Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:11, 20 July 2010

Re Jedwabne pogrom

I cannot get involved with articles/parties that are related to cases I am clerking. If you have evidence from that article related to the EEML case please post it on the case's evidence page. In the alternative, evidence can be emailed directly to the arbitration committee. If you are having problems with user conduct I suggest posting to the administrators' noticeboard. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt, courteous and informative reply. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

I support it in spirit but I don't think I will be active enough for a while to be a party to it. Good luck with it and the article, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and frankly I could use a Wikibreak myself. If you could just do what ever it takes to help get moderators involved, I will be very grateful and won't ask for more input than that. -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/1st Armoured Division (Poland). For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 18:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

London Victory Parade

Thanks for the fix on the link. It's a pity that you didn't have time (or perhaps didn't have energy) to contribute on the discussion page about the proposed new section. Do you think that the new section ticks the right boxes when it comes to NPOV and RS? Varsovian (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It is all about time, which I have very little of at the mo. I think you are going to have trouble from other editors with this section; because with respect, it reads like you are pushing your WP:POV and there is also a whiff of original research about it. See WP:OR. At least twice you have made Talk Page generalizations about Poles and their attitude to history - you need to be very careful about that, because it gives the impression that you have a prejudiced view about Poles yourself. I'm not going to debate this further, due to my time constraints. But good luck. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll leave the article for a few days and then come back to it to rewrite it to remove words which might suggest PoV pushing (although it is hard to have a PoV when it comes to black/white facts). As for OR, if reading the memoirs of General Anders is OR, I'm guilty! Varsovian (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Before you start re-writing, and if you haven't done so already, take a look at this great essay: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. It address your point that "it is hard to have a PoV when it comes to black/white facts". The essay will also save you hours if not days of debating with whoever now piles in to the article. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What a coincidence that of the two admins which you approached with regard to this issue, one just happens to be the only admin who has ever blocked me and the other is the only admin who has ever warned me about anything. What are the chances of that happening? Varsovian (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for the link. I have read it but not for a while, will have another look over it tonight. Varsovian (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are a couple of surprising WP policies, that take many people a long time to get their heads round:-

Firstly, Misplaced Pages is very sceptical about the existence of "black/white facts" and doesn't agree that POV can be eliminated by fact. From Misplaced Pages:Describing points of view:- "Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions."

Secondly, Misplaced Pages does not even focus on the so-called "truth". From Misplaced Pages:Verifiability:- "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth"

Both of these policies need to be read and understood. Many people don't realize that "fact" and "truth" are dirty words at Misplaced Pages... -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, could you please discuss changes you wish to make before you make them? That is what I did when I was thinking about introducing this new section. Varsovian (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a sandbox we can use to work up a section we both agree on? Varsovian (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I'm just about to take a WP:Wikibreak. In the meantime, perhaps take this up with some other editors. By the way, I'll tell you honestly your edits start to concern me and you might want to think about your behavioural profile a little, and how it could come across to other editors and Misplaced Pages moderators. You appear to have something to prove about Poles or the Polish character, which is fine in the real world, but very far away from the ethos of Misplaced Pages. What is it all about? You tried to interpret the Stephen Fry Auschwitz gaff as an accurate statement rather than an offensive mistake, you tried to re-open the 1st Armoured war crimes issue after it had been closed, you made a sweeping generalization about Poles' view of Chopin, you tried to disprove Kazimierz Świątek's Polish roots, you appear to have utilized a citation that downplayed the 303 Polish Squadron without having read that citation, and now this very insistent effort to disavow Polish grievances about the Victory Parade - to the point of pushing the original idea that the Poles weren't there because some had been forced conscripts in the Wermacht. Those are just the things I've noticed. You'll appreciate this could come across as a pattern of editing behaviour that seems to have very serious WP:NPOV issues. As I say, you are personally entitled to these views; but often, I get the impression you haven't thoroughly read Misplaced Pages guidelines and you are allowing your views to interfere with your great potential as a Misplaced Pages editor. You have the energy, and I'm sure you can achieve the neutrality. I may ask a veteran moderator or administrator to take a look at this message, and he or she may become the editor to work with on the Victory Parade article. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that you could perhaps take more care to not accuse me of being a racist? That is precisely what your comments about me being anti-Polish are. I could reply by pointing out that you also appear to have something to prove about Poles and that is why you change the first sentence of the relevant section of the London Victory Parade article to make a false statement about Poles being excluded and then use to support that statement a source which in reality says the exact opposite (i.e. that Poles were invited). I could also go into all the other accusations you level at me. However, I'm going to WP:AGF and not accuse you of having a NPOV problem that causes you to POV push the Polish POV. Perhaps you could extend me the same courtesy? Varsovian (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Polish British

Re this edit summary: Very well. Please see Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content_review#File:Joseph_Conrad.jpg. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Article progress

I am not seeing any significant changes since I wrote the article. Btw, is there any reason you have not activated your wiki email? I may be able to send you some pdf materials if you have it active and want to expand that article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This is the first time I've even heard of wiki email - that's my reason for not having activating it, which I shall do now. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

-- RP459 /_{Contributions} 13:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Fast train to Warsaw

For some reason I thought that you were based in the UK. Drop me an email next time you're in Warsaw, let's see if we can't agree the parade article over a beer (my shout). Varsovian (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Language issue in crash

See "Air traffic control advice ignored by pilot" section. The language could not have been much of an issue. Polish government planes have been flying to Russia for years, including to Smolensk, and no complaints about communication difficulties between pilots and ground have been heard. Same crew flew the Tu-154 to Smolensk with Tusk on April 7 and there was no problem with communication then (though the weather was better, admittedly). Anyway, if the official investigation reveals this to be a problem, then we can say more about it, until then we don't need a separate section for this issue.Sourcelat0r (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

About your recent edit at Cold War

This one, specifically.

1. No, it's patently untrue that "'Citation needed' tags could be added to much of this article". After the lead, which does not need citations, pretty much every sentence is sourced.

2. Is what you added linked to the Cold War by the authors you used, or by yourself? If the former, good. If the latter, you're probably in breach of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We need source material of explicit relevance, not material linked to a particular subject ("Cold War") by a Wikipedian.

3. Would it be too much to ask for page numbers, Harvard citations, listing the new works in the bibliography, etc? There's a certain consistency of quality to that article, and it would be nice if users adding new material maintained that quality, instead of adding new stuff in whatever format they felt like. - Biruitorul 15:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for contributing to the progress of the London Victory Parade of 1946. I have been hoping to get more, at least medium-term, input there from an objective veteran editor or administrator such as yourself. Particularly over the last 6 weeks. Any chance you could spare some time ? -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't, as a rule, involve myself in others' disputes; it tends to work out badly. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm looking for outside, objective and experienced input. Let me know if you have any ideas about how to get this, medium term. 3O and RFC don't seem to help. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal regarding London Victory Parade article

Info here Varsovian (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Nick Clegg

Alas his family seems to be pure Russian. (Zakrevskye) just in 1686. His ancestor Закревский, Игнатий Платонович (Ignaty Platonovich Zakrevsky) was Russian attorney general of 1th Department of Governing Senate. Polish Zakrzewscy was family from Wielkopolska and is no evidence that these two familes are linked in some way. Mathiasrex (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I mention you...

here.radek (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

London victory parade source

You are entirely right: there is no source given for that statement. It is of course from Hansard. A link to the source is available on the discussion page for the article. As I'm currently posting from my iPhone, I won't add the source now but will instead do so tomorrow. It's a pity that the available verifiable historical record doesn't support the claim the article currently makes, i.e. that 30% of the pilots is "a few". But sometimes historical record doesn't support the assertions made by secondary sources. Varsovian (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)