User talk:Balcer/Archive2

in response to your talk on Jadger's userpage

then why is the information so different if it is just a mirror?Jadger 03:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i mean on answers.com it says it was an execution in teh first paragraph, yet here they insist it was a murderous rampageJadger 03:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i hope it is suitable now, ur quote puts it more in focus as the other's previous posts had it looking like it was ordered for teh soldiers to murder people, if it was the Dirlewanger brigade which was notorious then it sheds light, thanks a lotJadger 03:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wola page

your current revision of the Wola page is suitable to me, as it states the same thing I was trying to. unfortunately we will have to wait to see if the national extremists will acceptJadger 04:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pila

Hi. Regarding the usage of German names for polish cities please check the outcome of a vote at Talk:Gdansk/Vote. Basically, if the location also has a german history, both names have to be mentioned at least once in the article. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 05:25, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about the noticeboard, I have added my comments there, too. About the naming: Please understand, that many polish cities are still frequently known to english speakers under their german name. Hence, double naming DOES help users when they are looking for information. And yes, I am not messing around but try to enforce community consensus. Please respect the majority vote. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:32, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: If you are upset by the word German, I would have no problems with just Szczecin (Stettin). -- Chris 73 Talk 06:44, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Gdansk/Vote#Results_on_VOTE:_Cross-Naming_General: for the vote (44-17 for) on this explicit situation. --Calton | Talk 06:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Editing errors

Please be careful when editing. This edit to WP:AN deleted the posts of several other users. Noel (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, some have already been restored, I am doing the others. Noel (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glosowanie

Problem w tym glosowaniu jest nastepujacy:

Jak sam widzisz niektorzy nadinterpretuja wynik (specjalnie) i kazda swoja zmiane artykulu tlumacza "wynikiem glosowania" kazdy swoj revert (ktory lamie regule 3RR) "wynikiem glosowania".

Kolejna sprawa to same glosowanie, nie bylo ani jednego podobnego glosowania w sprawie innych miast na wikipedii, nie wiem dlaczego dopuszczono do wyjatku...

Glosowanie organizowala ta sama osoba ktora wykluczala glosy (jesli byly za Gdanskiem) a nie wykluczala glosow ktore byly za Danzingiem. Wymienilem jeden przyklad na stronie dyskusyjnej Gdanska i Hallibutt pare na stronie dyskusyjnej "template" - i przypuszczam ze tego by bylo wiecej. Ta sama osoba ignorowala protesty wielu osob gdy glosowanie sie skonczylo.

Tak w ogole nie istnieje zadna regula ktora mowi ze uzytkownicy, powiedzmy ponizej 20 editow, nie moga brac udzialu w glosowaniu - wiec ta pewna osoba poprostu sobie wybierala kogo glos zaliczyc kogo nie.

Jednym slowem wyniki glosowania byly sfalszowane. Na korzysc pro-niemieckiego punktu widzenia.

A chyba najbardziej parszywe jest to, ze ci ktorzy manipulowali glosowaniem i naciagaja jego wynik, obecnie przedstawiaja tych ktorzy je kwestionuja jako buntownikow - a siebie samych jako obroncow regul i porzadku na wikipedii. (spontanicznie mi to przypomina wybory na Bialorusi) --Witkacy 00:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Otóż to, Panowie. Jasio K. sprawia wrażenie sensownego faceta i chyba można z nim dojść do jakiegoś porozumienia. Poczekajmy, zobaczymy co wyniknie z tej dyskusji. Na razie zebraliśmy dowód fałszerstwa i kilka mocnych argumentów. Chyba dobrze by było na którejś ze stron zreasumować całą sprawę, najlepiej napisać w punktach i z detalami to, co Witkacy napisał powyżej. Im więcej konkretów i faktów tym lepiej. Halibu tt 12:34, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Problem z Jasiem jest ze nie akceptuje prostych faktow i za wszelka cene broni ostatniego przegiecia Krzysia&Co - placze sie rowniez w swoich wypowiedziach raz mowi ze nie bylo uzgodnione dodawanie wszedzie niemieckich nazw, na innej stronie dyskusyjnej (dzien pozniej) sadzi cos innego. Raz mowi ze w zasadzie nie istnieje zadne prawo ktore mowi ze mozna wykluczac glosy (w wyniku malej ilosci editow), a zaraz potem znajduje jakias wzmianke ktora wogole tego nie dotyczy i uwaza ze glosy zostaly wykluczone zgodnie z oficjalnym prawem wikipedii...

Co do zresumowania calej sprawy na jednej stronie - masz racje, trzeba stworzyc jakas i na niej wymienic przejzyscie wszystkie argumenty.--Witkacy 14:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Molotov line

Added information about fortifications in Lithuania as well a link to pictures, as you asked. And no I am not angry on you lol. DeirYassin 15:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zivinbudas

Mam faceta serdecznie dość. Wszczynam przeciw niemu ArbCom, dołączysz? Halibu tt 23:33, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Zacząłem przygotowywać wstępny szkic WP:ArbReq na User:Halibutt/Zivinbudas. Czy mógłbyś go przejrzeć? Na razie jest tam tylko moje oświadczenie, wkrótce dodam resztę. Halibu tt 23:58, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, dopisałem. Mógłbyś to przejrzeć jeszcze raz i dokonać poprawek / rozszerzyć? Halibu tt 00:19, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Też się pewnie przyłączy, dlatego na razie czekam. Do tego dojdzie pewnie kilka osób z Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Zivinbudas, które powiadomię jutro z rana. Ciekaw jestem czy można się dołączyć do już rozpoczętej sprawy, czy też wszystkie strony muszą być zadeklarowane od razu... Halibu tt 00:28, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Polish Wikipedians' notice board

{{Shortcut|WP:WNBP}} zapraszam.--Witkacy 13:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Zivinbudas

I have now officially filed an arbitration request against User:Zivinbudas. Since you were one of the parties disputing his behaviour, please join the WP:RfA discussion. Halibu tt 04:09, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zivinbudas has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zivinbudas/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 10:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discution and vote about the Polish and Lithuanian city names

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Naming_conventions/Vote_on_city_naming , tell your opinion on the matter DeirYassin 22:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nobody anyhow dispute dthe choices I suggested in Talk:Goldap nor told their opinion though. I don't know where exactly I should have started such preparation of choices. If you have more experience on this matter, you might take over and edit what is needed to be edited. The separate discution on this and/or vote is needed however because current discutions on many places leads nowhere and also having to repeat same arguements to different people on different cities' talk pages is kinda useless. DeirYassin 22:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for reverts done at that page I guess more people related to this visists that page (Goldap) - at least you do, also Halibutt, Zivinbudas, me, probably some more of those involved. This is one of actually related pages, while both Lithuania and Poland pages aren't directly related and also posting on one of them would be non-neutral. Therefeore, separate page is needed IMO, which I created and informed all people related to the issue. I start to loose hope that on this issue it is possible to reach any peaceful solution as there are just too many nationalists with their own interests+POV and, unfortunately, common people from other parts of the world knows too little about the topic to be able to mediate more. DeirYassin 23:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gdańsk i inne takie

Balcerze, masz całkowitą słuszność ale... no właśnie, ale. Po pierwsze, akcje "pewnych czynników" nie potrzebują legitymizacji. Mają pełne poparcie administratorów, choć są w sposób oczywisty nadużyciem wyniku głosowania. Nie są zgodne z jego duchem, ale z literą - jak najbardziej. Próbowaliśmy dojść do jakiejś ugody na odpowiednich stronach dyskusji, jednak osoby pokroju Chrisa Drei und Siebzig skutecznie całą rzecz zbojkotowały i, wykorzystując swoje przywileje, wcisnęły "cross-naming" gdziekolwiek się tylko dało, wszystko jedno czy miało to sens czy nie. Lacznosciowiec Szczecin, Donald Tusk i Amber mogą być świetnym przykładem.

Skoro więc akcje User:Chris 73 mają pełne poparcie (między innymi User:John Kenney) i są uważane za zgodne z zasadami, to w czym ja tym zasadom uchybiam? Dlaczego nie mam prawa egzekwować wyników głosowania równie bezwzględnie co inni? I dlaczego mam się godzić na podwójne standardy. Ten miecz ma dwa ostrza i chyba dopiero teraz wszyscy sobie to uświadomili. Dlatego będę kontynuował egzekwowanie używania podwójnego nazewnictwa w odniesieniu do Drezna, które - było nie było - było przez prawie wiek polską stolicą. Jeśli ktoś zdecyduje się na powtórzenie glosowania, tym razem bez nadużyć i bez takich kwiatków - będę bardzo zadowolony. A na razie - wracam do revertowania, do którego ostatnie głosowanie dało mi pełne prawo. Halibu tt 07:23, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Odpowiem krótko tutaj bo twoja strona dyskusji jest już zawalona. Rozumiem twoje racje, ale jednak jest dla mnie jasne że twoje działania należą bezdyskusyjnie do kategorii WP Point. Co więcej, czy nie boisz się że twoje działania na stronach niemieckich miast przyciągna na strony miast polskich więcej proniemieckich użytkowników gotowych do udziału w rewertowych wojenkach? Mamy już wystarczająco dużo problemów z kilkoma rewizjonistami, co będzie jeśli będzie ich kilkunastu albo jeszcze więcej? Balcer 19:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wybacz, nie zauważyłem wcześniej Twojego komentarza. Po pierwsze, ja naprawdę nie chciałem niczego nikomu udowodnić. Jeśli już, to starałem się to zrobić na Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion i na stronie dyskusji samego szablonu, ale tam mi się najwyraźniej nie udało, bo i Jasio i Krzysio dyskusję po prostu zaczęli ignorować. Po z górą miesiącu po prostu zacząłem wymagać stosowania zasad we wszystkich przypadkach. I tyle. Jeśli ustalono jakieś zasady i nie ma woli ich zmiany, to należy się zacząć do nich stosować. I tyle.

A co do rewizjonistów - a co za różnica czy będzie ich siedmiu czy dziesięciu? Halibu tt 03:18, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Vote clarification proposal

Hi Balcer. Thanks for your request on my talk page. Recently the time I have for Wikipedia has varied a lot depending on other things in my life, and i did not always have time to read all comments on Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice. I am sorry about that.

Users are advised to use common sense when applying the results of this vote. The use of the literal interpretation of the vote to disrupt Wikipedia and start revert wars is strongly discouraged. This sounds good to me. I doubt it would make a difference in the editing behavior, but I would feel comfortable in adding it. I actually also think we may not even need a vote to add this, but just add it to the summary. Other admins input on this would be appreciated.
The naming of many places in the region that share a history between Germany and Poland are also a source of edit wars. For these places, in articles relevant to this shared history the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin). This one i am not convinced about. The modification can also be interpreted very widely. However, I think the goal is not to have historic names listed in articles, but rather alternative names by which the place is known in english (See comment by Jnc). Hence the double naming is useful for english language users of Wikipedia, and a large majority supported the double naming on the vote. I think double naming is not needed for soccer teams, but for the suburbs of Szczecin it is helpful to know that they are in Szczecin (Stettin).

Personally, I don't really care what the place is called, but I get pissed off if other users completely ignore any voting consensus and just remove any information they do not like ([1], [2], [3], there are more but I have no time checking all of their edits.). Also, I do not care if it is (German: Stettin) or just (Stettin). Hope this answers your questions, and sorry for the current trouble. -- Chris 73 Talk 11:26, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

In this context, I think it's worth observing that it took me quite a long time after Lech Walesa appeared in the news until I finally realized that this place "Gdansk" they were talking about was the same city I knew of (from my history books, especially the start of WWII) as Danzig! I think we ought to keep in mind that the average reader is a UK/US/Australian/etc citizen who's probably not up on the details of Baltic history. I mean, I'm a considerably-better-than-average knowledgable person, and it took me a while to make the connection! Noel (talk) 19:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand the feelings of English-speaking users who don't readily make the connection between Gdansk and Danzig. However, I also understand the feelings of some Polish users who feel, shall we say, a certain unease when the German name is displayed too prominently, even in obscure articles which really do not seem very relevant to shared Polish/German history. To them this may smack of attempts at historical revisionism and reviving old border claims. The way to reconcile these two opposing viewpoints is of course to compromise, include the German name prominently in the headers of articles about cities, but not insisting on using the bilingual form everywhere in Wikipedia. Balcer 20:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Balcer - I mostly agree with your proposal, but I think that, given Halibutt's behavior, we need to modify the "share a history" bit, as well. As it is, it is too vague, and allows Halibutt to claim that Dresden "shares a history" because Saxony and Poland were in personal union in the 18th century, or that Mainz qualifies because it had a substantial Polish diaspora and had Polish troops stationed there during the Napoleonic wars. This is on the face of it absurd, but I'd like to change the wording to make such casuistry impossible. john k 17:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know there is probably a German equivalent to Hailbutt's Polish additions, but as the saying goes "two wrongs don't make a right". We need to stop and censure people on both sides with regards to violating the letter and/or spirit of the Gdansk agreement. I am on the German side of this only because those are the articles I edit and watch, and we have plenty of edit wars without people from other edit wars coming in and adding to it. DirectorStratton 18:56, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Poland.gov.pl

Zobacz:

"Minister Spraw Zagranicznych posiada pełne i nieograniczone autorskie prawa majątkowe do materiałów promocyjnych umieszczonych na stronie www.poland.gov.pl. we wszystkich wersjach językowych w szczególności do: logotypów, tekstów, zdjęć, tabeli i wykresów na wszelkich polach eksploatacji w nieograniczonej liczbie nadań. Materiały te mogą być wykorzystywane do celów promocji Polski zgodnych z kierunkami polskiej polityki zagranicznej przez instytucje rządowe i pozarządowe. Materiały te nie mogą być wykorzystywane przez polskie i zagraniczne osoby prawne i fizyczne dla celów osiagania korzyści majątkowych."

Nie moga byc uzyte w celu osiagniecia korzysci majatkowych - wikipedia jest niekomercyjna encyklopedia, wiec materialy z tej strony moga byc uzywane (moim zdaniem). Z czasem i tak kazdy artykul sie troche zmienia, ktos cos doda, przepisze itd. Tutaj mamy przypadek uzycia materialow w celu edukacyjnym wiec raczej nasz minister spraw zagranicznych nie mialby nic przeciwko. Co do notki, wstawiajac tekst dodalem link strony do "komentarza" - wydaje mi sie ze rzadko ktos uzywa material z wikipedii w celach komercyjnych, a jesli juz to napewno dokladnie sprawdza skad owy material pochodzi--Witkacy 10:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ale zwroc uwage ze wszystkie obrazki "fair-use" sa rowniez na tym mirrorze - chodz co poniektore z nich maja zaostrzone prawa autorskie, jak np loga firm. A artykul Dabrowskiego zostal specjalnie stworzony "do promocji historii Polski" za pieniadze podatnikow.--Witkacy 15:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No tak, slyszalem ze z obrazkami "fair-use" sa problemy i rozne opinie na temat ich uzywania. Nie mniej jednak, uwazam ze artykul ze strony panstwowej, ktora pozwala na uzywanie materialu, moze spokojnie istniec na Wikipedii :)--Witkacy 15:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Respect

I just thought I stop by to say that appreciate your attempts to cool off some heads Wikipedia_talk:Polish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Minsk_i_Kij.F3w and other talk and user:talk pages. I made similar calls trying to convince the editors upset by recent DE/PL and PL/LT name conflicts, as well as by the Russian name in Kiev article, to help improve the city history sections instead of making a WP:Point. I think the project Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Vote on city naming may help resolve such problems in the future and I will also try to come up with some ideas there. Thanks again! Do widzenia, -Irpen 00:13, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Suburbs

Thanks for your input on the Stettin suburbs. I am perfectly fine with your solution on Szczecin-Bukowo. Hope, Witkacy agrees, too. -- Chris 73 Talk 18:18, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your work in updating all the suburbs. I greatly appreciate it. These places got quite a bit of wild editing in the last few days, hopefully your solution is acceptable to all. -- Chris 73 Talk 19:12, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

That would be Szczecin-Wielgowo->Stettin-Augustwalde and Szczecin-Klucz -> Stettin-Klütz [4]. I would do the edits, but I don't want to fuel the fire. Can you do these, too? Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 20:05, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Survey guidelines fixing

So that the Gdansk/Vote horror never repeats itself :) Please see the proposal at my userspace, it is an updated version of Template_talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice#Constructive_proposal. After I hear (or not) and incorporate comments from you and several other users I know are interested in fixing this, I will officialy move this to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and I would like you to be one of the co-signatures of the proposal. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tnx for the comments, I tried to incorporate them into the final version. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Fixing_giant_loopholes_in_Wikipedia:Survey_guidelines. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re:Bad faith

I appreciate your translation work Balcer, but I do not appreciate being called paranoid. Logolist was refering to a topic I brought up, logolist knows I don't speak Polish, yet logolist posted a response about a topic I brought up in Polish. If logolist wanted me to know what was being said he would have posted in English or provided a translation and he did not. That sir is fact, not paranoia. Excluding someone already discussing a topic, is not only rude, but in bad faith. I don't go around demanding translations of texts on talk pages, but I do insist on English being used in public spaces on the English wikipedia. As for describing people as paranoid, such statements are largely, viewed as personal attacks, I would urge caution in making such statemnets in the future, you will find not all wikipedians are as understanding as I. As for the tranlation, I thank you for the offer, but as I'm sure you now know, it is no longer necessary. -JCarriker 16:05, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Stress and frustration often make people say things that they don't mean. It's part of being human. :) I have something of an effort going to request that editors of the Polish collab use English, even in responding to posts in Polish. Its a polite way of encouraging the others to join in, while mainting good faith. It also doesn't require translation. -JCarriker 16:27, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Moving Polish discussion

Yes, by e-mail. You could always set up another account, I have a rather good free account at yahoo.com that seperate spam into a seperate folder. There is ofcourse also the option of a sister project on pl.wikipedia.org which is about collaboration between pl and en on polish topics. -JCarriker 17:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I misread what you said. I thought were talking about my suggestions on Polish Collab. However one of my suggestions would need a workable account. Sorry for the confusion. -JCarriker 17:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of my proposals for moving the discussion? Perhaps we should contiue the conversation on IRC? -JCarriker 17:31, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I will no longer be going out of my way to help the Polish community here. I'm tired of working in a simi-hostile enviorment. I'll still be available for individual Polish friends if they need me, or invite me to a page. Good luck. -JCarriker 10:12, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Tnx, plz vote again :)

Renomination: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Poland (1945-1989). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 11:28 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Ukraine

A project Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Ukraine created by several editors is now live. I am sure this topic is of interest to you. Cheers, --Irpen July 8, 2005 22:06 (UTC)

Arbitration case - final decision

A decision has been reached in the arbitration case relating to Zivinbudas. He has been banned from Wikipedia for one year. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zivinbudas#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the nonsense continues

(spamming you, since you also participated in the discussion:) The deleted-per-VfD Polish Wikipedians' Black Book, which was resurrected at User:Halibutt/Black Book has, since Jimbo Wales commented on the first resurrection's talk page, been resurrected as User:Halibutt/Black book. Despite my request for clarification on the talk page there, I have received nothing but accusations of vandalism from a troll who has since been banned for a week for repeated personal attacks (against me and others). Any ideas for how to proceed would be greatly appreciated. Tomer ^TALK 04:07, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Allies of WWII

A long discussion has just ended concerning that article and how to mention the relationship between Germany and USSR in it. Some kind of compromise has been reached. Therefore, please, think carefully before introducing new changes, so that the battle does not start again.

Ok, I didn't know about that.

I reverted your edit because I find it reflects the standard Soviet line on the subject which has not been accepted by mainstream historiography. The details of the negotiations between France and Britain on one side and the Soviet Union on the other in the summer of 1939 are complicated, but to lay all the blame for their failure on Western governments is an exaggeration. Furthermore, how can you say that the Soviet Union was constrained by Germany in 1939. The USSR then was the largest country in the world and had the largest army in the world.

It was not the largest country in the world. Churchill's empire was much larger. And its army was not the largest, let alone most efficient.

You are right of course, 2nd largest country then. Keep in mind though that many components of the British Empire were more of a net burden than an asset. I did not say the USSR had the most efficient army, but I am pretty sure it had the largest, especially when mobilized (which of course it would be in the event of a war). We have to keep in mind that in 1939 the German army also suffered from certain deficiencies, which it corrected by practicing in Poland and France. Balcer 15:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was no prospect of an immediate German invasion, as Hitler first had to conquer Poland and then France before he could move against the Soviet Union. Balcer 14:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

As for "no prospect of immediate German invasion", this is ridiculous. Hitler clearly outlined his plans on Russia in the Mein Kampf. --Ghirlandajo 14:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By immediate I mean within the next 12 months, say. Of course in the longer term Hitler definitely wanted to destroy the Soviet Union. But to do that he had to first remove the buffer states (Poland etc.) and establish a common border with the Soviet Union, and then defeat France so that his rear would be secured. The pact with Stalin allowed him to do precisely that. Balcer 15:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Survey_guidelines#Fixing_giant_loopholes

The debate has restarted, your input would be much appreciated, as the discussed propoasal is the one incorporating your previous suggestions and comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Geographic names

I think there is quite a good discussion with an excellent proposal being hammered out by several users at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions/Geographic_names and its talk. The latest version is very close to what I would like to see as a Wikipedia policy and, if implemented, it would also help to keep certain behaviours of certain users at bay. Your input is welcome of course. --Irpen 08:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nominacja na admina

Nie myslales o tym kiedys? Nie widzialem ci nigdy w zadnym revert warze, wiec moralnie sie klasyfikujesz, a adminski status daje kilka fajnych narzedzi (rollback, view deleted, (un)delete, (un)protect, (un)block) - przydaja sie od czasu do czasu. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Czego brakuje ci w ilosci, nadrabiasz jakoscia - ale nie bede cie zmuszal. Tymczasem zerknij na Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibu tt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Long deserved

Powiat/County

I believe we settled the matter a long time ago at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography of Poland, though in fact noone of the involved wanted to do the tremendous work of moving all the articles and cleansing all the list. Anyway, I believe that the powiat should be moved back and if consistency is the main factor here, how about cleansing that matter together? Just for the start, I moved all the powiats withing Mazovian Voivodship (List of powiats in Poland) and corrected their UTF encoding. How about dividing the work onto two and doing it now?

Also, I contacted Ausir about his proposal of creation of bot-generated articles on the remaining units of territorial division. Halibu tt 14:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it was sort of settled in absentia as there were two people for powiats, one for district and one for prefecture. Not a huge voting it was, but still I considered the case settled and moved the unfortunate hrabstwo on sight. Now that enough time has passed I think we could indeed cleanse the list and move all the articles to where they belong. So, I propose to split the work. I'll do the list from Mazovia up, you could do the rest (from Mazovia down to the bottom). Then we could add a pretty little header explaining what's the problem with translation of powiat into English and we'd have a great list. What do you say?

As to bot-generated articles, I contacted Tsca, as he seems to be the guy to know how to do it. Halibu tt 18:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be able to help with any translation from Polish at all, but I could easily help with changing County to Powiat and fixing Unicode spelling. Olessi 04:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at my edit of Powiat of Czarnków-Trzcianka to make sure it is in the desired style? Also, what is the proper phrasing when using voivodships? "Łódź is in Łódź Voivodship" sounds better than "Łódź is in the Łódź Voivodship", but "Warsaw is in the Masovian Voivodship" sounds better than "Warsaw is in Masovian Voivodship". Olessi 06:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GooglePrint

Hi Balcer.Do you know perhapsi if it is possible perhaps to give links to specific googleprint pages ? --Molobo 12:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC) Thank you-it will be extremely useful. --Molobo 16:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vodka Pisser

This seems to actually be an epithet being used by, or to describe a user, User:Ghirlandajo, who's involved in some sort of dispute about something or 'nother with User:Halibutt and other Polish WPans. See this. I dunno who added it to the list, but it might bear checking into... (search for "vodka pisser"...it appears a few times...) Tom e r ^talk 02:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know the term has popped up in some exchanges between a few users on Wikipedia, and of course it was in the article. However, it is not used anywhere else, as far as I know and according to Google, which shows nine solid hits, all of them simply copies of that Wikipedia content. Hence, it does not belong on the List of ethnic slurs. Unless of course we allow there terms made up by Wikipedia users. Then anyone could think of hundreds that could be added. Balcer 03:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That could be a lot of fun! :-) Tom e r ^talk 19:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radzymin 1944

I'll see what I can do tomorrow. As to Kirchmayer - it's quite strange, but he was allowed to (posthumously, of course) to mention more than the Soviets would like to hear, eventhough the cenzorship was surely there. I can't tell all the details since I'm using the 1994 edition, which was un-censored. Anyway, definitely a thing to read - and the first such serious work on the topic. Halibu tt 22:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found it: [5] Halibu tt 18:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's far from being perfect, though it seems quite credible. As to non-web sources, frankly I don't know. There might be something in Kunert's Wielka ilustrowana encyklopedia powstania warszawskiego as well as his Kalendarium, though the latter says little, as usual. You know, same old "Reds stopped" thing without much archive search or primary documents cited. Also a quick search through the National Library catalogue shows some interesting positions, among them [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. As to Radzymin - there should be more here and especially here and here. I'm going to the Warsaw University library next week and I'll see what I can find out. Halibu tt 19:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maków Mazowiecki

Just wanted to stop in and say "thanks" for your contributions in the creation of this article. I appreciate your efforts. --AustinKnight 14:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please take part in the improval of this article

Hello. I would like to inform you that there is an ongoing discussion at article Territorial claims of the Baltic States (formerly was known as "Lost territories of the Baltic States", but was recently renamed; some users seems to disagree with that renaming). Recent edits as well were accused of POV, and, in fact, article was disputed for a long time already. I noticed your previous contributions to that article when it was disputed, therefore I think your opinion is much needed now as well. It would be nice if you would add that article to your watchlist and continue helping to improve it until a decition will be reached about its future (there is currently a poll about it in the article's talk page). I hope together we all will be able to make that article neutral. Kaiser 747 10:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Koniuchy and Jedwabne

Both massacres are connected in discourse in Poland .Whatever this is right or wrong morally is unimportant for Wiki as it presents facts and doesn't judge them.[12] --Molobo 19:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See for example this translation from Rzeczpospolita mentioning both massacres : http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/J/Wojc.html

Request for comment

It may not be up your alley, but very few people have came through RfC I posted about History of the World, and there is a slow but pointless revert war there (see Talk:History_of_the_World#Graph_straw_poll), so I am now down to asking fellow Wikipedians to take a look if you have time and will.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of Poland discussion

Could you take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland#Terminology? Logologist has begun renaming some of the voivodships (Lower Silesia to Dolny Śląsk), but I don't believe a clear consensus has been reached regarding terminology. Olessi 05:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katyn

Personally, I've read a bit about it and I am unconvinced of the Soviet guilt POV, but actually I think that's irrelevant. I think that the Nazi guilt POV is notable enough (regardless of accuracy) to warrant better and more neutral coverage than the article gives it. Everyking 07:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful job of de-Irvining with Google Print! When you are done, can you note the progress at Talk:Katyn_massacre#De-Irvining? Note we already had some refs there, but didn't apply it to maintext (was to sleepy yesterday) - they can save you a little time, perhaps.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pact

Kudos for the article on German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact. By starting it you've proven that you gave up with the persistant efforts at whitewashing the embarrassing stains in Poland's history, stopped inducing Ghirlandajo to think that the article will never be written and, above all, started a decent article :) To add a teaspoon of tar to this barrel of honey, I started an article on Soviet-Polish Non-Aggression Pact, just in case some crazed German appeared and started bragging about lack of such article in, let's say, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pikachu. Halibu tt 05:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A decent idea indeed. Unfortunately, it's been ages since I finished my high school and I don't feel like starting the article myself - at least not right now. Perhaps the short mention of the equal distance from Pol-Sov pact article could be turned into a stub - though I'm not sure we want a stub. For the same reasons you stated at my talk page. Halibu tt 06:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have Ken's works at hand, both are available through the National Library though. I added them mostly for Ghirla and other Russians to check for themselves in case of a conflict like that. Revolution from abroad on the other hand mentions that the pact was not renounced until September 17, 1939, when the Soviets declared all their bindings with Poland null and void. I never heard of the Soviets renouncing it in 1938, though there might've been similar threats back then. Especially that the Czechoslovak politicians declined to invite Soviets to the Polish-Czechoslovak talks prior to the cessation (and not invasion) of Cieszyn Silesia. Halibu tt 00:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allied POWs

I don't think there is need for revert war-since I doubt anybody serious will dispute that Poland was part of the Allies since 1939 --Molobo 16:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ponowna próba

Wymazania informacji o zbrodniach popełnionych przez żółnierzy niemieckich podczas Kampanii Wrześniowej, tym razem w artykule: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/German_17th_Infantry_Division --Molobo 22:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dziękuję za pomoc w dyskusji --Molobo 15:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solidarność

Once you told me you'd like to turn it into a FA. Still willing to give it a try?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One step (month.. ;p) ahead of you at Talk:Solidarity#Name_-_move.3F. Note also the disambig at pl:Solidarność, and that the pl article is at pl:Niezależny Samorządny Związek Zawodowy Solidarność.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Powoli, powoli, ale idzie do przodu - z histori doszedłem już do 1997, został tylko para o AWS do roszerzenia. Wszelka pomoc mile widziana.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin Society

[http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/index.html The Stalin Society was formed in 1991 to defend Stalin and his work on the basis of fact and to refute capitalist, revisionist, opportunist and Trotskyist propaganda directed against him.] ROTFLOL :) But on the other hand, this link is valuable to prove that there are those who deny Soviet guilt.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kopernik

Proszę przeczytaj o Koperniku http://www.mimuw.edu.pl/polszczyzna/PTJ/b/b58_031-035.pdf Można to sformułować jeszcze inaczej: stosunek do języka był przed XIX w. w Europie, w tym także w Polsce przedrozbiorowej, taki, jaki do dziś jeszcze jest we Francji. Państwo francuskie nie interesuje się tym, jakimi językami mówią w domu mieszkańcy Francji, we francuskich kwestionariuszach spisu ludności nie ma rozróż-nienia, jakie jest w polskich kwestionariuszach, w których się rozróżnia obywatel-stwo i narodowość. Sytuacja panująca w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej może być także przyrównywana do sytuacji, jaka jest dzisiaj w Szwajcarii. Większość Szwajcarów mówi po niemiecku, ale ktoś, kto w domu mówi po francusku, włosku czy retoromań-sku, jest równie dobrym Szwajcarem, jak ten, co mówi po niemiecku.W tym stanie rzeczy jest zrozumiałe, że do końca XVIII w. nie miano wątpliwości co do narodowości Kopernika. Kopernik urodził się, przeżył całe życie i zmarł w Pol-sce, zatem był Polakiem. Nawet król pruski Fryderyk II, który uczestniczył w pierw-szym rozbiorze Polski, wkrótce potem napisał w liście do Woltera, że jest rzeczą słuszną, żeby kraj, który wydał Kopernika, nie grzązł już dłużej w barbarzyństwie (Œuvres posthumes 1788, list z 11.12.1773 r.). Natomiast w XIX wieku Niemcy za-częli twierdzić, że Kopernik był Niemcem, i trwało to do roku 1945. Ale po II wojnie światowej zaszła pewna zmiana. W lectorium głównym Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej przejrzałem wszystkie encyklopedie i okazało się, że w niemal wszystkich encyklo-pediach, od Encyclopedia Americana i Encyclopaedia Britannica poczynając, a na encyklopediach włoskich skończywszy, jest napisane, że Kopernik był Polakiem. Pod tym względem wyjątek stanowią jedynie encyklopedie niemieckie (Der große Herderz r. 1954, Meyers enzyklopädisches Lexikon z r. 1975 oraz Brockhaus Enzyklopädiez r. 1990), a mianowicie w nich narodowość Kopernika została przemilczana. Tak więc po II wojnie światowej Niemcy nie twierdzą już, że Kopernik był Niemcem, ale albo jego narodowość przemilczają, albo powiadają, że był Europejczykiem.

Możesz przeczytać tam większą całość-jest dokładnie wyjaśnione dlaczego język nie ma znaczenia dla ustalania narodowości w tym przypadku. --Molobo 00:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not vandalism, it is a content dispute. Stop reverting, as you are already in violation of the three-revert rule and could be blocked. -- Netoholic @ 15:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorki, something mi pojebałos'. Space Cadet 17:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation

As to claim of liberation by Soviet Union-it itself admitted it was just a pretext: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns069.htm Then Molotov came to the political side of the matter and stated that the Soviet Government had intended to take the occasion of the further advance of German troops to declare that Poland was falling apart and that it was necessary for the Soviet Union, in consequence, to come to the aid of the Ukrainians and the White Russians "threatened" by Germany. This argument was to make the intervention of the Soviet Union plausible to the masses and at the same time avoid giving the Soviet Union the appearance of an aggressor.

This is from original copy of diplomatic exchange between SU and Reich. --Molobo 15:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan's misleading accusations

Hi Balcer, as to Dr.Dans suggestions[13], I kindly inform you that I never in my history on Wiki edited Kernavė article. It's just another of his misleading attacks on Polish contributors on Wiki. --Molobo 09:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC0

Nor did I ever say you edited the Kernavė article. It's just another example of your inability to follow simple English, or perhaps a belief that you are being persecuted ("his misleading attacks on Polish contibutors on Wiki"). Dr. Dan 23:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balcer, I know you have followed the Panevezys talk page, ( saw your name there), can you, in the context of the discussion, explain your objection to Liublinas being added to the Lublin article (you rv'd it), or perhaps agreeing to removing Poniewież from the Panevėżys article? Dr. Dan 23:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered your question on my talk page. Dr. Dan 00:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Frombork

Hi. I have listed Matthead for a 3RR on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Matthead. You are also mentioned, I just can't make up my mind if this is an revert. I any case, try to reduce your number of reverts, and feel free to comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Matthead -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Input, Please

Can you add or subtract anything from the discussion on Lysy's talk page about Taurage. Thanks, Dr. Dan 20:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested

[14] --Molobo 12:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Command completed. Ksenon 21:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, feel free to wrap it up in your own style if you like. From my last tally ;-) it was 11 valid votes for the PL version and 11 against it, however the PL option failed to meet an outright majority. There is general lack of consensus, with the PL/NON-NAT gaining over 2/3 of votes. How "opinion-making" this straw poll could be is pretty arbitrary. I do agree that my summary was a bit concise, kinda misses the point; do the honours if you like and post the official summary. Ksenon 04:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just meant to contrast the tie and inherent lack of a majority, perhaps my choice of words wasnt too ingenious. I will post the summary today. Ksenon 05:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for verifying and posting the results, but the following seems a little superfluous: Summary by User:Balcer. I asked the originator of the vote User:Ksenon to post a summary, but it seems he cannot find the time and at one point suggested that I do it. (See User talk:Ksenon, User talk:Balcer). Balcer 22:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC) I'd suggest removing it, as it doesnt really pertain to form and is irrelevant to the vote results. Ksenon 22:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balcer, no problem. I hav eno idea why I have not voted, frankly. I asked how should I vote, received answer and then.. I was somehow sure I _did_ vote. But you are right, of course. Szopen 15:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Look in the article Renaissance in Poland a tag haas been made on it suggesting it isn't neutral. Explanation was given as : Contemporary Poland, before it brought in German settlers to urbanize it, could boast little more than a series of fortified cragie lumps with some mud-huts around them. --Molobo 21:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ciągle

Trwają próby wymazania informacji o zbrodniach w Złoczewie dokonanych przez German_17th_Infantry_Division. Jeśli możesz od czasu do czasu zerknąc na ten artykuł byłbym wdzięczny. --Molobo 17:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panie Molobo, proszę po angielsku. Dr. Dan 18:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC) p.s I agree, "Ciągle", best describes your trolling and propagandizing.[reply]

Unprotection

Done. Please let me know if/when Wik comes back. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't notice your note. It is now semi-protected. Please let me know if he continues. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that there are no 3RR restrictions when it comes to reverting banned users; edits by banned users may be treated as pure vandalism. Also, I'm not just blocking his sockpuppets, I'm also blocking his open proxies, which will slow him down. Keep me informed though, he'll be back. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. And again, please keep in mind that you can revert him as many times as you like, there's no need to be concerned about 3RR violations when reverting a banned editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russsian_claims_about_Warsaw_Uprising_1794 The author tries to put information from non-objective source as objective article. The source is from Imperial Russia regarding Polish uprising against its occupation. Imperial Russia was known for fabricating and being source of many antipolish fabrications. Because I didn't want to delete this(no blanking) I moved it to a proper article that would deal with claim. --Molobo 03:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed this already. I keep the Wikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board on my watchlist and check it regularly. If you make a note of something there, you don't need to also inform me about it on my talk page. Balcer 03:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Warsaw

Hi, it is mentioned in http://pravoslavie.ru/cgi-bin/sykon/client/display.pl?sid=656&did=289 and http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/print.php?act=monitor&id=6546

Both sources were talking about transformation to the Roman-Catholic Harrison church of Святой Генрих (first source) or of Святой Хенрик - во втором случае. I was trying to re-engineer the name from Cyrillic and mixed-up. Thanks for correcting me abakharev 01:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent discussions

I noticed your recent discussion with an anon user regarding issue of Polish and German relations. The anon stated one source of his views on one talk page, you might be interested: [15]

The source is from [16]

I recommend you look at the site and what ideology it represents. --Molobo 18:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warto zobaczyć tą dyskusję

[17] --Molobo 11:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You

Forgot to sign yourself in discussion on the cathedral. --Molobo 16:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw

Thanks for excellent site, it has a large info on Kingdom of Poland established by Central Powers in which I have a certain interest. --Molobo 16:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Balcer 16:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State-mongers

Hi, it's just the Russian text i saw uses "политиканы" not "политики". The latter means "politicians". The former implies a more negative connotation. The best translation I found was "state-mongers". There may be a better word, but politicans is a different word, that's why I didn't use it. --Irpen 00:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

Please take a look at User_talk:Piotrus#Renaming and comment if you want. --Irpen 19:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter

Wesołych Świąt! Dr. Dan 04:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welland Canal pictures

Hey,

I noticed your uploading of a couple of pictures of the third Welland Canal. I was wondering if you could also take a couple of shots of one of the earlier canals, located here, off Bradley Street in Thorold. I'm not sure if they are the remains of first or second canal locks; first canal's should be wooden as opposed to stone.

Thanks in advance, Qviri (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I was hoping you were in the area more permanently. I'll try to get a digicam somewhere and make the trip myself, then :) --Qviri (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

As to your quote-related discussion (or rather a monologue), I don't think yet another RfC would change much here. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo succeeded in Ghirlandajo changing his ways for a week or two, but now his old behaviour has returned and yet another RfC is not likely to change more. How about yet another step in that direction? //Halibu tt 16:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have learned that it is almost impossible to effectively punish anyone on Wikipedia for rude behavior. As Ghirlandajo's case illustrates, the people involved usually make a qualified apology and then sooner or later go back to their old ways. However, inserting incorrect information backed by misleading references is a different matter altogether, I hope. So, it might be worthwhile to pursue this. I will give Ghirlandajo's some time to reconsider, but if he continues to revert and does not explain himself on his talk page, RFC might be the way to go. It would be good to find the original quote to see how badly it has been distorted. Balcer 17:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, BTW, a friendly ghost has turned my attention to this link. So AAMoF both RfC and RfA steps were already taken to some extent. But you're right that this case is a tad different, since so far he did not call anyone names in that particular discussion (which however does not apply to edit history). //Halibu tt 18:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are talking about Ghirla, I don't think that anything less then full RfArb would force him to admit he is wrong. Perhaps asking this question at Wikipedia:Verifiability may be prudent in terms of has similar incident occured before (i.e. has a (very active) user been penalized for providing false data).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about quotes, what do you think of that one?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The general policy should be to avoid the use of quotes. What do they mean, after all? Everyone, if they are human, says stupid, irrelevant, or poorly formulated things on a regular basis. The same holds for any head of state. Quotes belong on Wikiquote, and possibly on the biography pages of the people who said them, but almost nowhere else. One exemption could be applied to official speeches which formulate policy, but even there one can simply state what the policy was, without quoting the leader.

Anyway, the use of quotes obtained from secondary sources should be avoided in general. The basic problem there is often the fact that the quote has been translated twice, diminishing its accuracy, which of course in a quote is absolutely vital (otherwise, what is the point of including it?). Now this I really would make official Wikipedia policy: quote can only be included if it is available in the original language from a primary source and if its translation can be verified. Balcer 20:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, and very well put. Dr. Dan 17:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting my comments

Please respect freedom of speach and refrain from deleting my comments on the Copernicus side, thx! (If you have no sence for irony just do not read my statements)

Wikipedia is not a place for such comments. Please make comments relevant to the article, and not general inflammatory statements. Many readers of Wikipedia don't have English as their first language and might not appreciate your subtle sense of irony. Balcer 13:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you are the one who decides whether a comment is adequate or not? I do not think so! Either you refrain from deleting my comments or I will ask an administrator to ask you to obey the rules.

Just make sure to ask User:Kusma to obey the rules as well. Balcer 14:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is deleting comments part of the new "positive dictatorship policy" which is so hip in Poland these days?

This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Try to understand that, and don't make inflammatory comments in a major article. Keep in mind that most Wikipedia users don't have English as their first language, and might take your comments literally as an anti-German rant. Balcer 15:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not ammended the major article but merely contributed a statement to the discussion page. As for anti-German statements, I have the impression that I am in excellent company on the Copernicus discussion side.

If you want to make serious contributions, please get a username and start right away. You might find your comments are given more consideration if you are not anonymous. If you think the Copernicus article is slanted the wrong way, start making changes to it (this is what Wikipedia is all about). But of course try to read the previous discussion and think hard before disturbing the hard-fought compromise that has been reached for this article. Anyway, making inflammatory comments that don't lead to anything and might be misinterpreted is a bad way to contribute to Wikipedia. Indeed the Copernicus article has seen some controversy and acrimonious debate, but adding fuel to that fire is not a solution. Balcer 15:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are probably right. I just had the impression that the whole discussion about Copernicus` ancestry has degenerated into a mere satisfaction of respective Polish and German national vanities, and hence I thought a bit of irony would be good in order to bring both sides back to reality. However please do not take it personally.

I am glad you are starting to understand my point of view on this. Indeed the Copernicus page has seen too much nationalist argument, but you might notice that things have actually settled down over the past month or so, so this article is no longer as problematic as the talk page suggests.

Anyway, please get a login. That will give you a number of nice additional tools, and it will actually protect your identity and privacy better, since right now your IP address is visible to everyone, and that allows anyone to trace where the computer you are using is located. I look forward to your quality edits. Balcer 17:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a pity to see Balcer following Molobo's way of hysterical revert-warring in this particular case. Therefore, I asked admins to examine the issue. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, if you must. I think my actions were correct in this case, but I welcome the judgement of others more knowledgeable about Wikipedia rules. Note that even the anon who was making the comments eventually agreed with me and stopped inserting them. Balcer 11:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GG

I'd really like to have your Gadu-Gadu number... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our friend's POV

CCed to a small number of users

The Wilno Uprising nasty conflict needs more attention, if you please. Also, check talks and edit Histories of Lviv and Battle of the Lower Dnieper. This may take time though. And finally, if you really have time for reading, read the talk page of the Battle of Volodarka.

I would like to request some attention at Russian, Ukrainian, Polish and Baltic portals, re Vilnius issue but for now, I am requesting the attention of several editors who've could quickly inderstand what the problem is. --Irpen 02:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC) http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Balcer&action=edit&section=67[reply]

Sure, I will take a look at some of these, but not at the Battle of Volodarka, as I think arguing over a single word in an infobox of an article about an obscure battle is a total waste of time. While we are talking, I think your revert on Soviet partisan amounts to blanking, something I saw you object to many times elsewhere. The section you are removing might be POVed, but it contains some valid points, and could definitely be made acceptable if rewritten in a more neutral way. Simply throwing it out is the wrong approach. Balcer 02:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I am working on integration of some stuff from there right now. The edit itself was from a known problem user. At times prolific, he is known for a bad mouth and extreme POV pushing. While restoring the info he added, I have to keep in mind that the amount of info on the partisan's crimes doesn't have to be disproportinately huge, like comparable to the rest fo the article. We've discussed that issue and seemed to have agreed. AlexPU is welcome to start an article about War crimes of Soviet partisans if he wants the info exposed to the public. --Irpen 02:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. and, BTW, that was not a revert. I included some of the POV-pushers' edit in my very first edit. --Irpen 02:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you are rewriting as we speak, then I will wait to see what results. Especially one point needs to be discussed, very carefully. This is the issue of the degree of responsibility of the partisans for the retaliation by the Germans against the civilian population. To illustrate with a concrete example, if the partisans knew that blowing up a certain bridge would result in the immediate execution of dozens of hostages by the Germans, and still went ahead and did it, they do share some of the moral responsibility for their deaths. Keep in mind that Belarus lost a quarter of its population during the war, an almost unimaginable proportion. A large part of this was due to the fact that the partisan operations there were so intense, and the corresponding German retaliation so draconian. If there were no Soviet partisans in Belarus, the losses would not have been so staggering, and the Soviet Union would still have won the war, though obviously at some greater cost. These are terrible dilemmas, but they should not be just dismissed.

Another strategy was possible, the strategy chosen by the Home Army, which precisely to minimize German retaliation decided to conserve its strength and only come out to do battle in the few days before the approach of Soviet forces. In this way the time for German repressions would be minimised, while a useful contribution to the war effort could still be made. Balcer 03:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and check the talk page of that "contributor". It is rather instructive. Don't waste time, though, telling him to "moderate" his talk. You may get into the black book too and (most importnantly) it may just be better the way it is, so that the editors could see what kind of fellow they are dealing with.

As for frequent disregard of the German reprisal, I am aware of it. You spoke well of that earlier at the article's talk. They were using the choice of the place strictly with the military goals in mind. They knew that the public knew about the German reprasals. As such, when they needed recruits joining them, they made such a provocative action, knowing that the population in fear of imminent German reprisal will be leaving the villages and joining the partisans. OTOH, if the need of food and other everyday supplies exceeded the need for the new recruits, they chose more remote targets. It is easy to judge this from the modern humanist perspective. We should, however, keep in mind the conditions of the day. I could share with you more first hand accounts I've heard from the witnesses, but we better discuss it over a beer some day than on WP talk pages. --Irpen 03:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the young men could leave the villages and join the partisans, but what about the the people who could not: the children, the women, the old? I know the forests of Belarus are vast and quite a lot of people could hide in them, but surely not the whole population of a district, for any significant length of time.

And BTW this is not judging from the modern humanist perspective. This dilemma was understood perfectly well at the time by various guerilla forces operating against the Germans all over Europe. To simplify a bit, the Communist partisans usually followed Lenin's maxim: the worse, the better. In other words, the more they attack, the stronger is the German retaliation, and so the more civilians are driven to the forests to join the partisans, and so they can attack more etc etc. On the other hand, other non-communist groups generally believed that sparing the civilian population from German retaliation was the number one priority.

This is not just some problem I have with the Soviet partisans, of course. In Poland there is continual debate whether the Home Army, which launched the Warsaw Uprising in 1944, should be held morally responsible to some degree for the 200,000 civilians killed by the Germans in that battle. Balcer 03:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the later analogy. The responsibility for the Warsaw uprising and the entire catastrophic operation Tempest is solely on the consiousness of the exiled government which gave the orders being itself in the safety of London. I explained in more detail in the talk:Wilno Uprising to which Halibutt had nothing to say but call this a POV. --Irpen 03:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, just like the Belarus partisan operations being ordered by Stalin from the safety of Moscow? Actually, the direct order to start the uprising was given by Tadeusz Bór-Komorowski, the commander of the Home Army, who was in Warsaw at the time. He was supposed to do it at the point when the Red Army was entering the city, thus ensuring that the poorly equipped Polish Home Army soldiers would not have to fight the Germans for more than 2 days. The London government gave him full discretion as to when to launch the Uprising. Thus he and his staff bear a large share of the responsibility. But then we can have a long chat about the responsibility of the Red Army, and what exactly it was doing on the closest approach to Warsaw at the time.

As to the Wilno Uprising, forgive me, but I just cannot work up the energy to argue about individual words in these silly infoboxes. My vote is to simply leave it blank in this case, or just put in See text. Balcer 03:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balcer, there is no denying from me that the RA possibly paused the advance on purpose to let the Germans deal with the forces loyal to the London gov that had a very strained, so to speak, relationship with the Soviet gov. My point is different. Whoever ordered the uprising did so not with an anti-German goal because the Soviets would have dealt with Nazis on their own anyway. The goal of the uprising was to try to prevent the Soviet takeover of those places. However small chance to achieve that there was, the London gov took a chance and sent thousands of armless people against the German army machine for the sake of having the small chance to see those places liberated by the resistance forces rather than by the Soviets who would have dealt with the matters as they saw fit (and as they evetually did). Still, however small there was a chance for the uprisings to succeed, it entirely depended on the Soviets actually helping those who saw them as their enemies in their anti-Nazi operation. One had to be absolutely ignorant about Stalin to assume that he would do that. As such, the whole Tempest, as well as each and every uprising, was a cynical sending of almost armless and defenceless Polish patriots against the tanks and artillery in the slim hope to prevent the Soviet takeover. This was at least careless, if not worse. --Irpen 04:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, maybe it would have been the best strategy for Poland to behave like the Czechs. Have no resistance whatsoever (except for token propaganda actions), meekly follow German orders and dutifully produce armaments for them and supply them with food for the entire war, and then welcome the Soviet army with flowers and peacefully submit to Soviet domination imposed via the Soviet-controlled communist party. I am not being entirely facetious here. The Czechs did extremely well in the war in terms of civilian losses (except of course for their Jewish population, plus one village).

The Poles, nevertheless, being a rather proud nation, wanted to actors in history, to try to affect their own fate. The Home Army soldiers were not mindless automatons or hapless victims of the London government. They were all volunteers, as obviously under an occupation there could be no draft. They knew what they were getting into, and were willing to give up their lives for the cause of Polish independence. In terms of civilian losses, Operation Tempest was actually quite acceptable, for the most part. In most cases the Home Army soldiers did attack the Wehrmacht before the Red Army's arrival, the fighting was brief, and the civilian casualties were low. It is only in Warsaw that things went terribly wrong.

The Poles of course had few illusions about Stalin, but they were hoping (wrongly) that the Western Allies would put enough pressure on the USSR to at least treat the Home Army decently. USA and Britain certainly had some leverage, as they could threaten to cut off the Lend-Lease supplies. Plus the Poles were hoping that Stalin simply could not afford to let the world see him stand idly as a European capital was destroyed in front of his troops (and they were wrong again). Balcer 04:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What "pressure". In 44-45? Remember, that according to the Western sources, lend-lease accounted for 10-12% of the Soviet own industrial production (not 4% the Soviet sources claimed but still however significant it is just 1/10 or so). Also, lend-lease started to arrive only after Germans were thrown back from Moscow and the tide-turning Stalingrad was already in the making (if not over, I would need to check). This all aside, what the hell pressure could the "allies" exert already in '44-'45. Just think about it for a minute. They had no one, absolutely no one but the Soviets to finish of the Nazi machine for them. Brits and Americans waited with their landing well until it was clear how the war ends and their goal was to prevent Stalinization of DE and, possibly, FR. So, the leverage they had, was a myth. "Allies" could have acted earlier and not only Hitler would have been stopped much further from Moscow. PL and CS could have been easily saved if not the disgusting Munich deal and Hitler could have been finished without ever rizing from his hole.

In 44-45, there was absloutely no chance to prevent Stalin for dealing with Poland as he saw fit. Unless, he would have made a "mistake" and helped Poles in their own fight with Hitler. However eveil he was, he wasn't a fool. So, it was plain throwing of thousands to hell for the sake of a very slim chance. I can't beleive no historian in Poland see this as such. There must be someone. Just that I can't read Polish books. --Irpen 04:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there certainly are Polish historians who would agree with you, to a greater or lesser extent. Trust me, the viewpoint on this is not monolithic in Polish historiography. But it is easy to argue with perfect hindsight. Now things are obvious, which might not have been so obvious in 1944. Let's remember though that Stalin did respond to Western pressure at various times. He really wanted to avoid a Third World War with the Western Allies, for which the Soviet Union was far from ready. It still lacked the atomic bomb and long range strategic bombers, for example. Plus he was probably already concenerned about the propaganda battle that would follow after the war, and it was in his interest for the USSR not to be perceived as a rogue state (or at least to reduce that perception).

In fact, Operation Tempest was really about affecting Western public opinion. It could even be thought of as an attempt to start the Cold War a few years early. After all, in the end the Western powers did begin a geopolitical confrontation with the USSR, with the major justification for that being the Soviet control over Eastern Europe. But that actually happened around 1948. If it had happened in, say, 1945, things might have been different. But even that effort was futile in hindsight. Actually, the main mistake of Polish leaders was buying Western propaganda and believing that Western powers actually cared to any great extent about Poland's postwar fate (they did not). Still, a partial success might have been achieved. Many people in the West, and especially the Western leaders, were shocked by the Soviet behaviour in front of Warsaw, and this helped them see the true face of Stalin's regime. To some extent, this must have contributed to the ending of the honeymoon between the USSR and the rest of the world, which otherwise could have lasted a few years longer, allowing Stalin to seize more territory before the Western world woke up to the threat and got the Cold War rolling (with Marshall plan, NATO etc). So, even if Poland did not benefit, maybe the so-called "Free World" did.

I would disagree with you about the importance of Lend-Lease in 1944-1945. Note that it was only at this time that the volume of this aid became huge, as before the routes to deliver it to the USSR were still being developed (after 1944 convoys could even go through the Black Sea!) As usual, just quoting raw percentages is misleading and does not tell the real story. Plus you have to keep in mind that at this point Lend-Lease was not about beating the Germans anymore, but about giving a big boost to rebuiling the Soviet economy after the war.

So, one thing LL was providing, which is not reflected by percenteges, was high technology. For example, the Western allies supplied the Soviets with examples of their newest radars, giving a huge boost to the USSR in the area into which they did not put much resources during the war. The same applied to the transfer of, for example, jet engine technology. As you might remember, a copy of a British engine was used to power the excellent Mig-15 fighter.

Furthermore, what LL really gave the Soviets was access to the world economy. The Soviet planned economy, strained by the war, could produce great quantities of T-34 tanks and Il-2 planes, but it developed critical shortages in certain key areas. It had great problems in making high-octane gasoline, essential for fighterplanes. It had great problems in making enough civilian trucks, as most of the factories from before the war were switched to tank production. In several other key areas 100% of various products were supplied by LL. All these trucks found good use in rebuilding the Soviet economy in the postwar years.

Anyway, I would continue this on Talk:Lend-Lease. Balcer 13:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 1995 Polish Film Festival in New York

A film [18] in this series, probably made in the 1970s, was a science fi comedy. Can you tell me which one it was? John wesley 13:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Must be Seksmisja. Balcer 13:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THX John wesley 15:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Wasowicz - Voted

Oule, Ave, and Hello. Thank you Balcer for leaving a notice in my discussion page pertaining to the Aleksandra Wasowicz article. I already voted to keep the article. I hope others understand why I wrote the article in the first place. I apologize if I assumed that you were the one responsible for placing the article deletion notice. I, personally, am not giddy over the concept of having something I created be destroyed just because someone is not willing enough to give the article a chance.

All I want to do in Wikipedia is write new articles about people and events readers have never heard of. By providing new articles, people have an easier time gaining access to information that (though may be unverified to an extent) may propel them to conduct their own research and find out for themselves what they are looking for.

Aleksandra Wasowicz may be deemed as a minor academic. Fine. However, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia that should only possess articles of the wealthy, the elite, the powerful, etc. It should possess articles about people for whatever minor or major contributions they have made during their lifetimes. You may not agree with me up to this point and that is fine. However, a minor academic deserves just as much recognition in Wikipedia as a major academic.

Just so you know, there is no need for you to worry about you and I encountering any altercations in the future. You do your job of upholding Wikipedia policies, and I will do my job ensuring that people of "minor" status get their rightful place among the greats of Wikipedian articles. Over and out. - Deucalionite May 2, 2006 1:28 P.M. EST

1970 workers protest and massacre

Is there an article on it? Thanks John wesley 19:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Polish 1970 protests. Balcer 19:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John wesley 20:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to make non-Latin Polish letters

As in the National Film School in Łódź. John wesley 20:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A method that will work immediately is cut and paste. So, find an article that has Łódź in it, select that text, and use it by pasting where needed. Another way is equally easy: when you edit an article, scroll down a little bit, and you should be able to see a large set of characters you can insert. Find the one you need, click on it, and it should be inserted into the text you are editing.

If you want to actually be able to use a keyboard with Polish fonts, that is a little bit more complicated. Balcer 20:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oaks

Hejka, widze ze poprawiles artykul Emperor of the North Oak. Swietnie! Jezeli znalazlbys troche checi i czasu, sugeruje zNPOVowac artykuly pod kategoria Category:Individual oak trees (niewiele roboty) i zrobic cos ze zdjeciami w tych artykulach (zob. Wikipedia:Pictures needing attention#Oaks_images_by_Zubron. Tych fotek nie chce poki co usuwac, bo nei wiem jakie jest zdanie innych Wikipedystow (taka sugestia zebys zaglosowal za ich usuniecie na Pictures needing attention :)). Pozdrawiam, Visor 19:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poniekad racja, moznaby to zebrac w jeden artykul, chociaz z drugiej strony moze znajdzie sie troche wiecej informacji nt. kazdego z nich. Chcialbym sprostowac, to nie sa moje zdjecia i nie moje artykuly, jedyny wklad jaki wlozylem w zakresie tych artykulow to dodanie informacji o lamaniu zasady NPOV. Jezeli chodzi o te zdjecia -- faktycznie, osoba tam wystepujaca doskonale ukazuje ogrom tych drzew i niektore z nich (sposrod tych gdzie wystepuje ta osoba) bym zostawil, jednak nie wiem czy jakikolwiek sens ma istnienie przykladowo tego zdjecia: Image:Oak in Bialowieza1(Great Mamamuszi).jpg. Jak dla mnie to lekka przesada. Pozdrawiam, Visor 22:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]