Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:35, 12 June 2009

Archives

Arch1

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

What do you think?

]

Important

] ]

Thank you Radeksz

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you Radeksz for all your hard work, especially for helping clean up The History of the Polish Jews page. It is an honor to award you this star..--Jacurek (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Orlando Letelier

I notice you removed the complete ref to Letelier in the Milton Freidman article. I restored it because 1) the Klein section references it and 2) it contains a rebuttal by Freidman, keeping it NPOV. Discuss? Verne Equinox (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ostap Ortwin

On May 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ostap Ortwin, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jan Dzierżon. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.  Sandstein  09:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: this is in relation to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Smith2006.  Sandstein  09:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm, there's nowhere near 4 reverts there. There is 2 on 5/30 (and one of those is of an anon which I mentioned specifically in prior cases) and 1 on 5/31. Likewise on 5/29, out of the two edits, one of them is a revert of a blanking.radek (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, I am not counting reverts, I am concerned about edit warring in general.  Sandstein  14:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand and I didn't mean to come of so defensive. Just wanted to point out that I've actually been pretty patient on that article. This may not be reflected in a quick eyeballing of the reverts but that's because quite a number of them are actually reverts of blanking/vandalism, the same disruptive anon IP, and of the banned user Seraffin.radek (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Stefan Knapp's photo

Not necessarily :( Let me play devil's advocate. Here's a good question for you: what license would you like to use? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, two possible choices - either UK ordinary copyright in which case it's a no go since it's got to be 70 years. Or US copyright under "Anything published before January 1, 1964 and not renewed is in the public domain" - but then how would you know? This is always what gets me about these copyright issues. Also it says that "A work by the US federal Government is in the public domain." which I take it to mean that if this was a US Air Force photo rather than RAF then it could be used. I don't know how it works. The website says that the photo comes "ze zbiorów pana Pawła Sokołowskiego", who apparently runs the "official" site: . Does that mean that if I write Sokołowski and get his ok, then I can use it?radek (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Molobo SPI

I have responded here User talk:AdjustShift#Explanation. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Responded again, thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Communism

Hi Radeksz, you used a POV template in Communism but did not clearly stated why. Please discuss it on the talk pages of the article. Best,--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR at historical truth commission

You seem to have broken 3RR at Historical Truth Commission. Maybe you should self-revert your last? Offliner (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - though I think two of those reverts were copy vio removals.radek (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As I've learned, no reverts are safe. Report copyvio to Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems - better safe then sorry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Danuta Siedzikówna

I think this can be DYKed... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think so too - should the credit go to User:Anna Tertel?radek (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

More than one user can be credited, see my recent dyk nom for Madajczyk, still visible at T:TDYK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Police, PL

Why do you keep reverting?! Please provide your rationale. If you think I deleted something, read carefully and you will find that this is not the case. If you don't like "Soviet and Polish town", make the Soviet period an extra section - I just had them together to avoid tiny sectins. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What is OR or POV about splitting the history in "German town" and "Polish town"? Do you dispute the town was German before 1945, Soviet until 1946 (partially 1947) and Polish thereafter? And that the whole population, administration etc pp - just about everything - changed after WWII (which justifies different sections)? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

A source that Police is a Polish town? You must be kidding. Every map would be a source. What exactly does upset you so much? I really don't get it. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No, a source which calls it "a Soviet town", or "German town" for that matter. Splitting up the history like that is definitely OR or at least synth.radek (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok let's unravel this. The town was German before 1945, what is OR calling it a "German town"? The town was Soviet in the WWII aftermath, what is OR calling it a "Soviet town"? The town subsequently was handed over to Poland, wahat is OR calling it a "Polish town"? Maybe one could change "Soviet" in "Soviet administered", because it was not actually part of the Soviet Union. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What are the criteria used to decide whether something is a "German town"? Why not a "Pomeranian town"? Also, usually people named "Bogisław" are not really German. Splitting up like that, besides being OR, which just generate the usual ethnic conflict.radek (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you say Bogislaw doesn't sound German, so the town could not have been either, and I guess this is your problem. While your observation is right, your conclusion is not. Bogislaw is not a usual German name, but a Slavic Pomeranian name. And looking at the Pomeranian dynasty (House of Pomerania), you will find that most of its members are named either Bogislaw, Wartislaw, Barnim, or Otto. Does that make them Slavs? And if you try to determine the ethnicity by looking at their family tree, you will find all neighboring countries involved. Does that make them Poles, Danes, Mecklenburgians? And even if the duke was an ethnic Slavic Pomeranian (which he was not), does that make his duchy and his townspeople ethnic Slavic Pomeranians? It is undisputed that these dukes themselves initiated the process that led to the German settlement of the area and the assimilation of the remaining Wends. All the towns in the Duchy of Pomerania were founded as German towns - German settlers, Germanized Wends, German town law, German language etc pp. You must understand that there is no conflict in being a German duke with Pomeranian roots and a Pomeranian name. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

But this is exactly why we shouldn't label the town as "a German town"; a Slavic Pomeranian name, he ethnicity by looking at their family tree, you will find all neighboring countries involved, etc. You're making this argument better than I did.radek (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Does the "ethnic background" of the Russian tsar or the English king make these persons themselves non-Russian / non-English, and does that make their towns and their people non-Russian / non-English? Skäpperöd (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously people and towns are two different things. As you point out yourself, the matter is a lot more complicated then just the fact that some German people lived there. And, for example, a Welsh town, is still more or less a Welsh town, even if the British King is a German. Basically, these kinds of labels are to be avoided because they generate these kind of discussions due to their ORish nature and provoke ethnic edit warring.radek (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Who else lived there besides Germans? Your Wales argument does not match the situation. The Welsh nobility did not decide to call in English settlers to found English towns. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It depends which period you're talking about (within the greater pre-1945 period) and which source you ask. radek (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

All modern mainstream sources agree that the population was German, consisting of German settlers and their descendants, Germanized Wends, additionally a few Danes and if you want to seperate the Dutch from the Germans, you would have to include Dutch and Flemish, too. All mainstream modern sources agree that the evolving population and the Griffin dynasty spoke Low German and was subject to German law, except for some rural areas where the Wendish element prevailed for awhile. See Buchholz (German) and Piskorski (Polish), the leading experts, for the most recent and most detailed "History of Pomerania" books. Both experts are in close contact btw and acknowledge that the Cold War is long over. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the Cold War?radek (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh

Niedźwiedzia przysługa. And the culprit seems to be inactive now... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Argh. I can get on it in a day or two, after I give my students finals and grade'em.radek (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Kolberg/Kolobrzeg

You are reverting me just for the sake of it, right? Thietmar lived around the year 1000. How could he possibly mention a town founded centuries later? He mentioned the Pomeranian stronghold at modern Budzistowo, not the town founded during the Ostsiedlung. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No, and I resent the accusation. You decided to edit a series of articles on Polish towns almost simultaneously and basically in the same way (de-Polonize, re-Germanize them). Why are you surprised that your multiple changes, made without discussion on talk, are being reverted (and not just by myself but by other editors as well)? And yes, Thietmar mentioned the town that was already there. The granting of Lubeck law to the later settlement is already discussed in the text.radek (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You did not address my point. The German town Kolberg was founded in open range some kilometers away from the Pomeranian stronghold, which was then renamed Old Kolberg. It is not the same town. Thietmar lived 200+ years before the town was founded. And no, I did not de-Polonize anything. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Stefan Knapp

On June 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stefan Knapp, 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.

Royalbroil 03:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright cleanup

Thanks so much for helping out at User:Moonriddengirl/Contribution check Martim33! Your checks are very helpful. Normally, when I'm done fixing an article, I just delete it from the list. It's good working with you, – Quadell 02:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Danuta Siedzikówna

On June 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Danuta Siedzikówna, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

It is the responsibility of the editor adding the tag to support their addition, not the person removing it. Your reversion and addition of the POV tag without any justification goes against best practices. Please self-revert your edit. I would also like to point out that your edit summary was in error. You wrote, "you just put the question up on talk page - how about waiting for a response first?" In fact, that is not true. I and other editors have been asking this question on the talk page for weeks now with no reasonable reply. The talk page is full of these discussions, so I'm not sure how you could miss them. For a recent one, see here. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Even the most cursory look at the talk page makes it obvious that there is a number of editors who do not consider the present version to be NPOV. The fact that you act as if you owned the article does not change that. Perhaps you have been asking "these questions" but replies have been given. Of course you don't consider them "reasonable" - whatever that means in this context - since they do not agree with your POV. Please do not unilaterally remove tags from the article again.radek (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The only problem with your argument is that I'm not promoting a POV. I have barely edited the article. I'm cleaning up tags that are added without justification and removing sources that don't support the content. This is not about content but about verification and proper use of maintenance tags. Tags are only added to the article when there is justification to do so. Your edit warring of the POV tag without providing any justification for it on talk speaks volumes about you. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

speaks volumes about you oh yes? What is it saying? And please take your false accusations of edit warring somewhere else. I've made one edit on the article.radek (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to drop this because you don't appear to understand what I have written. Good bye. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)