User talk:Jacurek

Poles at Arnhem

Hi Jacurek. I'd been looking into getting a good quality copy of that image, but just so you know I don't think its captioned correctly. See the IWM collection here. Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Aren't historical images great? I've seen it in a few books similarly captioned, but of course they all have (IWM Collection) at the end anyway so are presumably just sourcing it from them. I'm kinda inclined to go with the IWM though, there are jeeps in the pic and the Poles at Driel were only para battalions - their gliders landed near Wolfheze. Besides which there's a lot of detail on the IWM page! Any thoughts? I think its ok to use the IWM image (pre 1957 and all that) which might be preferable as it's a lot clearer, so I'll check and upload it in the morning if so. Do you mind if I therefore delete the one you've added afterwards?! Ranger Steve (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you. And thanks for your watching it too. It's a bit of a labour of love I try and fit in when I have time - I can only hope it will come out as well as you think it might! Ranger Steve (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the link. It looks like a very interesting site. I'll have to spend some time there. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 18:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

afd

We talked about this before, this "Spieprzaj dziadu!" article should really be deleted. Do you know how to do an WP:AfD? I have never done one before... Ostap 04:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 25 Ostap 03:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Arnhem Barnstar

Thanks Jacurek, that's very kind of you. Article should be finished very soon, just one more map and some cleaning up to do! Ranger Steve (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it might even be finished... well enough to remove the construction tag anyway Ranger Steve (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Img caption Polish Corridor

[1] I saw you reverted the img caption with the summary "this is not what the description of the picture is. Nalot Niemczyzny 1910-1931". I had copied the caption from the commons description side [2], as it was at the time of your revert. A day later it was vandalized but is now restored. What do you think is wrong with the caption? Skäpperöd (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE

Hi, Skäpperöd just started another WP:AE against me and he also mentioned you Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Loosmark (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions

File:Yellow warning.png

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, "any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

Editors are cautioned that the purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia that approaches its subjects from a neutral point of view. While it is possible for editors with strongly held opposing viewpoints to collaborate and produce neutral articles, it is extremely difficult, and requires editors to be patient, flexible, respectful of their fellow editors, and willing to negotiate and compromise. Editors are further cautioned that when a change to an article becomes contentious, such as through a few early reverts or a strong objection on the talk page, they should stop reverting and discuss on the talk page until a compromise or consensus is reached. Use the content dispute resolution mechanisms including content request for comment, request for third opinion, mediation, or the content noticeboard. Reverting without discussion is very bad. Reverting during discussion is almost as bad, as it shows disrespect to the editors participating in the discussion. Thatcher 11:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans / Warsaw

An RfC has opened about this issue at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II#RfC: Nazi atrocities in Warsaw. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hey Jacurek, I looked at the history of Radio Maryja and saw that you edited it. I don't follow Radio Maryja, but I thought something was a little odd. After reading the article, it seems that aside from being the root of all evil on the planet, RM has also been rejected and reprimanded by the Vatican and the Church in Poland (which it, according to the article, threatens to divide). Is this really the case? Or is this just more biased writing? Please review the article if you have the chance. Thanks, Ostap 05:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Given the quality of other Polish political related articles, I never know for sure. Ostap 02:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Allies of WW2

I'm adding states based on the World War II casualties list. I find it unfair that thousands of people died in a particular country yet their contributions are not recognized.--23prootie (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted one of your edits

at the Expulsion of Germans article, concerning the government linked. See my rationale here - the link you inserted was the wartime government, while the sentence said postwar government. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Your Opinion would be appreciated

I would appreciate your comments regarding the use of sources

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sources for WW2 losses in Asia

Thanks --Woogie10w (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Allies of World War II

Given 23prootie's long history of edit-warring on this article (and others), and failure to abide by consensus views on talk pages, I'd suggest that you lodge an edit-warring report. The most recent report on this editor (which led to a one month block which was sadly revoked after a few hours) is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive104#User:23prootie reported by User:Nick-D (Result: 1 month). Nick-D (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispute at Expulsion of Germans article

Dear Jacurek, I feel you react with too much temper and regard my edits bad-faithed, so I feel obliged to send you this message.

Concerning my reverts: These reverts had nothing to do with the dispute itself. It was merely the restauration of the piped link to the discussion, which I pointed out in both my edit summary and on talk. Please have a closer look at how piped links in templates work and I am sure that after you did so, you will change your mind about my reversions. There was no bad faith or intention to revert war whatsoever, I merely ensured that the piped link works (which it does not if you alter it).

Concerning the disputed sentence: Please understand that it is a very serious matter if (a) the historians on whose works the ranges given in the sentence before are based, and (b) the federal German government to which these ranges are referenced, are wrongly accused of inflating numbers for political reasons. If such a claim is issued, there needs to be an unambiguous solid basis. Eg Overmans' preference for the verified-deaths counting method does not imply that he thinks that th population balance method turns out result inflated for political reasons. We should at least assume that the scholars using the population balance method were doing their research properly and independent, and tried their best to reduce the chance of false positives in the result. We should further accept that the verified-deaths counting method is - per definition - missing the unverified deaths. If we state the methods and the respective attributed ranges, we are well within an NPOV. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Armia Krajowa images

Images are free, or non-free- nothing else. If an image is non-free, its use must meet our non-free content criteria, whether its an album cover, historical image, logo or whatever. If you do not believe that removing images that do not meet our non-free content criteria is helping the encyclopedia, I think you're on the wrong project. I'm not looking for excuses to remove images, at all- if a use is legitimate, I will happily add/cleanup rationales. If a use is not legitimate, then I, like any other editor with a respect for our policies, will remove the image/nominate it for deletion as appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Allies

I reverted your recent changes, and I expect you to provide satisfactory arguments supporting your point before doing further edits of this section. Your very brief comment cannot be considered an explanation, because it doesn't address my arguments, Caranorn's arguments and the section's comment that explicitly states that the USSR was not a Germany's ally.
With regards to Mongolia and Tuva, do you seriously think there were no such states in 1941? If we follow you strategy, we must exclude many Latin American states, because most of them were not fully independent from the USA at that time.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Soviet's were not a Nazis' ally?!? lol. i really wonder why wikipedia attracts so many people with these Alice in wonderland type theories. Loosmark (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot reiterate the same arguments in many places. Try to read that [3] for the beginning.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Estonians are guilty for starting WW2? Man, you embarrasing. Loosmark (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to become a professional historian, to earn high reputation among scholars and to write your own articles in high profile historical journals on that account. But for a while we have to rely on the existing academic sources....--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. Noone says Estonians were guilty. However, the policy of this small country affected, in some extent, the WWII outbreak. Obviously, it was not their intention...--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I gave a wrong link. The section I was talking about was the next section on the same talk page ("Joint military operation?").--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul..I'm sorry to say that but .. you are very wrong. If my argument are not satisfactory to you then nothing will be. ... and the link you provided ?? What is is this? .--Jacurek (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jacurek, am I wrong in general or you mean I am wrong with regards to the alleged Nazi-Soviet alliance? In the latter case, could you please explain me what concretely is wrong? My arguments can be found there [4] (sorry, the previous link was wrong). In addition, the section you edited has the following comment: "PLEASE NOTE: this line has been the subject of persistent misconceptions. please check Talk:Allies of World War II#USSR (the USSR section on talk) and make sure that you are not replicating them if you intend to edit the line. it is probably a wise idea to discuss on that page FIRST, before editing. The USSR was at war with Poland in 1939-41, not any other Allied country ." Additional arguments have been provided by Caranorn there [5]. In addition, the opinions of other editors on the same talk page [6] do not support your edits.
You addressed none of these arguments before making your changes. However, I am ready to discuss your arguments if you put forward some.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

PS With regard to Mongolia and Tuva, the degree of independence of these states is not so clear for me to call them "puppet" states. In addition, whereas the Axis article has a separate section for the puppet states, the Allies articles hasn't, so all states, both puppet and fully independent states listed there together. I see no reason to remove Mongolia and Tuva.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul, I will explain everything on the Allies WW2 talk page maybe tomorrow because I don't have time today.--Jacurek (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, as soon as Indian Empire is among the Allies, I see no reason not to include Mongolia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know Paul.. just adjust to the version you think is correct. For now I'm giving up on this one..--Jacurek (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. If I looked rude during that discussion, please don't be offended. It was not my intention. :)
Cheers,--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
PS. I just presented a modified version of the "Allies gain momentum" section (WWII article). I know you are interested in the subject, so I'll appreciate if you leave your comments there...

Name of Wilno

I feel a little uncomfortable with the fact that only the Lithuanian name is shown in the heading of the article. The Lithuanian name was fist written in the 17th century (and officially introduced only in 1939), while Latin, Belarusian and Polish are far more ancient and original. Do you think it is possible to do any rephrasing, so it will be clear thet Vilnius is rather a new official name and Wilno/Vilna is the ancient and original?--Mikej007 (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mike, the problem is that there are few (2-3) editors here who for some strange reason remove all Polish names from Polish-Lithuanian related articles. This goes back years already and Vilnius/ Wilno is not the only one article with the similar problem. Look at my latest discussion on Ponary (Wilno suburb) here.[[7]] I think that you should make the changes on Vilnius/Wilno page you think are appropriate. I can guarantee you that you will be immediately challenged by the same editors, but many including me will support your changes. I know that this will finally come to the end since it is really ridicules and unheard of in all other articles (Gdansk/Danzig, Wroclaw/Breslau etc.) , but for now this is all we can do until somebody more "important" steps in.--Jacurek (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1.What do you mean by "important'? 2.Unfortunately, many members of my family were murdered in Ponary, so i know the place well. This weekend I will make a private project of adding Polish and Russian names to all Lithuanian related cities. It's ridiculous! Why Kaliningrad is clearly named Koenigsberg - that is not offensive?--Mikej007 (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Important I meant high administrators. Good luck with your project, I'm sure you will have people agreeing with you (other than the obvious of course):)--Jacurek (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

More than that, I will definitely watch those pages and fight, but I think we should arrange a group or something to watch together, we can't let Wiki surrender to nationalistic feelings of some. The Jewish/Polish heritage of Lithuania is important to mr and I won't give up easily--Mikej007 (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Another question - how mad they will be if I add the Polish names of Wilno elderships? Will it survive a hour?--Mikej007 (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Very mad:)..I don't think you will last and hour:)..just make sure you follow all the rules and do not revert...reverting is not the way of solving this problem. Good luck and have fun...don't stress yourself out:).--Jacurek (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by not revert? If they will erase my addings, I will revert. Btw, I am fighting now for Ponary.--Mikej007 (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mike this is not about the fight or win. You can't revert people because this is against the policies and does nothing good to the project. Just be patient and discuss your changes on the talk pages. Please do not revert anymore.--Jacurek (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In Ponary, the changes were discussed, I'm going for semi-protection.--Mikej007 (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Btw, look at Užupis :)--Mikej007 (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

You challenged the accuracy of edits in article Massacres of Poles in Volhynia by deleting them and labelling them dubious. Please explain how this is inaccurate as it is well sourced by a reliable source. Bobanni (talk) 07:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Help in a new article

I wrote today List of Lithuanian Places and I will be happy if you'll help me to improve it and to incorporate it into the right categories. Thank you.--Mikej007 (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User 84.240.27.89

I think user 84.240.27.89 (talk · contribs) is actually M.K, judging by past actions. Just giving you a heads up. 124.190.113.128 (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

yes but its too complicated.. where is a live chat? to talk faster? its complicated... thank you for your help :-) if i make alterations to any articles, then only if i think that they are right. otherwise i wouldnt do it. Each time i make the letters in the article wroclaw of breslau big, then someone makes them small again... but breslau is the name... how can i talk faster? thank u again for the help :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadran91 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Vilnius and feeding a troll

I have been stupid enough to engage myself in a conversation with a troll, who does not contribute anything useful and limits his activities to asking pointless questions. The only way is to ignore all trolls, and I think you will agree with me. Regards. Tymek (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Cracow

"Dan! This is fantastic! We can actually work together! Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)"

Let's keep this going. Kindly look into the Cracow situation. Maybe you can persuade Poeticbent to get on board. That way this waste of time doesn't have to start up all over again. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I will do that.--Jacurek (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat Puzzling

Now that it seems we are moving in a new direction, I wanted to be sure I understood a recent edit summary you posted at the Narutowicz article..."He is a brother of the President of Poland born on the once Polish lands...specifically ...the once Polish lands". Don't recall that being the case, unlike Vilnius. Was Marie Curie born in Poland, or on the once Russian lands? Was Chopin born in Poland or on the once Russian lands? I like this new consensus but it's still new and somewhat fragile. Btw, you realize that due to the relentless efforts by you and Radeksz, you have changed the playing field. I hope you are not chided by any Polish nationalists, as some will especially find Russian toponyms (in Cyrillic to boot) borderline neo-Russification and may object to it. Adding the German versions may not be that easy either, but we are not going to take into consideration "feelings" (regardless of WWII, etc.). Naturally, I'm sure the addition of Yiddish will be welcomed vociferously due to the long standing association of Poland with the Jewish community, and appreciation of its many contributions to Poland. Just the same your Narutowicz edit summary seems strange. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Informal Mediation

A user requested informal mediation for the current dispute at the Paneriai page. Please go here to take part. Please note that in the event you refuse, the end result of this dispute may be penalties for both sides for disruption. Please take part in informal mediation. -- Raziel  teatime  19:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to ask for block of User:84.240.27.89. He reverts without explanations all the time. How do I do that?--Mikej007 (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Look here [8]--Mikej007 (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hans Krüger

I understand your feelings, but such link should be explained in Erika Steinbach.Xx236 (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans after World War II

The article is being rewritten.Xx236 (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I linked Nazi occupied Europe a little further in the same paragraph. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Scurinae

Hi, i don't know if you have noticed it but Scurinae went to badmouth you on the on Thatcher's talk page. [9]. Loosmark (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Collect such diffs and one day it should be enough to make a case about harassment. In other news, please try to keep to a voluntary 2RR on most articles and use the talk to avoid accusations of taking part in an edit war. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the advise, I will.--Jacurek (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Bombing of Wieluń

The structure of the article is absurd, the longest part of it being "The other version' - other to which one?Xx236 (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, I'm trying to fix it.--Jacurek (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion (Vertreibung) is a German ideology used against Poles

The Poles are allegedly responsible for the biggest part of the Expulsion. I have quoted texts about every aspect of this ideology. Xx236 (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I mean your support for Skaperod.Xx236 (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A comment

Just to clarify, Loosmark hasn't been involved in the massacres article in any significant way: [10] so this is not at all about keeping him from making edits; he's hardly making them. It's about making very ugly accusations about me and lowring the tone ofthe discussion which gets in the way of collaborative work. That kind of behavior should not be tolerated.Faustian (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Voivodeships

Thank you very much for help.--Paweł5586 (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Witaj, nie wolno mieszać artykułów o miejscowościach z artykułami o zbrodniach. Co innego historia co innego geografia. W artykule o zbrodni umieszczam tylko lokalizację miejscowości. Rozwinięcie o miejscowości powinno być w osobnym artykule. Czy mógłbyś to wyjaśnić Banduristowi i Bobaniemu?--Paweł5586 (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Bundurust nie chce ze mna rozmawiac, zobacz tutaj[[11]] mozesz dodac swoja comment tam.--Jacurek (talk) 06:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Damy radę. Could you correct my new article--Paweł5586 (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

CfD Nomination

Hi. Thanks for the heads up. The discussion was already closed by the time I went to leave my comments. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 20:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

A mediation case has been opened regarding the Polish-Ukranian WWII dispute. I have picked up that case. Here's the link:

Polish-Ukranian WWII disputes.

If you choose not to participate, please tell me on my talk page. Thanks! :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Nazi-Soviet military parade in Brześć

On September 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nazi-Soviet military parade in Brześć, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You are receiving this notification as you participated in the administrators' noticeboard thread on the issue.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Rosh Hashanah

Wishing you a Happy Rosh Hashanah--Woogie10w (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

The Arbitration Committee recently passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You have been named as one of the parties to this case at the request of the Arbitration Committee, here. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the factual accuracy of any evidence statement, please raise these concerns in your own evidence section or on the talk page. Additions like this are not acceptable. Regards, Daniel (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please comment here

User:Piotrus/ArbCom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

map of camps

why do you change the captions under maps of concentration camps in germany and gg into poland? --Dert45 (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Most camps were located on pre war Polish territories (GG). Regards--Jacurek (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

but some of them were occupied and some annexed directly into germany. it is difference between annexation and occupation. --Dert45 (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it should be described as "Occupied Poland" but feel free to discuss that on related talk pages, I always go along with the majority. Best--Jacurek (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

this disscusion already has taken place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Auschwitz_concentration_camp/Archive_2#location --Dert45 (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

latest edits

Dear Jacurek, your latest edits [12], [13] [14] [15] seem to violate WP:hounding. In this case you removed an external link to the movie Siege (film) by calling it "propaganda". this movie was made by the American journalist Julien Bryan in Warsaw in 1939. It was nominated for The Oscar and is archieved by the Librarian of Congress as "a unique, horrifying record of the dreadful brutality of war" and shows some impressive scenes of the besieged city. It's in fact totally incomprehensible why you call such a movie "propaganda". Please take more care of your edits and edit summaries. Thanks HerkusMonte (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Abkhazia does fit into the category, even though it is not lanlocked and as dependent on Russia as South Ossetia.

Abkhazia has declared independence but its ability to maintain independence is solely based on Russian troops deployed on Georgian territory and Russian aid. Abkhazia, unlike South Ossetia, is not lanlocked as it borders the Black Sea and does not wish to become a part of the Russian Federation through reunification.

Watch your reverting

I'm giving a friendly warning to watch your reverting on West Germany (which has now been full-protected by another administrator) as well as on Expulsion of Germans after World War II. While you will not break 3RR on the former and is not yet at 3RR on the latter, I have to remind you that you may still be blocked for general edit-warring regardless if you broke 3RR or not. I do appreciate, however, that you have went to the talk pages and seem to be participating there. Remember, if a change is going to be controversial or contentious, it doesn't hurt at all to discuss first before making the change in the article. Thank you, and hope that helps, MuZemike 22:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with the warning, but I'd also say you're right. Just be careful. Plus, it's not really *that* important. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you were so keen to point out Matthead's editing restriction, I did some investigating and found that you, too, are under editing restrictions, per here. The restriction is a "discretionary" sanction, which means I get to exercise my discretion in deciding how to react. So for now I'll just say, do not edit war at this or related articles again, or you will be blocked as well. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sticking to voluntary 1RR is a good idea, Jack. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I will.--Jacurek (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacurek for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. WuhWuzDat 17:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jacurek, I also analyzed the above case, and I don't think Tommy on Theems is your sockpuppet. I've erased sockpuppeteer tag from your user page.[16] Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem

Hi. It was no big deal. I'm aware of the mailing list business, and I know you have enough to deal with without worrying about this silliness. Also, sometimes the best defense is a strong offense. :-) Take care, and illegitimi non carborundum. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 00:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

) Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Important discussion!

Oh wait, there isn't one. I saw someone complaining about you, made a comment, then that was it. You started casting aspersions so I replied. You are biased. Who gives a good god damn that when to germans invaded poland, the soviets did too? What does that have to do with Roman Polanski? Nothing. You may as well say "During the period following WWII when the United States and Great Britain allowed the Soviet Union to sponsor communism in Poland." Its irrelevant in every possible way. WookMuff (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

First, calm down. Second, I already explained on the Roman Polanski talk page why this information is important in my opinion[[17]] and you have a right to disagree. O.K.?--Jacurek (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

First, I am very calm, you can't judge mood or context very well over the internet. Second, I am here because you asked me to come here before you said THE END. So, THE END WookMuff (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This: Important discussion! does not look calm to me. Is there anything else you want to talk about?--Jacurek (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I just don't understand all this nationalistic stuff and I am glad I don't suffer too badly with it, some of this situation could be a reflection from the list which J, was a member of. That sock puppet tag and case and the fact that the user reporting the 3rr was not involved but reported you for some other reason, perhaps you could avoid a block by offering to accept a voluntary 1RR condition for a month or something like that, if not, anyway that block should not be long. Perhaps no block at all, I don't know, but you have violated the 3RR. Off2riorob (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Old opponents trying to set me up, that is all. Thanks for your comment.--Jacurek (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What I worry about is that in my opinion I'm being followed around by somebody or group of people who are trying to set me up, see my comment above

Maybe you should ask yourself what you are doing wrong that you piss people off to the point they allegedly form a Cabal and stalk you, waiting for you to break wikipedia policy and then pouncing? WookMuff (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion

Please see the recent edit history of Volksdeutsche and its talk page. This is a potentially difficult situation; your help is appreciated. Feketekave (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please confirm your agreement to a 1RR

You seem to have violated the WP:3RR rule at Roman Polanski. You may be able to avoid a block if you will confirm your adherence to a voluntary 1RR, which is hinted above at User talk:Jacurek#Watch your reverting. If you choose to accept this restriction, you can avoid being blocked for the Polanski 3RR case, but admins will be expecting you to adhere to the rule in future. I suggest that you agree to accept this restriction for three months. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Ed suggestion has merit. I'd advice Jacurek to accept it. If you think that there are other users edit warring with you on those articles, you may ask Ed to review their editing patterns to see if similar voluntary restriction wouldn't be appropriate for them as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course I agree, I will even do it for longer than 3 months. What about 6 months? I agree to 6 months starting now, (October 11, 2009) My question is: What about the sock puppet account somebody was trying to frame me into?[[18]] Will that be addressed as well?--Jacurek (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi

Hello Jacurek. Some IP editors seemed to be reverting your user page to include a sock template, so I have semiprotected the page. If you disagree, please let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that.--Jacurek (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User Jacurek (copy for a WP:RFC link)

Despite this user agreeing to a 1RR, twice today he has edited the London Victory Parade of 1946 article in a way which seems very much like reverting: once he yet again removed the word 'claims' with regard to invitations to Polish forces; the second time he reverted to a version which was made by another editor but which does not say what the sources given actually say (i.e. the article says "almost all" while the sources say "all").Varsovian (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ed, I did not revert twice[[19]]. First was just a regular edit[[20]]. In fact, as I promised, I'm being very careful not to revert twice on every article. User Varsovian is focusing on me from the very beginning[[21]] of his sudden appearance on Sept. 28 2009 and I suspect that this is his whole purpose[[22]]. He is constantly trying to provoke me into the controversial discussions or edit wars and if this does not work then he falsely accuses me of breaking my promise now. I keep asking him to leave me alone[[23]] but he just keeps "hitting me" over and over and over and now this false accusation. I feel very much harassed by him. Please check his edit history. In fact he is the one who is edit warring there[[24]], reverting other editor but calling my name trying to create impression that it was me who made the changes he reverted. Is behavior like this acceptable? Please review his edits on the article including the talk page as well as my edits to see that I DID NOT reverted twice anywhere since my promise. Thanks and regards.--Jacurek (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek, thanks for continuing to be careful. Since you are following 1RR you might learn how to create WP:RFCs. Regarding Varsovian, I suggested that he try to avoid the articles you edit for a while. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, this is very useful link. No problem, I will do what I have promised, it is actually good for me and keeps me out of potential trouble. As far as Varsovian, I'm not interested in going after him or proving that he in fact is not a new user as he claims etc, etc. I just want him to stop focusing on my person. So far my impression is that since September 28 registration of account Varsovian the user was more interested in talking to me, making changes I would not like or finding something inappropriate in my behavior rather than constructive contribution. Since EE malling list "earthquake" I have been attacked by some strange IP's or new accounts few times already and I truly believe than Varsovian is an account created specifically to provoke me and get me in trouble. If I'm wrong and I will see that in a year or two Varsovian becomes actually active contributor with rich edit history I will apologize to him for what I'm saying now but today this is honestly what I think about him/her.--Jacurek (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice Ed but I do feel that I am not 'bothering Jacurek'. I am attempting to stop him from editing incorrect information into an article, information which specifically does not reflect what the sources he provides say. So far he has accused me of being a sockpuppet [[25]], of editing in bad faith [26] (twice on that single page) and has called me a troll [27] and implied that I am a liar [28]. Is any of that acceptable under WP policies?

I have attempted to engage him in dialogue so that we can amicably resolve the differences which we have about this article and work together (I assume this is what is meant by "collaborative editing environment") but he refuses to discuss anything and continues to be incivil to me. I continue to assume good faith on his part but he continues to claim that I exist solely to provoke him [29]. He says "He is constantly trying to provoke me into the controversial discussions or edit wars" and that he wants me to "stop focusing on [his] person" but if you actually look at my history you will see that there is a grand total of one article which Jacurek and I have both edited, so much for edit wars. You will also see that there is only one discussion which I have attempted to engage him in: the one about that article! If I wanted to provoke him into edit wars, I wouldn't discuss anything: I'd just edit articles and refuse to discuss why I'd changed his edits. I'm not doing that, although he is editing my work and refusing to discuss his changes.Varsovian (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)