User talk:Volunteer Marek/Archives/2009/February

Bielski book

Good reference you just added. DGG (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Żydokomuna

I have rewritten the article. I wonder if we can bring it up to WP:GA status now? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Poles in 30th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (2nd Russian

Hey Radek do you know anything about this ? ....Some Poles were however enlisted into the 30th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (2nd Russian), which was formed in Poland. Poles were also enlisted in the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galicia (1st Ukrainian)''..... It is from here: Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II--Jacurek (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Jewish historiography on AK - or not?

What do you think, re this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really like either phrasing. Putting aside what exactly Jewish historiography is, it's not the case that "Jewish sources" are uniformly negative. In fact I'd guess that majority are positive or neutral (just a guess). From the rest at least a good portion of them are simply confusing NSZ with AK or relying on/repeating Communist era sources. So in a way "some sources" is more accurate (and more weasely) ... except that both of the sources cited here are just plain factually wrong (there was no AK in 1947 etc) as I've indicated on the talk page. At the moment I think the best thing would be to remove that sentence altogether and same for those two sources. If alternate examples can be found (and there probably are some out there) then a rephrased version of the sentence (something like "A few authors, such as <name> and <name>...") could be put back in.radek (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Also the relying on/repeating of Communist era sources isn't limited to "Jewish sources" but of course extends to say, Russian and some "Western" ones as well.radek (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and edits, but no need to overrevert. You can always ask for input of other editors. In the end, POV pushing revert warriors will always lose.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't edit war on Armia Krajowa. I strongly suggest you limit yourself to 1RR on that article for a little while. I am warning M0RD00R as well.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Jutrzenka Kraków herb.png

Thanks for uploading File:Jutrzenka Kraków herb.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

“Neoclassical economics”

I see that you've done a little clean-up on “Neoclassical economics”. I just thought that I'd give you a heads-up (though you may not need it) that this article has largely been the work of fans of various reworkings of Ricardian economics (Marx, George, Sraffa, &c), and have used the article to present caricatures of neoclassical economics and of marginalism more generally. —SlamDiego_←T 03:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know. I go and do a general clean up about twice a year at least. I don't mind the Sraffian stuff as much as the more ignorant/naive/fringe theories.radek (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh, as far as I can see, Sraffa just smuggles-in an assumption that any otherwise technologically-supportable equilibrium will be supported by preferences, so that the profit rate can be set arbitrarily and no one will ever walk-away. To me, that seems more baldly absurd than the economics of Henry George.

As to George, I'm frankly doubtful that reference should be removed from the article. The stuff may be fringy now, but, for good or for ill, he was once hugely influential in the political sphere, internationally. My thinking (as revealed in the edit that I made prior to yours) is that we need merely to note that his Progress and Poverty came-out after the work of Jevons, Menger, and Walras, so that the notion that neoclassical economics was created in response to his work is shown to be even more absurd than the notion that it was created as a response to Marx. —SlamDiego_←T 05:04, 10 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} 20:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Reversion

Hi

I did go into a lot of research on that - there was no discussion before you reverted my reversion, in which case you would have asked me why i reverted and I would have told you that I am waiting for an email back from Mazower to confirm or deny the quote.

From the lengthy discussions on the Cham page, it seems clear to me that the consensus was that the reference was viable (hence me putting the reversion in)

Can you please direct me to where this is disputed, as I seem to have missed it in reading that whole discussion (which took me the best part of an hour).

If there is a confirmation of the quote, then I assume the text will be replaced.

thanks --Chaosdruid (talk) 04:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem - leave it as is for now, like I said, if he writes back we can always put it back in !

To be honest I don't want another endless round of mess like we had on five separate articles from the anon user 65.32.128.178

When I went to check the link all I got (like I ususally do) was a page with "cannot read this page"

Anyway - I'm off to bed lol so leave as it is or someone else will only delete it again

--Chaosdruid (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

PS - didnt mean to jump on you either lol

Lol - double self reverted. Sorry for all that - I'll get back to you if Mazower emails me. --Chaosdruid (talk) 19:11, 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)

3rr

I have no idea what "3rr" means.

If there is anyone abusing wikipedia, it is you. You are inventing complaints out of nowhere to get certain text out of the poverty article that you personally disagree with. I understand that you have a certain political bent and believe you know all. I don't believe I know everything and I believe you are a very knowledgable person with a lot to contribute. But instead of deleting every sentence you disagree with, please add a sourced criticism. The sections I added to the article are all well-sourced and relevent.

I've never heard that no research from the 80's or 90's could be used in wikipedia articles. This is absurd. It is interesting that every one of my sentences should be the most intensely scrutinized, but you get to insert completely unreferenced claims ("all of these studies rely on very weak statistical methodology"). If you were just being a stickler for referencing it would be one thing, but it's obvious you just want the article to conform to your own beliefs, and want to cut down on all ideas and theories that you disagree with, no matter how you have to justify why it should be taken out. Sooner016 (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Refs needed

For this. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You may be able to verify the list by searching through those volumes (I found only 3 out of 5): 1, 2 and 4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, specifically I was trying to find who this was: "B.Bernard; A.K. platoon command. Killed in action in Warsaw Uprising August 1944 on Sienna Str.; awarded "Virtuti Military" cross; buried Jewish Cemetery Warsaw. ". I'm pretty sure Bernard isn't a last name, so either first name or pseudonym. Museum of the Warsaw Uprising lists about 18 Bernards [1] that were KIA during the Uprising but none of them has a last name that starts with a B. Bernard Freisleben fits (platoon commander) [2] but according to those volumes he was killed in Bielany airfield, not Sienna St.radek (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see B. Bernard is listed separately in the book [3] so it's not Freisleben. Looking at it it seems like this list [4] is taken straight from these volumes.radek (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Shame those books are so hard to read online :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The Business and Economics Barnstar

		The Business and Economics Barnstar
		For your tireless contribution to improving the quality of Economic discourse in Wikipedia. LK (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Economics articles are looking a lot better today than they did a year ago, and your efforts have made a major contribution to that. LK (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, thanks! There's still a lot of work that needs to be done.radek (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Cournot versus Stackelberg

please check the talk page, Talk:Cournot_competition, and a response there will be nice. Jackzhp (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)