User talk:Jacurek/Archive3

Reference requested

Can you provide a reference for this? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Polanski = Sex Offender

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)

Well, our anon person sure can copy and paste. *blink* Moving right along.
*I wanted to tell you that I think the great deal of editing you have done to the Roman Polanski article has improved it greatly. All the bestsinneed (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Warsaw Uprising

I've put it up for FAR: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Warsaw Uprising. DrKiernan (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Jarosław Kaczyński

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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron Bielski

You forgot to sign :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Leon Feldhendler

Hi. I just left a comment there. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Poles in 30th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS

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)

IP troll

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)

World War II article

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)

FYI

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)

ANI post on Allies of World War II

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)

Cite fact date

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)

well, so far only 7 references on the internet, and 6 of those are direct copies out of Wikipedia, one is a rewritten copy of Wikpedia. The rest talk about Ukrainians who were NOT in the 14th joining his army but I am unsure who could help search in Ukrainian texts. Haven't seen Faustian or Bandurist for a while but I have posted on their talk pages.--Chaosdruid (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Small point though, nothing mentioned specificlally on the Polish_II_Corps either --Chaosdruid (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ya, it should be there also..--Jacurek (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi can you provide me with a translation of the section please ? This is a website and as such does not seem to give references etc so I would appreciate being able to check this myself as it may refer back to the problem with our friend "ethnic poles"

1 were they released after capture etc

2 why were they released as they were POW

3 were they"Polish" rather than Ukrainian etc

thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Poles in Waffen SS

No Jacurek, there were no Poles in Waffen SS to the extent of my knowledge.

• Poles were considered sub-humans and thus unsuitable for this formation whose primary aim among others was extermination of sub-human people. I have heard about two cases where some people reported a Pole being forcefully drafted during combat into a formation, but those are only rumours and would consider two people, so nothing here. Remember that many of the Waffen SS were quite ideological and dedicated, and likely they would be quite disgusted to serve with people who in their view were something worse then animals.
• However you can sometimes find info about "Poles", note that this is an error and in fact is about former Polish citizens with German, Ukrainian or other ethnic background. For example the Feldgrau forum which I noticed being quoted claims members of Selbstschutz as Polish forces fighting for Germany, while at the same time claiming that they are Polish even if made out of Germans(If needed I can point this sentence out to you). IMHO this is quite manipulative and shouldn't be considered valuable source. Fortunetly Wikipedia prohibits forums and self-published non-scholary sites from being considered acceptable sources.

Cheers ! --Molobo (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Input appreciated

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)

Collaboration talk page

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

K m8 - good edits btw - I was watching you and 24 at same time lol--Chaosdruid (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The quote on your User page

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)

Yes, it is an excellent quote. If you could source it, we could add it to some articles in the future.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I Googled it earlier and found it in this article, which I think is interesting reading. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:19, 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)

14th SS

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)

Collaboration

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)

...."participation in controlled massacres formulated by Reinhard Heydrich"

(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’m sorry to say that your excessively fussy rewording of my statement and the removal of Reinhard Heydrich link discourages me from improving this article any further. German Nazi police was present there in Jedwabne, just like the NKWD before them. This is not a trivial matter, and in that sense, the environment was also “controlled” by the outside forces. Please stop imposing your personal views upon my work which is supported with relevant citations, and try to fix the rest of the article instead, because I’m not going to bother with it anymore. Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 15:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I did not mean to discourage you from further editing, I am sorry. I am aware that the Germans were around when Jedwabne happened but were they also present in other villages were similar but on smaller scale things happened? Probably, but we do not know for sure. I have heard about a case of two brothers from one of the villages near Grodno. One of them was a big scum who collaborated with the Soviets and fled with them before the Germans arrived. Few days later, somebody murdered his younger brother his wife and her sister, as a revenge. A lot of crap happened at that time and not everything was really controlled, that is all.

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)

• I see your point, about the ever-present potential for capital crime at wartime, but the extermination of Jews was not an accident waiting to happen, but a Nazi murderous policy. That’s why, in my view, it is as important to mention the instructions of Reinhard Heydrich, as it is to mention the posters proclaiming death penalty for Poles helping Jews. These were "two different sides of the same coin". If you can read Polish, please see the link provided by me right next to my comment, because his name is mentioned there. Needless to say, I would appreciate if you reinstated my bit about the Heydrich directive, if you want us both to work on this article. And, by the way, thanks for the words of support. --Poeticbent talk 23:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Post-war PL

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)

Edit warring

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)

Thanks for the revert. Kevin (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Jews and Communists

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:

• Communists. To be plain: I am a little annoyed that you ask me to delete that sentence. The source says so, the source is reliable and verifiable, the "disagreeing party" has provided nothing but hot air. The correct way to proceed would be that you come up with a source backing your POV ("only Communists in PL in 1945"), and then, per WP:NPOV, we'd present both sources in an outweighted manner. Nevertheless to cut down this "argument about a sidenote", Radek and me have worked out a way everyone can agree with and which I would support even without a source. Please read subsection "Proposed compromise", we're just stuck on style and phrasing, maybe you can come up with the the ultimative phrasing for a qualification sentence not interfering with the sourced sentence below.
• Jews. I am not the one who inserted the large chunks about Kielce, and if you read my statements on talk closely you will find that I proposed to inform the reader with (quote) "half a sentence and a wikilink". You will also find in my statements that I regard Kielce not the only reason for Jewish emigration, but as a trigger for the ones still there. Xx236 provided some more on this, my position here is inform but keep short.

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)

POV template

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)

In the "German POV" section, nothing whatsoever was presented to justify the tag than the ethnicity of the authors of an estimated 70% of the sources the article uses. Please, do not judge people by their ethnicity (you did not so far, but you will if you place the tag again). I am really sorry we are having these disputes right now, but I hope we can resolve them in a reasonable manner. That is: If you think a POVs are unbalanced, state which ones. Remember your personal oppinions do not count as a POV, but only POVs of authors of reliable sources (check WP:NPOV on this). It would also be nice if you forward the other, RfC-discussion by presenting something we can integrate. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Expulsions

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)

Żydokomuna

Nice work. Congratulations on bringing the article to Good Article status. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :)--Jacurek (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How to combine references

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)

Thanks, I will.--Jacurek (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

La France

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)

Victim categories confusing?

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)

Adding a new category for SURVIVORS of the Holocaust

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)

Center against Expulsions

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)

Re: New film

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

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)

Film

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)

Zanussi

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)

Eastern Bloc

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)

Re:Apolinary Hartglas

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)

Częstochowa Ghetto Uprising

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)

Non-German Nazi concentration camp

Jasenovac concentration camp --Molobo (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you please

...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)

Złośliwy

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)

Concerning your recent edit at the Kraków article (and its immediate RV). I'm surprised that you were unaware that additions of Lithuanian toponyms at cities of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in Poland, are unnacceptable. It is a one way street. Only Polish toponyms, such as the one at the Kėdainiai article are permitted on English WP. The arguments or rationale for their inclusion are not valid if Lithuanian is used. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Except Krokuva already is in the article. If you want it in the lead then put Wilno in the lead of Vilnius.radek (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So is Wilno "already" in the Vilnius article. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, so what's the problem?radek (talk) 17:29, 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)

Have you seen this?

Spieprzaj dziadu! Is this article notable? Ostap 03:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust

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)

I got real ticked last week off when a user from Germany deleted a section on Nazi crimes in Poland on the Holocaust page and I got no support at all from the Poles or Jews on Wikipedia to restore the material. That's why I say Wikipedia is wasting my time. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep a watch on the Holocaust page, that user from Germany plans major changes based on his talk page comments. --Woogie10w (talk) 23:40, 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)

The source Thadeuz Piotrowski says otherwise, he based his figures on up to date information. Read the source in the link. Piotrowski is an expert on Polands losses in the war that were 5.6 million, Wikipedia is beyond hope.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Always check your sources. Vad Yesem has dated information--Woogie10w (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

To make a long story short the Poles that remained in the USSR after the war were counted as dead in the official gov figures. In any case read the Piotrowski link 5 million Poles died at German hands. The Holocaust is about deaaths in German hands, not including the Soviets--Woogie10w (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The figure of 6 million + Polish war dead is wrong, up to date information can be found in Gniazdowski, Mateusz. Losses Inflicted on Poland by Germany during World War II. Assessments and Estimates—an Outline The Polish Quarterly of International Affairs, 2007, no. 1.This article is available for purchase from the Central and Eastern European Online Library at [2]--Woogie10w (talk) 00:25, 3 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)

well...maybe you are.--Jacurek (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Vilnius vandalism

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)

Zirmunai

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)

Falaise Pocket

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)

Any Messaging Service?

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)

Sobibor Jews

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)

Comments welcomed

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)

Re: Poland vs Polish forces

I'd tend to use "Polish forces", since the Polish government in exile was

• an appointed one
• limited in their authority over the Polish forces
• had no authority over a territory
• was acknowledged only by some states as the legitimate Polish government; in case of the USSR, this acknowledgement was just temporary

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)

History of Polish Jews and copyvios

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)

How you can help

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)

Thanks. I will admit that it's not fun, but it's a job that I've willingly undertaken on Wikipedia because I'm good at it. :) I'm sure I've required time-consuming assistance in the past from editors who are good at jobs that I'm not. It's a collaborative project, after all. Just, please, let me know if you are unclear about our copyright policies or how you can best use previously published text. Piotrus is right to warn you that putting material on Wikipedia that doesn't meet WP:C can get you into trouble, even blocked from editing, which would be a shame since you're obviously dedicated to improving articles.

I do appreciate that you are receiving this graciously. As I said at Piotrus's talk page, I believe that many people who run afoul of our copyright policies do so innocently. Unfortunately, some of them become extremely belligerent when it's point out to them. It's not pleasant for anybody, and much better if we can just get through it with as little fuss as possible. :)

You are welcome to stop by my talk page any time you have questions about how to use or revise something. (Revising can be trickier than it might seem. We have a user essay at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing that does offer some guidance.) We also have a project related to the issue where you might get help: WP:COPYCLEAN. Meanwhile, I'll get back to reviewing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Pyrrhic Victory

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)

Bez problemu

It was just a mistake, and the article needs a major rewrite anyhow.radek (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Jacurek. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

---

(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:

"Many Poles were badly shaken by details about the Jadwabne mass murder, which challenged national beliefs about the war years." (Nothing wrong with myth, I just preferred beliefs. :))

One of my favorite tricks for revision is flipping a sentence around. Instead of making the details the subject, I make the Poles the subject. I could also flip it by saying, "National beliefs about the war years were challenged when the Poles learned the shocking details about the Jedwabne mass murder." In that case, obviously, I've put the beliefs up front. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC))

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)

Thank you! :D You are very kind. I'm happy if I'm able to help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Jews in Poland

		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)

Advice

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)

Thanks for advice Piotrus.--Jacurek (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

... for the barnstar. :-) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, thanks!radek (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Of interest

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)

Notice of rollback removal and editing restrictions

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)

That is a total miscarriage of justice, a notice from a person who pretends to be uninvolved. Deacon, this is ridiculous, you are totally involved in Poland-related topics, and you know it. Stop this nonsense and stop harassing other editors. Tymek (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I find this totally improper as well. You should raise this issue at WP:ANI. I see no grounds for removing your rollback and even less so for placing you on DIGWUREN's restriction; further, Deacon is hardly a neutral admin to do so and his actions constitute abuse of admin privileges. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Rollback clearly states that rollback is for "blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense". The above edits that Jacurek rolled back obviously don't qualify as "vandalism and nonsense", but are part of a content dispute. The fact that the user whose edits were rolled back has been blocked in the meantime does not give anyone carte blanche to roll back all of his edits as "vandalism and nonsense". That Deacon of Pndapetzim may have been involved in disputes with Jacurek and therefore not be considered unbiased only means that not he, but someone else should have removed Jacurek's rollback access. It does not mean that Jacurek's rollbacks were correct and that he was punished for an offense he didn't commit, as claimed by Tymek. The most one could demand is for an uninvolved admin to lift the restriction and then immediately reinstate it. I think this just isn't worth the time, though. --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be enough to remind Jacurek that he should be more careful with reverts, two possibly disputable rollback reverts hardly warrant more, especially considering that Jacurek has been using rollback uncontroversially before. An involved admin bypassing a procedure (or two, since AE thread was not started for Digwuren's warning) is a case of multiple admin rights abuse. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 10:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Piotruś, first, let's be perfectly clear that we're not concerned with the question whether Jacurek's reverts were justified or not - but with the question if he should have used "rollback" or "undo". As far as the effect is concerned, the only difference is that "rollback" sends the message that the reverted edits were "vandalism or nonsense" - so this rather is a social as opposed to a technical issue. "It would be enough to remind Jacurek that he should be more careful with reverts" - yes, that may arguably have been enough. Nonetheless, removing rollback rights was clearly within WP:Rollback. It would have been ok to put mercy before justice here, but that doesn't mean that justice wasn't allowed. "two possibly disputable rollback reverts " - I'm counting not two but six, and they weren't just "possibly disputable", but all relating to content disputes that an outside observer would not be able to judge without doing a lot of reading-up. "Jacurek has been using rollback uncontroversially before" If I get caught jaywalking six (or even just two) times, I can hardly expect not to be fined because I correctly stopped at red lights thousands of times before. "An involved admin bypassing a procedure [...] is a case of multiple admin rights abuse." This may or may not be so, but's not relevant. If a suspended policeofficer catches an offender red-handed, the offense isn't going to be ignored because the officer was suspended. There is no miscarriage of justice here whatsoever, even if the sanction may have not been formally correct. You're free to complain about Deacon's behavior as being formally admin rights abuse, but stop wikilawyering here. --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thorsten1, you wrote: "If a suspended police officer catches an offender red-handed, the offense isn't going to be ignored because the officer was suspended." I tend to disagree. If a police officer is suspended for multiple civil right violations and thrown off the force, and the next day drags a beaten up black man into the police station claiming he caught him red-handed, there is no DA who will prosecute and no grand jury who will indite. As the saying goes - you are what you eat. Testimony of a person with a proven track record of being unethical or a liar must be viewed with skepticism. Meishern (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually Jacurek's rollback was a textbook example of a situation where rollback IS appropriate. If a suspended policeofficer catches an offender red-handed, the offense isn't going to be ignored because the officer was suspended. i don't understand what exactly are you trying to say with that example but if a suspended policeofficer catches an offender he most certainly can't apply any sanctions but rather he has to inform the Police as a normal citizen. Loosmark (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, short time no see. ;) "Jacurek's rollback was a textbook example of a situation where rollback IS appropriate" - as stated above, rollback is supposed to be used strictly for "blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense". Edits that are "blatantly unproductive", "vandalism" or "nonsense" are quite different from edits like this one, whose validity cannot be judged by anyone without solid knowledge of wartime East European history. "if a suspended policeofficer catches an offender he most certainly can't apply any sanctions but rather he has to inform the Police as a normal citizen." Obviously. But if he fails to do so and I end up in court anyway, I can't plead not guilty just because the officer was suspended, off duty, or never liked me in the first place. Even if I may try and do that in a courtroom - this ain't a courtroom. The closest you can get to a courtroom is WP:AE, as AGK said below. --Thorsten1 (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• If you think the above sanctions are invalid in that the administrator who applied them is not uninvolved, then an appeal should be filed at WP:AE. I would encourage Jacurek to do so (simply to resolve any doubts about the validity of the sanction). Please include in any appeal diffs substantiating claims that Deacon is not uninvolved. Thank you, AGK 11:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I think I was treated unjustly and too harsh. I will file an appeal but I have to read more how to do it first. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 14:09, 8 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)

Darwinek has shown us here how an uninvolved administrator should act. Tymek (talk) 15:38, 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)

Poles at Arnhem

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)

Aren't historical images great? I've seen it in a few books similarly captioned, but of course they all have (IWM Collection) at the end anyway so are presumably just sourcing it from them. I'm kinda inclined to go with the IWM though, there are jeeps in the pic and the Poles at Driel were only para battalions - their gliders landed near Wolfheze. Besides which there's a lot of detail on the IWM page! Any thoughts? I think its ok to use the IWM image (pre 1957 and all that) which might be preferable as it's a lot clearer, so I'll check and upload it in the morning if so. Do you mind if I therefore delete the one you've added afterwards?! Ranger Steve (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you. And thanks for your watching it too. It's a bit of a labour of love I try and fit in when I have time - I can only hope it will come out as well as you think it might! Ranger Steve (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

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)

afd

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)

Arnhem Barnstar

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)

I think it might even be finished... well enough to remove the construction tag anyway Ranger Steve (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Img caption Polish Corridor

[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)

WP:AE

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 of editing restrictions

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)

Expulsion of Germans / Warsaw

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)

Question

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)

Okay thanks. Given the quality of other Polish political related articles, I never know for sure. Ostap 02:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Allies of WW2

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)

I reverted one of your edits

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)

Your Opinion would be appreciated

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)

Allies of World War II

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)

Dispute at Expulsion of Germans article

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)

Re:Armia Krajowa images

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)

Allies

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)

Soviet's were not a Nazis' ally?!? lol. i really wonder why wikipedia attracts so many people with these Alice in wonderland type theories. Loosmark (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot reiterate the same arguments in many places. Try to read that [13] for the beginning.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Estonians are guilty for starting WW2? Man, you embarrasing. Loosmark (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to become a professional historian, to earn high reputation among scholars and to write your own articles in high profile historical journals on that account. But for a while we have to rely on the existing academic sources....--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. Noone says Estonians were guilty. However, the policy of this small country affected, in some extent, the WWII outbreak. Obviously, it was not their intention...--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I gave a wrong link. The section I was talking about was the next section on the same talk page ("Joint military operation?").--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:36, 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)

Dear Jacurek, am I wrong in general or you mean I am wrong with regards to the alleged Nazi-Soviet alliance? In the latter case, could you please explain me what concretely is wrong? My arguments can be found there [14] (sorry, the previous link was wrong). In addition, the section you edited has the following comment: "PLEASE NOTE: this line has been the subject of persistent misconceptions. please check Talk:Allies of World War II#USSR (the USSR section on talk) and make sure that you are not replicating them if you intend to edit the line. it is probably a wise idea to discuss on that page FIRST, before editing. The USSR was at war with Poland in 1939-41, not any other Allied country ." Additional arguments have been provided by Caranorn there [15]. In addition, the opinions of other editors on the same talk page [16] do not support your edits.
You addressed none of these arguments before making your changes. However, I am ready to discuss your arguments if you put forward some.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

PS With regard to Mongolia and Tuva, the degree of independence of these states is not so clear for me to call them "puppet" states. In addition, whereas the Axis article has a separate section for the puppet states, the Allies articles hasn't, so all states, both puppet and fully independent states listed there together. I see no reason to remove Mongolia and Tuva.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul, I will explain everything on the Allies WW2 talk page maybe tomorrow because I don't have time today.--Jacurek (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, as soon as Indian Empire is among the Allies, I see no reason not to include Mongolia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know Paul.. just adjust to the version you think is correct. For now I'm giving up on this one..--Jacurek (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. If I looked rude during that discussion, please don't be offended. It was not my intention. :)
Cheers,--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
PS. I just presented a modified version of the "Allies gain momentum" section (WWII article). I know you are interested in the subject, so I'll appreciate if you leave your comments there...

Name of Wilno

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)

Mike, the problem is that there are few (2-3) editors here who for some strange reason remove all Polish names from Polish-Lithuanian related articles. This goes back years already and Vilnius/ Wilno is not the only one article with the similar problem. Look at my latest discussion on Ponary (Wilno suburb) here.[[17]] I think that you should make the changes on Vilnius/Wilno page you think are appropriate. I can guarantee you that you will be immediately challenged by the same editors, but many including me will support your changes. I know that this will finally come to the end since it is really ridicules and unheard of in all other articles (Gdansk/Danzig, Wroclaw/Breslau etc.) , but for now this is all we can do until somebody more "important" steps in.--Jacurek (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1.What do you mean by "important'? 2.Unfortunately, many members of my family were murdered in Ponary, so i know the place well. This weekend I will make a private project of adding Polish and Russian names to all Lithuanian related cities. It's ridiculous! Why Kaliningrad is clearly named Koenigsberg - that is not offensive?--Mikej007 (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Important I meant high administrators. Good luck with your project, I'm sure you will have people agreeing with you (other than the obvious of course):)--Jacurek (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

More than that, I will definitely watch those pages and fight, but I think we should arrange a group or something to watch together, we can't let Wiki surrender to nationalistic feelings of some. The Jewish/Polish heritage of Lithuania is important to mr and I won't give up easily--Mikej007 (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Another question - how mad they will be if I add the Polish names of Wilno elderships? Will it survive a hour?--Mikej007 (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Very mad:)..I don't think you will last and hour:)..just make sure you follow all the rules and do not revert...reverting is not the way of solving this problem. Good luck and have fun...don't stress yourself out:).--Jacurek (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by not revert? If they will erase my addings, I will revert. Btw, I am fighting now for Ponary.--Mikej007 (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mike this is not about the fight or win. You can't revert people because this is against the policies and does nothing good to the project. Just be patient and discuss your changes on the talk pages. Please do not revert anymore.--Jacurek (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In Ponary, the changes were discussed, I'm going for semi-protection.--Mikej007 (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Btw, look at Užupis :)--Mikej007 (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

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)

Help in a new article

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)

User 84.240.27.89

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)

Talk:Vilnius and feeding a troll

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)

Cracow

"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)

I will do that.--Jacurek (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat Puzzling

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)

Informal Mediation

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 want to ask for block of User:84.240.27.89. He reverts without explanations all the time. How do I do that?--Mikej007 (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Look here [18]--Mikej007 (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hans Krüger

I understand your feelings, but such link should be explained in Erika Steinbach.Xx236 (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans after World War II

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)

Scurinae

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)

Collect such diffs and one day it should be enough to make a case about harassment. In other news, please try to keep to a voluntary 2RR on most articles and use the talk to avoid accusations of taking part in an edit war. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the advise, I will.--Jacurek (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Bombing of Wieluń

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)

I know, I'm trying to fix it.--Jacurek (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion (Vertreibung) is a German ideology used against Poles

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)

A comment

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)

Voivodeships

Thank you very much for help.--Paweł5586 (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Witaj, nie wolno mieszać artykułów o miejscowościach z artykułami o zbrodniach. Co innego historia co innego geografia. W artykule o zbrodni umieszczam tylko lokalizację miejscowości. Rozwinięcie o miejscowości powinno być w osobnym artykule. Czy mógłbyś to wyjaśnić Banduristowi i Bobaniemu?--Paweł5586 (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Bundurust nie chce ze mna rozmawiac, zobacz tutaj[[21]] mozesz dodac swoja comment tam.--Jacurek (talk) 06:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Damy radę. Could you correct my new article--Paweł5586 (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

CfD Nomination

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)

Mediation

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)

DYK for Nazi-Soviet military parade in Brześć

On September 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nazi-Soviet military parade in Brześć, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

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)

Rosh Hashanah

Wishing you a Happy Rosh Hashanah--Woogie10w (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

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)

If you have an issue with the factual accuracy of any evidence statement, please raise these concerns in your own evidence section or on the talk page. Additions like this are not acceptable. Regards, Daniel (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please comment here

User:Piotrus/ArbCom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

map of camps

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)

Most camps were located on pre war Polish territories (GG). Regards--Jacurek (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

but some of them were occupied and some annexed directly into germany. it is difference between annexation and occupation. --Dert45 (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it should be described as "Occupied Poland" but feel free to discuss that on related talk pages, I always go along with the majority. Best--Jacurek (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

this disscusion already has taken place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Auschwitz_concentration_camp/Archive_2#location --Dert45 (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

latest edits

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 does fit into the category, even though it is not lanlocked and as dependent on Russia as South Ossetia.

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.

Watch your reverting

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)

I'd agree with the warning, but I'd also say you're right. Just be careful. Plus, it's not really *that* important. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you were so keen to point out Matthead's editing restriction, I did some investigating and found that you, too, are under editing restrictions, per here. The restriction is a "discretionary" sanction, which means I get to exercise my discretion in deciding how to react. So for now I'll just say, do not edit war at this or related articles again, or you will be blocked as well. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:35, 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)

I think I will.--Jacurek (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

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. WuhWuzDat 17:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jacurek, I also analyzed the above case, and I don't think Tommy on Theems is your sockpuppet. I've erased sockpuppeteer tag from your user page.[26] Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem

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)

) Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Important discussion!

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, calm down. Second, I already explained on the Roman Polanski talk page why this information is important in my opinion[[27]] and you have a right to disagree. O.K.?--Jacurek (talk) 01:47, 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)

This: Important discussion! does not look calm to me. Is there anything else you want to talk about?--Jacurek (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I just don't understand all this nationalistic stuff and I am glad I don't suffer too badly with it, some of this situation could be a reflection from the list which J, was a member of. That sock puppet tag and case and the fact that the user reporting the 3rr was not involved but reported you for some other reason, perhaps you could avoid a block by offering to accept a voluntary 1RR condition for a month or something like that, if not, anyway that block should not be long. Perhaps no block at all, I don't know, but you have violated the 3RR. Off2riorob (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Old opponents trying to set me up, that is all. Thanks for your comment.--Jacurek (talk) 02:16, 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)

Expulsion

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)

Please confirm your agreement to a 1RR

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)

I think Ed suggestion has merit. I'd advice Jacurek to accept it. If you think that there are other users edit warring with you on those articles, you may ask Ed to review their editing patterns to see if similar voluntary restriction wouldn't be appropriate for them as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course I agree, I will even do it for longer than 3 months. What about 6 months? I agree to 6 months starting now, (October 11, 2009) My question is: What about the sock puppet account somebody was trying to frame me into?[[28]] Will that be addressed as well?--Jacurek (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi

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)

Thanks for doing that.--Jacurek (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User Jacurek (copy for a WP:RFC link)

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)

Ed, I did not revert twice[[29]]. First was just a regular edit[[30]]. In fact, as I promised, I'm being very careful not to revert twice on every article. User Varsovian is focusing on me from the very beginning[[31]] of his sudden appearance on Sept. 28 2009 and I suspect that this is his whole purpose[[32]]. He is constantly trying to provoke me into the controversial discussions or edit wars and if this does not work then he falsely accuses me of breaking my promise now. I keep asking him to leave me alone[[33]] but he just keeps "hitting me" over and over and over and now this false accusation. I feel very much harassed by him. Please check his edit history. In fact he is the one who is edit warring there[[34]], reverting other editor but calling my name trying to create impression that it was me who made the changes he reverted. Is behavior like this acceptable? Please review his edits on the article including the talk page as well as my edits to see that I DID NOT reverted twice anywhere since my promise. Thanks and regards.--Jacurek (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek, thanks for continuing to be careful. Since you are following 1RR you might learn how to create WP:RFCs. Regarding Varsovian, I suggested that he try to avoid the articles you edit for a while. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, this is very useful link. No problem, I will do what I have promised, it is actually good for me and keeps me out of potential trouble. As far as Varsovian, I'm not interested in going after him or proving that he in fact is not a new user as he claims etc, etc. I just want him to stop focusing on my person. So far my impression is that since September 28 registration of account Varsovian the user was more interested in talking to me, making changes I would not like or finding something inappropriate in my behavior rather than constructive contribution. Since EE malling list "earthquake" I have been attacked by some strange IP's or new accounts few times already and I truly believe than Varsovian is an account created specifically to provoke me and get me in trouble. If I'm wrong and I will see that in a year or two Varsovian becomes actually active contributor with rich edit history I will apologize to him for what I'm saying now but today this is honestly what I think about him/her.--Jacurek (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice Ed but I do feel that I am not 'bothering Jacurek'. I am attempting to stop him from editing incorrect information into an article, information which specifically does not reflect what the sources he provides say. So far he has accused me of being a sockpuppet [[35]], of editing in bad faith [36] (twice on that single page) and has called me a troll [37] and implied that I am a liar [38]. Is any of that acceptable under WP policies?

I have attempted to engage him in dialogue so that we can amicably resolve the differences which we have about this article and work together (I assume this is what is meant by "collaborative editing environment") but he refuses to discuss anything and continues to be incivil to me. I continue to assume good faith on his part but he continues to claim that I exist solely to provoke him [39]. He says "He is constantly trying to provoke me into the controversial discussions or edit wars" and that he wants me to "stop focusing on [his] person" but if you actually look at my history you will see that there is a grand total of one article which Jacurek and I have both edited, so much for edit wars. You will also see that there is only one discussion which I have attempted to engage him in: the one about that article! If I wanted to provoke him into edit wars, I wouldn't discuss anything: I'd just edit articles and refuse to discuss why I'd changed his edits. I'm not doing that, although he is editing my work and refusing to discuss his changes.Varsovian (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

How about not posting anymore messages on my talk page, stop accusing me of the things I have not done (see your very first message here) and building some edit history to start with? I did not ask you to copy this message to Ed into my talk page[[40]] did I? And just to let you know, I will take everything back in a year or two if I'm wrong and will apologize to you but for now your actions speak for themselvs. And I'm not the only one who thinks that you are just a troll[[41]] (no offense please if you are not).--Jacurek (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

My problems

As you probably know, I have been partially banned: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)

Resp to your question on Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army

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

):)--Jacurek (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• If I understand well your attempt to make the tone more neutral, maybe we could delete also all other details of this crime? What about moving this chapter to some less controversial article, to something about flowers and butterflies? Yours, Rembecki (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC).

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)

Did you mean do not touch the article? Please do not claim ownership of the articles you heavily edit. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE

I have requested arbitration enforcement here. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jacurek. It looks to me that you exceeded your voluntary 1RR restriction on 23 October at History of Pomerania (1945-present). Since any removal of content is a revert, here is the first and here is the second. You may be able to avoid sanctions if you will agree to stay away from editing this article for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I will.--Jacurek (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Ed,... I keep looking at where I reverted... but the first revert as you gave as an example of reverting and posted on my talk page... I was actually changing my own edit[[42]]. I think I actually did not make any mistakes and I did not reverted twice... I'm so careful about not reverting now... I'm not sure if I'm reading that correctly but it does not matter anyway I will sill stay away from the article for a week no problem. Best--Jacurek (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Varsovian

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)

Blocked and restricted

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)

You have to be kidding. Have you even read the exchange? Varsovian was trying to get more authority and the upper hand for his position by claiming he was living in Warsaw for 15 years and wrote books about it. To that Jacurek simply wanted to check if that is true and in reply he was called an idiot. So if anybody then Varsovian should be placed on restrictions for incivility. btw is Victory parade even an Eastern Europe topic area page? Loosmark (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Pretty ridiculous he? :) I actually trusted Future Perfect at Sunrise and asked him for advice just a minute before his execution here.:) I'm shocked also...I have to gather some thoughts before appealing..--Jacurek (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek: Can I try to extend an olive branch here? I've already agreed to leave the London Parade article alone for a week and will stick to that commitment (despite Loosmark promptly reverting the article after I said I'd step away from it). I would like to work with you on the article: I suggest that once the week I agree to is up, I remove the current wording of disputed section and we (you and I) then work together to reach a version we both agree on. While we are discussing the article, useful discussion, not shouting at each other or calling each other troll or idiot (sorry about that, did you notice that I apologised yesterday here [43]?) I will agree to not post anything in that section which you do not agree on and you do the same. What do you think?Varsovian (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You know what Varsovian, now when you telling me all this nice words you sound more real but I still have my doubts that you are real judging by what was happening until now (sorry). At this point I'm not even sure if I will bother to edit Wikipedia at all. I formed by opinion about the whole project. What happened now is also totally unjust. Please don't argue that it was justified because you will never convince me and I have the right to form my own opinion. What I also want to say to you is that your sudden arrival only one month ago already eliminated two long established editors maybe forever. Perhaps you should reflect on that. Goodbye Varsovian. Please do not respond anymore. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Varsovian...after thinking about your comment for a while...if I asked for an unblock, would you support me??--Jacurek (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want to make any comment at all about the correctness of any actions of admins: whether they got something 'wrong' or 'right', I'm sure that they did what they in good faith (and based on their experience) thought is best for WP. But with that said, I very certainly would not oppose any request you made for an unblock and would make no comment at all in any request by you for an unblock other than stating (if you request me to do so) that I do not oppose such request. If you'd like me to state that, just leave a message on my talk page.Varsovian (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

:) Thanks. How can I leave a message on your talk page ? :) --Jacurek (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you not just do so in the normal way? I thought a block only applies to editing article, am I wrong? Either way, you can either just link to this conversation in your request (and maybe state that admin is welcome to post on my talk page asking me to confirm I think what is said here) or post on your talk page stating that you are appealing your block and then I'll post in that discussion.Varsovian (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Jaruzelski ≠ Democracy

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 think that you have a point here...but I can't think about at the moment. Thanks anyway for dropping me a note.--Jacurek (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

On Varsovian

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)

|}

Wikibreak

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)

) Thanks Malik, this is nice of you.--Jacurek (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark

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)

) Don't remember the sign and company name but I know which building you are talking about on Plac Bankowy of course. Did you know that where this building is now (exactly same spot) before the war there was a big Synagogue?--Jacurek (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the main tower of the building is a bit north of where the Great Synagogue used to be. However, if you want to post in this Warsaw trivia contest, here come some questions:

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)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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)

I would just note that the AE case which was opened by Skapperod was basically a content dispute between Jacurek and Skapperod. Loosmark (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

PLESE NOTE : The involvement in off-line coordinated editing posted above by user Skäpperöd are only his accusations presented as the evidence to the case and are not necessarily correct and indisputable. All involved parties (on both sides) are presenting such evidence which are later looked into by the Arbcom. Please don't take his evidence as a fact. Skäpperöd, who was often engaged in content disputes with me, has his own pile of evidence presented agains him by others as well[[54]] and they also can not be assumed as correct or indisputable. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 16:21, 1 November 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)

You placed this[[55]] at the top of the top of the page, not in correct order. It will be archived soon.--Jacurek (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note

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 afterwardsVarsovian (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Classic battlezone tactic. Claim that any administrator who doesn't agree with you is involved. I have never been involved in EE content disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 19:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman your failure to asume good faith is starting to be troubling and so is your painting of Jacurek as a nationalist editor. So far you have failed to produce any diffs which would prove such a claim and in fact you deleted a discussion from your talk page with a cinical comment "good day". Frankly I sense you have entered this case with a bias. Loosmark (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And Loosmark is the real expert on assuming good faith....Varsovian (talk) 19:58, 4 November 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)

Thank you for your time. I really appreciate it. Here is something also related to my case that just popped out[[56]]. Please note that some of the editors commenting in my defense I have never interacted with before my block, therefore I think there are quite neutral as well.--Jacurek (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The latests comment of the blocking administrator FP, posted on Newyorkbrad talk page.[[57]]--Jacurek (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Block Review

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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.

Thanks, I accept your decision.--Jacurek (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)