User talk:Balcer

---

Talk archives: Archive 1 (moved April 28, 2005)Archive 2 (moved July 28, 2006)

---

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Dmitry Pavlov, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 21:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Corrected.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Only got your message this morning, but thanks to Piotrus for doing the fix. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Dialog

I commented to your discussions at Piotrus' and Alex Bakharev's talk.

A side question: What do you think about Ukrainization article? It's developed from initial disatrous state to its current form, largely by myself, and, if I may say so, seems to me not so bad, while the modern section could use some improvement. OTOH the modern section is the hardest one to write since the topic is hot and press is largely. The aticle is from time to time persistently attacked by the same old fellow with bad-faith tags, deletion of sourced info, adding of irrelevant suff and other nosnesne. I thought you might be interested. Take a look. If you have time for the whole talk, fine, and hisotry, cool. If not, check the recent entries and the article itself. Cheers, --Irpen 05:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Dzoni warned

User_talk:Dzoni#This_is_a_warning. I believe in always giving somebody a warning before blocking him. Let me know if there are any further offences - I'll block him if he doesn't stop his personal attacks (and nationality slurrs, too).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sam's RfC

Under RfC procedures someone involved can endorse an outside view. Outside view simply means that it was written by someone from outside the matter. JoshuaZ 03:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

How did I delete comments by other users?

You just deleted my endorsement of the complaint against Samuel Blanning; you say I deleted comments by others. I do not understand. I went in and added my four '~' signature. I didn't delete anything, as far as I know. Profnjm 04:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edit is here. As you can see, you deleted the comments by a lot of users, by mistake it would seem. I simply reverted and invited you to vote again, but in the meantime another user readded your vote. The best way to avoid this is to check the edit history after you click "Save page" to see precisely what changes you made. I always do it on important pages (like RfC, vote etc.) to make sure I did not mess anything up. Balcer 04:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI

You may be interested in this RfC, concerning a recent AfD in which you participated to quite some degree. TheProject 07:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that, as I obviously can't read lists. Sorry! :-) TheProject 07:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Allow us

For contributing so many fine Great Patriotic War-related articles to wikipedia, We hereby award you the Order of Victory! Enjoy, abakharev and Irpen.

Thanks. Balcer 12:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Your ad-hominem attack at RfC

It is important to keep a cool head, despite any comments against you. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and action can be taken against the other parties if necessary. Your involvement in attacking back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors, and lead to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! BabaRera 13:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, no broken templates. If you want to avoid accusations of being a sockpuppet, please explain your edit pattern. I asked you this question on the RfC talkpage, and would like to see your explanation there. Balcer 13:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is against wikipedia policies to make dissmisals as you did. In any case, I have not abused any policy, and that is why your ad-hominem attack is out of place - you were not discussing the issues, but attacking credibility of users who were not violating any rule (that you can easily check in my case) - that is unfair approach to say the least. BabaRera 13:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if my comments caused offense. Now, would you be so kind as to make clear whether you have edited Wikipedia before under a different user name? I think it is reasonable to ask you this question, and obtain a clear answer. Balcer 13:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Balcer has, along with the rest of us, legitimate reason to suspect sockpuppetry in this case, as participating in an RfC on one's second day of Wikipedia editing is major cause for sockpuppetry concern. If you want to call that bad faith, go ahead -- it has become clear to me that the RfC itself has been filed in bad faith, anyways. Accusations of bad faith are not personal attacks. TheProject 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Balcer, I have subst:'ed the {{civil1}} template for you, as is standard on talk pages, of course.

Why

Why are you so motivated to delete the El Condor Pada article? When I was in the bomb shelter (I doubt you can imagine the horrors I experienced as a 11-year old boy), a boom box was all I had down there, it could run on batteries and for an extended period of time (power cuts were often). And when I turn on the boom box, I hear music, the band Indexovci making fun of NATO and their "stealth" bombers which the Yugoslav Army shot down. That made us hopefull. In a war, hope is all you have, please try to understand the effect it had on all of us. I'm telling you the dead truth, I have no reasons to lie. The song gave us hope, and it was all we had back then, it was played regurarly in almost every bomb shelter throughout Serbia. The band that played it was an anti-Milosevic band, and of course Milosevic didn't want them to have too much publicity, but they were extremely popular. They even came to Vancouver last year. The song is the symbol of an era, where everyone was hopeless, and every ray of hope was cherished as much as possible. I beg you, try to understand this. --serbiana - talk 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, having never been in such a situation myself, I cannot imagine how you must have felt during that war. I can only express regret for any casualties the armed forces of my country, Canada, have caused in that war. But there is no need to get emotional here. If the song played such a huge part in the Serbian resistance, that will be shown soon with reliable sources, and the song will get its own article.

In the meantime, I invite you and other interested users to create Shooting down of the F-117A stealth fighter in 1999 during the Kosovo War or Serbian Cultural Resistance to NATO bombings and other articles in a similar vein, where there should be no problems with proposals for deletion at all. Those should be sufficient to express your point of view on Wikipedia.

Please note that we are arguing here about a fine point of Wikipedia rules, which unfortunately happen to be very restrictive about which songs get their own articles.

At any rate, the decision about whether the song will be deleted or not is not up to me. I have made some arguments, and their worth will be judged by the community. Balcer 01:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have already written about the shooting down of the F-117 aircraft on Serbian Wikipedia. I'm affraid to do that here, since it is basically showing that with the help of 30 year old Soviet radars, a small country shot down the greatest aircraft technology on the planet, some NATO-lovers mught target the article. I don't want any trouble. Thank you for expressing your regret, I'm happy that not everyone's against Serbia. Thank you for your arguments, but I would kindly ask you to not comment anymore, please, let's just let the others decide. --serbiana - talk 02:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there is no reason to be afraid, and if I were you, I would start that article. Wikipedia is quite international at this point, and the pro-NATO point of view might not be as strong as you think. I changed my vote from delete to merge with the article about the group that made the song. That seems to me an ideal solution, especially since the group article is essentially empty at this point. Balcer 02:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Voivodships, again

It doesn't seem like we've been able to convince William Allen Simpson of the error of his ways. His responses to your points on his talk page totally misrepresented what was being said, and bordered on incivility, while he defended his original research by accusing everyone else of it. I'm not sure whether it is worth continuing the discussion with him; I just hope that he won't do anything like this again. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 09:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Molobo

And this is exactly what I've been talking about. We've got it all here. Excessive detail, politician's quotes, wrong article, POV-pushing. You name it, it's here. Would you deal with it this time? --Irpen 01:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, thanks for the links. I will comment on them separately at my or article's talk page. Here is a link for you in return to an unrelated topic. Remember, our discussion at talk:Russophobia about the mutual attitude between Poland, Ukraine and Russia? I hope you find this funny and thought provoking, even if you disagree with some of Urban's points. --Irpen 07:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

As. Polish court gave a verdict which agreed to calling him Polish Goebbels, I certainly wouldn't call his articles "thought provoking". --Molobo 13:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment

You might be interested in another adventure with Ghirandajo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Slavophile This time Ghirandajo removes entry from Brittanica and several linked books as Original Research and says he will report me for trolling. --Molobo 13:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

User talk:71.137.207.222

Why did you write on User talk:71.137.207.222 that user User talk:24.23.39.36 is suspected to be the sock puppet of a banned user? Please explain. --Matthead 16:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read this link. It is explained there. I did ask the anonymous user writing from 24.23.39.36 whether he/she is this person (H.J. or Helga Jonat), but there was no answer, from which one can fairly conclude that this is indeed the sockpuppet. After all, why would an honest user not want to strongly deny that they are a sockpuppet of a banned user? Balcer 07:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Some very worrying edits

In Polish Corridor, [1] A user appeared that seems to try portay Hitler as trying to get peace with Poland being portayed as "refusing". He removed several sources I provided as to Hitler's real intentions. He also uses data from military presecence to claim German majority in the region. The same is done in Polish September Campaign, where sources showing Hitler's real intentions have been deleted by the user or changed to POW way that downplayes Hitler's agression and true intentions[2]. For example despite the fact that a source states The proposal served to practically subordinate Poland to the Axis and the Anti-Comintern Bloc. Warsaw refused this in order to retain its independence the user changed it to Poland, however, feared for its sovereignty and questioned Germany's motivations indicating an irrational motive on behalf of Poland. Further changes of the user are worrying. For example he changes German agresssion into "German aggression". The sentence With Poland refusing to abandon its sovereignty to German demands, Germany withdrew from both the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact has been changed to : With Poland refusing its demands, Germany withdrew from both the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact And so on. Please react to this. --Molobo 09:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Pilsudski

Since you are fluent in Russian, I would like to bring to your attention this article in connection with an ongoing drive to bring Pilsudski's article to a FA status. The article in online, specifically devoted to a subject, has a large amount of factual info, is from a historic section of a very respected Ukrainian weekly and is rather objective. I plan to keep an eye on the Pilsudski's article and plan to use this as a source. I thought you might be interested. --Irpen 05:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What gave you the impression that I am fluent in Russian? I freely admit that my knowledge of that language is quite poor, though I can read the alphabet. Thanks for the link though, looks interesting. Balcer 08:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just in case your Ukrainian is better, the UA Lan version is just one click away from above link since the paper is trilingual with an English version being only for political articles and the UA/RU for full version. --Irpen 08:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Mstyslav

That was excellent. The info was from his English bio and I ever wondered what that was. Could not believe there is anything of any size in Canada without the article. Great job! --Irpen 22:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I know that town well personally. Balcer 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Liberate

There is discussion if we should use the word liberate or not in articles regarding Soviet actions in WWII, the results could form a policy on the issue [3] --Molobo 22:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Lublin

Please contact Dan over it. He asked me to add it there at Talk:Konstantinas Sirvydas and I did. I wouldn't do it myself without his request though as I don't think is anywhere near as relevant there as, say, the Polish name of Vilna or the German name of Gdańsk. //Halibutt 08:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course you don't, Halibutt. You just think the Polish name, Onikszty for Anykščiai, is as relevant. Right? Dr. Dan 18:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Isn't the Polish name still Wilno, or was that a Freudian slip? Or did you mean Vilnius? And I notice you've been doing some correcting of these newbies from Lithuania, on their English. Please re-read your edit above, and do some re-editing on your English, yourself.

Bewildered

What does this mean? Why do you restore my deleted comments? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My fault, I am very sorry. I simply wanted to add my vote for category deletion, but I suppose I was not editing the current version but a previous version of the page, and when I pressed save, a whole bunch of older stuff got restored unintentionally, including your comments. That was not my intention, and again I apologize. Balcer 12:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I commented out the text that I restored accidentally. Balcer 12:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. By the way, your talk page may require archiving. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 26

Yesterday I accidentally erased a whole bunch of content via this edit. Today I restored the content I erased. Since you were the person affected by this, please make sure that your votes are correct. My apologies for all the trouble. Balcer 13:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem; thanks for your message. I reported here that something seemed to've happened and my attempt to reinstate the missing material. (User:Bkonrad added that something similar had happened on July 21.) I'm just glad there wasn't anything more mysterious occurring. Best wishes, David Kernow 17:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ł.

To me usage Ł in the discussed case is anachronism. It is OK with me to use it throughout the wikipedia elsewhere, but when speaking about the exact moment of baptism it is simply a minor sloppiness. `'mikka (t) 18:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Poland/New article announcements

Dla przypomnienia...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Military History Taskfoce

The Canadian Military History Task Force, part of WikiProject MIlitary History is looking for participants to help expand and improve content relating to Canada's military heritage.

Hi, I noticed you provided the picture for the Ross Rifle article. I thought this might reflect an interest in Canadian mlitary history, so I thought I'd drop you a line to make sure you're aware of the Canadian Military History Taskforce Have a great day!Mike McGregor (Can) 19:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

PD-Poland, PD-USSR

FYI. --Irpen 03:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

red links

yes, I realized that but did not have time to go back and change the red links, but continued to correct links with proper spacing on other pages. as for grammar, I actually corrected rather horrid english grammar and sentences that made no sense. So don't lecture me on that, as I was not misleading or anything of the sort, I actually corrected POV pushes and misleading information.

--Jadger 19:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, but if you would look at my edits I made certain I did not make such mistakes. better to only criticize the mistakes I actually did make, rather than the ones I never did.

--Jadger 19:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

perhaps cite specific examples from those pages, I don't see where it says that they invaded Poland, where it says active during the Invasion of Poland that does not refer to which side he/it fought on.

if it were to say took part in the Invasion of Poland (1939) that would be totally different and match what you are complaining about, but I have made sure to avoid that.

--Jadger 20:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was clear which side it was on as the eighth word in the article was Poland/Polish. Also, this confuses me: it says that there were four squadrons, each made up of two escadrilles, but escadrille is the french name/equivalent for squadron. for instance, on Canadian airforce hangers at Trenton airbase the English name is given then right below it the french name, e.g 1. fighter squadron.... 1. escadrille. what is the difference in the Polish airforce between escadrilles and squadrons? perhaps what is meant is wing or flight.

--Jadger 01:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Erika Steinbach

how has there been compromise? I have only seen Rahmel/rumia removed from the introduction, and placed further down in the article, that is not compromise, that is rearranging. Historical Eastern Germany keeps being removed, and the Rahmel (now Rumia) keeps being changed to a version not according to the consensus via the Danzig/Gdansk ruling.

--Jadger 18:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

1. well, it was in West Prussia, and NPOV does not deal with how Poles feel, if you're offended shouldn't really matter to an objective article. It was in Germany at the time, and the geographic area it is in was called west prussia, it would be strange for a reader to try to find Voivodeships on a map of 1943 Germany.
2. it was Rumia in the fact that it was the same physical town, but it was called Rahmel, One could also claim that Rumia now is also Rahmel. Danzig and Gdansk are the same city at different time periods. your point was?

please, compromise doesn't involve accusing the other users of uneducated edits. That is bad faith, how are we going to compromise when you villify all who oppose you?

--Jadger 18:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

1. thank you, I did not have much time at that moment and could not find the correct one, I assumed good faith as that is what had been written before by others.
2. the way you worded that is very misleading. when you say most of the world you mean the nations at war with Germany at the time, they can hardly be said to have been uninvolved or been non-partisan. I am referring to it as it was said in the German-Polish border agreement during re-unification "facts on the ground". I am assuming good faith, you are accusing me of "sweeping it under the carpet", when you accuse me of things it hardly makes one want to cooperate with someone insulting them, compromise is two ways, you have compromise as well. I am not trying to hide anything, that is why it says Rahmel (now Rumia) and then there is a link to Historical Eastern Germany which gives further information on the topic. perhaps a further reading section at the bottom of the article including historical eastern germany, Oder-Neisse Line, expulsion of Germans after WWII etc. etc. could be added for those who are reading it and know nothing of the forced expulsion of the majority of the population to modern Germany.

I never said that your views should not count, I said an encyclopedia article should not be worried about offending people, we should not avoid telling the truth in order to not offend certain groups. and BTW, we should not include "your views" as they are POV, exactly what is trying to be avoided.

--Jadger 01:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have worked that in, the link to historical eastern Germany talks about that, if you want to say had been a part of poland from 1919 to 1939 go ahead and put that in, but don't state something such as illegally annexed, etc. etc.

but did not poland annex it after WWI and rename it Rumia? my point is exactly that. If one actually looks at public opinion rather than government policies in the allied nations, many supported the idea of ethnicly homogenous nation states, hence the reason for the appeasement of Hitler beforehand, many saw the treaty of Versailles as unnecessarily harsh. what a government does and what the majority of its citizens think are two very different things (as the war in Iraq has shown in the USA now). would you want people in 50 years thinking that all Americans (or even a majority) supported the invasion of Iraq. and we are talking 1939 here, USA was not yet involved so perhaps you can provide a source that shows that most people did not support Germany gaining her land back. of course the Nazis overstepped the bounds and annexed other land as well, not just previously German lands. of course the German/Nazi viewpoint/name was biased, but as I said, the rules on the ground are what matter, if the USA/the iraqi gov't was to change the name of Baghdad to freedomville the name would be changed in all the documents published thereafter. for some time the old name would be used, but eventually the new rulers would prevail.

--Jadger 02:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Balcer, but I have to say hear, hear to Jadger's point concerning the Iraq War and the U.S. government's involvement in it, and it's nonsensical pursuit of it, and my pacifistic opposition to it. Old men talking, and young men dying. God forbid that Poland gets more entangled in that mess. As to the rest of the discussion, both of you make good debaters with many points scored by both. Don't know enough about it. The American Civil War is my forté, and I originally never wanted to waste my time in the quarrels that I got entangled in. God knows, I'd love to escape. In addition, somehow this debate needs to leave Erika Steinbach's article's talk page. Cheers Dr. Dan 02:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Fix indexing

You also need to add sort keys when you create articles such as Kedzierzyn-Kozle County, which doesn't need it now since I switched it with your redirect so it now sorts okay without adding the sort key. Gene Nygaard 19:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Please read Wikipedia:NPOV and work towards consensus. Stettiner 21:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:NOR and start presenting solid printed references as evidence (and not unambiguous one-line entries on websites of unknown authorship and credibility). Balcer 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please make yourself familiar with Wikipedia:No original research and understand that Wikipedia is not the place for presenting the world with your own theories on history. Our articles shall be based on credible official sources. Stettiner 21:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The book Germany and the Second World War: Volume V/II: Organization and Mobilization in the German Sphere of Power which I referenced is not "my theory of history", but one of the most reputable references on subject, published in Germany. How can you call referencing such a highly reputable book to be violating WP:NOR? What you are doing, with your extrapolating of an ambiguous one line entry on a politician's webiste, is original research. Balcer 21:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

your reference above refutes your own claims Balcer, the section title that you cited calls it "annexation" and it says it was "officially incorporated into the German Reich". that firmly places Rahmel in Germany in 1943, not in the General Gov't or the office in London that housed the Polish gov't in exile.

--Jadger 02:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The reference says Rumia was occupied, hence the word occupied must be incorporated into the article. And since Germany was not occupying itself, this can only mean that Steinbach was born in occupied Poland. Unless better scholarly references are presented to challenge my reference, this matter is resolved. If you want a different outcome, I suggest you take a walk to the library and start searching for references which will disprove mine. Balcer 02:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

so let me get this straight... you see the word occupied and you ignore the rest of the paragraph and section the word occupied is in? Try getting some context.

--Jadger 20:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

new vote

you stated: "oh no, your idea of restating the vote received exaxtly ZERO support" well, so did the first vote, it came "out of the blue" with no support or discussion beforehand (not that it was fair in the first place. If the one you choose is really superior, you would not be so scared of a vote, please do not remove my edits, you are not an admin. and besides, a new vote was shown to be needed, as no one had voted for supporting the Version 2 (as I called it) after I posted my version, in fact they removed their support for it.

--Jadger 05:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, seriously, read what you just wrote me

"So far, not a single person expressed support for your complaints." Richard removed his support because of my complaints, Dr Dan also supports me, as does Stettiner and Schwarz und Weiss.

"He started the vote, and customarily only he has the power to wrap it up. If you can convince him that the current vote is unfair, maybe he will start a new one" The two votes are not the same, and BTW, I especially like how you said "He started the vote, and customarily only he has the power to wrap it up" I STARTED THIS VOTE, DO NOT REMOVE IT, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT POWER AS YOU JUST STATED.

please stop removing my edits, I have reported you to admins.

--Jadger 05:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Rejoice!

File:Interlingual Barnstar.png		The Geography Barnstar
		For your outstanding works on the powiats on Poland, I had the hard choice of Polish national merit, Tirless contributor or this barnstar: you get this because I think it's the prettiest :) Feel free to brag about it and keep up the good job!  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

LMAO

next time you try claiming I disobey policy/guidelines, make sure that it is actually applicable as wikipedia:Survey notification is kept only for historical purposes and is not actually applicable in any way. If Stettiner is a sockpuppet, then why don't you take it to the necessary authorities to deal with it? everyone has to start out somewhere, every user when they start out is a single purpose account. you have to start somewhere, I would like to point you to Noob where it states "For example, Wikipedia has a firm policy of welcoming all new contributors whether or not their first edits are helpful to an encyclopedia" please, don't bite the newcomers.

--Jadger 03:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, aren't we being mature now? again, you minimize my viewpoint and try to portray it as something it is not, Wikipedia: Snowball clause states under "what the snowball clause is not": Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse, ensures that all arguments are fully examined, and may maintain a sense of fairness. how does that differ from what I am doing? I am asking for fairness, and for all arguments to be examined, only one person has been supportive of it since I have posted my complaints against the vote, while 3 others support me since I have lodged my complaint. Not to mention that the later support vote looks more like my viewpoint than what it is actually supporting. the snowball clause is that there is already a pretty much determined outcome, which cannot be claimed here. If it could be claimed here, than the current vote could also be considered as Snowball claused as the Danzig/Gdansk vote already settled this matter. Admit it, the only reason you don't want a fair vote is because you would lose a fair vote.

--Jadger 03:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bronstein.jpg

Thanks a lot! It seems you are right abakharev 06:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Warsaw Metro

I have a feeling that with proper input, we have an FA sitting in there. Is there anyway to make it a collaboration project, maybe if simultaneousely on Portal:Trains and Portal:Poland? --Kuban Cossack 21:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Start with WP:PR.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:move request

Moge, ale zobacz jaki tam jest dziwny redirect...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for agreeing with my way dealing with 'vote gathering' in Portal Russia. I'm absolutely convinced that IT IS AGAINST wikiguidelines to take advantage of community portals for such dirty aims. If it happens again, please contact an admin, e.g User:Piotrus. I have though myself more than once of taking further actions.Constanz - Talk 14:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It is absolutely not against wikiguidelines to take advantage of community portals for alerting people on votes. One should not advance their own POV. BTW, please don't revert again, you did so 3 times already. Errabee 14:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

And what do you make of rstuff like this then? What is it, if not vote gathering? Ah, double standards, when you're here... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the person in question was a King of Poland for 49 years, so if such a vote cannot be announced on the Polish Noticeboard, it cannot be announced anywhere, I guess. On the other hand, the connection with Russia is rather weak.

I will not revert again, but see my comments on the talk page and please respond. Balcer 14:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Kerensky

Hi. A source showing the mistaken notion of Kerensky being Jewish on the article talk page already existed but it was ignored. I have removed him from a list of Jews he was added to. Most anti-semitic sites put Kerensky as Jewish since he inspires some sort of hatred. See [4]. Reliable stuff, right? Somehow it was derived that Kerensky's real name was Aaron Kuerbis, though that appears to be completely made up.

In all likelihood, your edit on Alexander Kerensky and his removal from the Jewish list will be re-instated. If you manage a discussion with the user removing them concerning the authenticity of whatever given reference calls him Jewish, I will join in. 141.211.251.74 16:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on this article. Please register as a user so you can log in (it is free and takes literally seconds to set up). It will give you access to many features of Wikipedia and make communication with you easier. Balcer 18:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

Vandalising of Kiev by Polish Army in 1920

That's what you called it earlier (sarcastically) on my talk months ago challenging me for "more sources". I hope you did not think I forgot.

Exhausted enough by a Wikistress, I decided tonight to take a retreat into a book which was too neglected on my shelf for too long.

• Template:Uk icon Ольга Друг, Дмитро Малаков. "Особняки Києва" (Mansions of Kiev), К.: Кий, (2004).

Some online reviews: in Knyzhnyk Review (Ukrainian); another one in Zerkalo Nedeli, August 2005 (Russian), (UA version)

This 800+ page monography is the most serious work on the subject. Anyway, the author works all his life in the Museum of Kiev History. I was reading one of the early chapters about the address Instytutska 20/8 (formerly 40), the former residence of the General-Governor of Kiev. I know this location very well along with the built in the 30s house with the unusual park in its courtyard. I knew that the house was built at the location of the former Governor's mansion, the park was a garden in its backyard but I never realy knew what happened to the original mansion. The end of the chapter answers this question. The retreating Polish forces blew up the house at the same time when the wonderful Chain bridge was blown up too.

Now, this was just a house, not a military object and the ref is absolutely solid. More interesting is that I recall that several facilities whose being ruined I mentioned (the info was removed of course) are located in the same neighborhood (Lypky). This is not the book that can be read fast and I am not intereted in scanning it quickly in search for more examples of such vandalism but I thought you would be interested in the ref I found.

I am not editing the articles on the PSW and KO lately because I have yet to compose myself from the feeling of dispair after the barrage that undid so many days of my work. But I will get back to them hopefully soon. --Irpen 10:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you are finding more sources for that sad period in the history of Kiev. If you find more solid evidence, feel free to add it. Still, remember that the whole controversy has started when you (or someone) claimed that vandalism and destruction by Polish forces "made the city unlivable", by destroying water works, electricity plants etc. . Destroying one house is not exactly in that category. And we must be careful about extrapolating from one house to the whole city.

Anyway, this should all first be established in History of Kiev before we do major changes to the Kiev Offensive and related articles. I still wonder, if the "vandalising of Kiev by Poles in 1920" was such a significant event in the history of the city, why does History of Kiev not mention a word about it??? If it occured, it should be added, discussed, and backed up with sources there first.

Also, what "barrage" are you talking about? Kiev Offensive has not been seriously touched in two months at least, for example. Balcer 13:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "more solid". This is a rocksolid source. There is no ref that Poles "destroyed one house". Bridges were priceless for the city located at such a wide river. Both were destroyed. Clearly they destroyed more than that. I had refs that Poles destroyed civil objects despite they claimed that only military objects were invovled. The info was removed because the sources were deemed less reliable than the own statements by the PL gov. I now give another example that the statement that only military objects were destroyed is patently false.

I see your point in adding this to the history of Kiev. However, this article, in whose writing I was significanly involved from the times when this was yet a section in the Kiev article, does not suffer so badly from POV problems like the whole series devoted to PSW.

Kiev offensive was seriously invaded as well as PSW and I just temporary gave up out of desperation.

On the side note, unfounded accusations of other users in personal attacks are personal attacks in themselves. Please do not do it. --Irpen 04:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There is not much point in arguing over this on my talk page. The natural place for this is Talk:History of Kiev. Surely that is the place where one is likely to find editors most knowledgeable about the history of the city.

As for the personal attack stuff, sorry, but accusing someone of being drunk when they made their edit is clearly a personal attack for me. I am really sad that you do not view it this way. Quite frankly, in the light of your comment accusing me of making "unfounded accusations" in this case, I do not think there is much point to continuing our discussions any further. Balcer 04:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Polish Corridor and the Kashubians

I have reacted in the talk page of Polish Corridor to your removing a passge which in my view should remain in the article. Hope we can come an agreement. Adam keller 17:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we can. Maybe I was too hasty in my removal, and should have rewritten it instead. Take a look at my comments on the article's talk page. Balcer 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm noticing this a bit late, but I think this edit was excellent and long overdue. I am happy to see that this message box which has generated lots of ill will and assumptions of bad faith by other users was removed voluntarily, and hope this helps (in the long term) against the bad reputation the Polish board has among some parts of the community. (Personally, I never had much problems with the board, but the notice was a red flag and gave the impression of using the board as a tool in 3RR wars, an impression sterngthened by Molobo's use of it). Thanks again, and happy editing! Kusma (討論) 11:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I was happy to do it. Thanks for the thanks :). Balcer 16:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wielbark (Warmian-Masurian Voivodship)

Jak byś mógł to napisz o tej wiosce w polskiej wikipedii. Pozdrawiam KamSta23 13:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Veto Wikibreak

Please don't let one extremly annoying event or user to get to you. We cannot allow such people to chase valuable contributors like yourself from Wikipedia.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A tak na marginesie, to stresujace dyskusje zniecheca kazdego - jak sie bedziesz do tego ograniczal, to sie nie dziwie, ze ci sie humor psuje. Goraco polecam 'content creation' - utworzenie nowego artykulu i umieszczenie go na DYKu to najlepsze antidotum jakie moge cie zaprezentowac.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, although we haven't interacted much in the past, from what I've seen you're a great editor and a wonderful asset to WP. Hang in there! Appleseed (Talk) 21:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Since we haven't interacted much, I'm quite bold to update your talk page with my otherwise modest remark. While I can understand your mood, I strongly oppose your idea. ;-) In Europe, we go to a spa when in bad humo(u)r. I wonder whether you have visited Salcininkai. --Beaumont (@) 22:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, a wikibreak around Christmas is a very good thing but do not make it to long, you are needed here Alex Bakharev 14:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

After enjoying a useful and enlightening one month Wikibreak, I am back. Thanks for all the kind words, I appreciate them very much. Balcer 01:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you back :-) Happy editing. --Beaumont (@) 16:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

XMAS gift

Lots of good intentions flying around, but not much in the way of useful stuff. Here is a nice template I found to organize your ever-growing collections of awards :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wesołych Boże Narodzenie

--Jadger 20:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Salad'o'meter™
	put barnstars here (no thumb or direction)
	n00b	involved	been around	veteran	seen it all	older than the Cabal itself

Cancelled ISBN in Virtuti Militari

Please see [5] and [6]. I therefore am about to remove the reference to the perpetually "bad" ISBN from the article's talk page. If this is not to your liking, we'll have to come up with something really clever to avoid the article from getting retagged by SmackBot ... Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 02:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Poland

Hi
why are you unhappy with the new Infobox Poland? Did you prefer the old version? I think in the old version there was a lot of information missing. Most international infoboxes have economy information, headlines, etc. If you have a good idea making the box better please tell me!
(Fujicolor 16:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC))
you are right, the Paris box is nicer. unfortunately I am not so good in formatting and I am not able to change this to this handsome design.
The former box was very poor so I tried making it a little better. Even the former information requested for the box were wrong.
As I am German and not too involved in Polish systems I had to find out their administration structure and redesign the box so that it also fits to the Polish needs. Please help (correct) me, if you can:
As I understand Poland is devided in Voidoships. They are devided into powiats (countys). Usually there is a city powiat like Kalisz and a mixed powiat like Kalisz County. (Am I right?). My major problem is, that city powiats are directly devided into districts who are somelike french arrondisments and rural or mixed powiats are devided into communes and then the communes (gmina) are again devided into districts. It is difficult finding a correct way to describe the headlines. Please have a look at Opatowek, Kalisz, Kalisz County
Any ideas?? Any better Wordings?? best regards (Fujicolor 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

Editors that don't provide an edit summary tend to look like vandals

I have noticed you commonly don't enter an edit summary as you didn't when you edited Żarnowiec Nuclear Power Plant (see this edit). This causes me problems. When I patrol for vandalism, I use the summary to make a preliminary decision on whether or not the post is a vandal edit or not. If the summary is present (or at least a section header, the part inside the /* */), I commonly decide the edit is legit and move on.

However, if no edit summary is available, I typically resort to loading the diff for the edit. This takes time. For that reason, if your edits are all valid, I ask that you provide edit summaries. For more on how to enter an edit summary, please read Help:Edit summary.

Incidentally, it is not just me that appreciate having edit summaries. When you omit your summary, you may be telling various bots that you are vandalizing pages. For this reason, please consider providing that summary. It is very important. You can enter that summary via the edit summary box on edit pages (as shown below).

The edit summary appears in black italics in the following places:

• Page history - list of changes to the page you edited
• User contributions - list of all your edits
• Watchlist* - list of recent changes to watched pages (logged-in users only)
• diff page - shows the difference between two edits
• Recent changes - list of all recent edits
• Wikipedia IRC channels - real time list of all edits
• Related changes - list of recent changes to pages linked to the page you edited
• List of new pages: shows the edit summary of the creation.

* Use the enhanced watchlist to see all recent changes in the watched pages, not just the last change in each page.

I know many users think that minor edits don't need summaries. However, you should at least provide a summary that identifies the edit by type (ex: "sp" for spelling changes). Unfortunately, some vandals have noticed that it is very easy and fast to press Tab, Space, and then Enter/Return. Like you edits, they now have the Minor box checked. This is why your edit came up as possible vandalism. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)