do. We can add the info to the relevent articles afterwards Varsovian ( talk) 20:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Note from reviewing admin I will be reviewing this block so in the mean time could we all just carry on editting the wiki and not cause too much drama here. Seddon talk| WikimediaUK 20:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Jacurek ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I apologize for repeating my request but I believe that user Jehochman is not neutra involvede is heavily involved here[ [58]] just as the blocking administrator is. I will link this request to this discussion[ [59]] for more details. I also do not think that because (as per Jehochman) I'm nationalis much effr, not worth much effort[ [60]] and a little kitty who just died[ [61]] I should be denied a fair and unbiased hearing by UNINVOLVED administrator. Thank you. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to ask.
Decline reason:
Having reviewed the situation, I have decided that I'm not going to unblock you. Making unsubstantiated socking accusations based on gut feeling cannot be tolerated and you should have the sense to realise that without hard evidence, such accusations would never have stood up. However, I am going to shorten the block to 2 weeks, based on the peace making with the person you were in conflict with plus in addition to your last block being some time ago so I am going to give a little good faith. Please use this time to get yourself into the right frame of mind that promotes an atmosphere conducive to collaborative editting. Please note that if there is any severe disruption following on from the end of your block, the good faith show here is likely to be deminished and the resulting block length will likely be longer. See this as an oppotunity to get yourself on track. Seddon talk WikimediaUK 14:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.