Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:34, 14 May 2009

Archives

Arch1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

What do you think?

]

Konopka

Let me take one day more. Konopka was very strange person, and in fact I do not understand him. Absolutely brave man, but - probably, but I am not sure - alcoholic in the same time. We have to examine him very carefully... Pozdrawiam belissarius (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes! I saw some of that - his capture seemed strange even to the Russian general that got him, and then before that there is the mess up at Battle of Yevenes you wrote about which looks very much like what happened at Slonim. Nawrot goes into that in the footnotes to some extent.radek (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure about the Nawrot's writtings, but in the same time I am suspicious about Konopka's behaviour: once a hero, then the coward - isn't it the common behaviour of Poles of all times? We have to make some good sollution to not be consider as cowards or idiots... belissarius (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

These "citation needs" of the "... Knight" look like simple złośliwości. Don't you think? I will, of course, put some citations, but this is still głupota... Is it happend more often? belissarius (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Polish Wiki looks much easier, but it have its own "problems". Here - as we talk about the Battle of Yevenes - I have the one: I'm not in possession of Wojciechowski's text anymore (I got his memories for a short time many years ago), and I can't cite exact pages, but I'll try. By the way - I found very interesting piece about Konopka, and the "battle of Slonim" in the Kukiel's book. I'll send it to you tonight. :) belissarius (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Kukiel wrote about Konopka this: "Polak w służbie carskiej, generał Czaplic, na czele kolumny ruchomej zniósł pod Słonimem 3-ci pułk szwoleżerów-lansyerów gwardyi cesarskiej, pułk litewski. Generał Jan Konopka, dawny pułkownik lansyerów nadwiślańskich, teraz szef i organizator nowego hufca wyborowej młodzieży, we wrześniu przyprowadził do Słonimia pod komendę Schwarzenberga dwa pierwsze szwadrony; tutaj zamierzał kompletować pułk, z którego tylko 360 ludzi było dotąd pod bronią. Szwadronami dowodzili Adam Bieżyński i Adam Sołtan, przedtem dzielny oficer artyleryi konnej. Odwrót Schwarzenberga na Podlasie wystawił młodą gwardyę litewską na zatratę. W połowie października dowiedział się Konopka, że od strony pińska nadciągają oddziały rosyjskie; zebrał swój pułk, przemówił do żołnierzy pytając, czy chcieliby się zmierzyć z nieprzyjacielem. Okrzyki "Niech żyje cesarz! niech żyje gwardya!" stwierdziły ochoczość bojową młodzieży. Generał nieopatrznie postanowił czekać na nieprzyjaciół i stoczyć bitwę z ich przemagającą siłą. Z rana dnia 20-go października zbliżyły się oddziały kozackie pod Słonim. Pułk szwoleżerów stał w gotowości bojowej pod miastem. Drugi szwadron wysunął się naprzód nacierając na kozaków, którzy zaatakowani, rzucili się do ucieczki; wnet jednak przyszli im z pomocą huzarzy pawłogradzcy, otaczając garstkę mężnych. Szwadron Bieżyńskiego ruszył teraz z pomocą drugiemu szwadronowi, uderzył na huzarów i odrzucił ich wstecz; tuż za nimi pojawiła się jednak piechota i artylerya rosyjska. Przygnieciony druzgocącą przewagą wroga pułk Konopki musiał torować sobie mieczem drogę odwrotu; połowa szwoleżerów z Konopką dostała się do niewoli. Połowa zaledwie, wpław przebywszy rzekę Szczarę, ujść zdołała do Wilna" - Marian Kukiel, Dzieje oręża polskiego w epoce napoleońskiej, Poznań 1912/repr. 1998, p. 358, ISBN 83-86600-51-9... Konopka wasn't drunkard but hero, but I don't believe in Kukiel's revelations. belissarius (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Statistics

Sorry to interrupt your discussion concerning the Polish-American, Konopka, but I'm puzzled by your reluctance to include Lithuanian demographic statistical information at the Poles in Lithuania article. All of WP's articles have links to further educate those who need it. Why should this be an exception? I'm putting the information right there at one's fingertips, no calclator needed. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The information's already there as a %.radek (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

True, but not as a percentage of the whole number. My version helps people who are "mathematically challenged." It shouldn't really bother anyone to have that information right at their finger tips, should it? Dr. Dan (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's no big deal I think it just clutters up the lead. I think something like that'd be fine if it was in the text. Why not footnote it?radek (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Good, since it's no big deal I'll re-add the information and that very short article will survive the "clutter." Regarding, "I think something like that'd be fine if it was in the text. Why not footnote it?", is one of the best suggestions you've made lately. That reasoning should be applied to the Lithuanian villages having their Polish geographical toponyms added on English Misplaced Pages every once in a while. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No, those are two different things. Which should be obvious.radek (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Stalking and Editwarring

Last warning, Radeksz. -- Matthead  Discuß   23:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Matthead, I am neither stalking nor editwarring. You're simply going around to a lot of articles on my watchlist and trying to POV them. As a consequence you get what you get.radek (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Matthead, where I have mentioned you.  Sandstein  08:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Jan Konopka

On May 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jan Konopka, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Jedwabne

Thank you Radek for your contribution there. I was going to ask you for help. Please see the comment on the talk page from one of the editors also. Thanks again.--Jacurek (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice: SPI request

Your name was mentioned in this SPI request. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Royal Prussia, Poland

Thanks Radek! Space Cadet (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lipka Rebellion

On May 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lipka Rebellion, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ /_contribs 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you hadn't, add it to the WP:MILCON, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Important

] ]

DYK for Aleksander Sulkiewicz

On May 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aleksander Sulkiewicz, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

How, exactly, are you able to conclude that adding 'Copernicus Science Centre named after the Polish astronomer' is vandalism, as you do at User talk:Piotrus? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it was made by a banned user. Any edits made by banned users are automatically considered vandalism. On this one, Matthead's edits were fine.radek (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Jan Dzierżon

It's pretty astonishing that the Dzierżon family would be expelled, after the war, from Poland to Germany, especially since they were Polish, the history of the family, and all the rest (was surprised to read about it, perhaps it's a mistake). Do you have any details as to why? Personally, I knew a few German families in Sląsk, who remained there after the war and were not expelled. What do you think may have happened in this case? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If that info is sourced (re Alois Dzierzon) then it can be put in. But note the same source refers to Jan Dzierzon as Polish and from Polish family and Polish beekeeper, etc.. As to why, I don't know at the moment. Maybe Alois or somebody in the family signed a Volksdeutsche list during the occupation. Maybe he was "collateral damage". Maybe the commies were sloppy. Who knows what motivated them. Still, that doesn't change anything about Jan, since, generally, as far as we know, the future cannot affect the past.radek (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and explanation. Quite a few "maybes." Maybe a few "maybe nots" should be considered? Like how about these "Poles" had become so Germanized that they no longer considered themselves Poles. Like the Pilsudskis? Not the German part of the equation, but I'm sure you know what I mean. p.s. Don't really care about what can be put in or taken out. I'l leave that to others for now. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I don't know what you mean. And what grandfathers and grandsons do and how they see themselves can be quite different for no reason at all. In the realm of speculation, any speculation's possible. So you're asking the wrong question - if you're really interested dig up some historical archives and documents. Do some research, original research - since you're not really concenred about what can be put in or taken out.radek (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave the original research to others best suited to do so. Whereas I weakly agree that the future cannot affect the past, I strongly believe that the present can truly affect the past. Twisting it, turning it inside out, falsifying it, and the like. See it done often on WP. I'm sure you have too. Best. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

See, this is where what at first seemed like a good faith inquiry starts sounding like thinly veiled insinuations. Bye.radek (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

See what? They were good faith inquiries. I assumed your responses were also in good faith. You must have had a long day. That last remark is bordering on thinly veiled paranoia. Dobranoc. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW

Talk:Marginal utility#Revision of 05:16, 12 May 2009 —SlamDiego_←T 13:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for help

Hey Radeksz, thank you for help on History of Polish Jews. I have contributed to all that mess when I was "green" on Wikipiedia. I really appreciate that you are taking your time now to fix some of the problems. Thanks so much.--Jacurek (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel so bad now that I created all this work for you guys. maybe one day I will be able to buy you a huge case of beer and a bunch of nice flowers for Moonriddengirl :)--Jacurek (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Check WP:PUA and associated pages :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Your unhelpful edits on articles you had never previously never touched such as here and here are petty, provocative and disturbing because it suggests that you are seeking to provoke a conflict with me simply because of a dispute at another page. Please end this shenanigans. Kupredu (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I was just concerned with your POV pushing so I checked your contributions and saw more of the same. I'm not interested in provoking a conflict, but I am interested in keeping fringe POV out of Misplaced Pages.radek (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It is rather strange that two editors blame us both of vandalism at the same time. I asked a question about Kupredu here. I could find more evidence, of course.Biophys (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Polish 1st Light Cavalry Regiment of the Imperial Guard

Thank you for "B". Now, after next wave of corrections it is ready - IMHO - for GA or even FA nomination. What do you think? :)In fact I do not know how it works - step by step, or - like in pl-wiki - at once? Explain it to me, please! belissarius (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)