User talk:Lysy

River question

Hi there, can you help me figuring out the Polish name for a river Lithuanians call Juodoji Ančia (Juodoji means black)? If you see at the bottom of this map, it flows into Neman on the border with Belarus and flows for a little while on the Polish-Lithuanian border. Any ideas? Renata 13:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Czarna Hańcza. --Lysy^talk 13:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Merkinė

I changed the pictures back, because I think that they look much better on the right. However, I have started a discussion on the talk page, so maybe we can discuss, if you still feel they are wrong. Athletes Foot 13:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Jan Dzierzon, the Ethnic Pole

I think ethnic pole needs to be added, because if one says he was a german citizen, but considered himself a pole, does that mean he thought he was a polish citizen? makes no sense, that's about as wikipedia worthy as the nonsense coming from the dillusional man running around downtown with placards sayin the world is going to end.

--Jadger 01:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be my poor grasp of English, but for me "ethnic Germans" has a post-Nazi flavour of racial theories to it. I've also never heard the term "ethnic Pole" before. I thought there were "Poles" or "Polish" (people who identified themselves with Polish nation) and "Polish citizens" (those formally having Polish citizenship). The latter of course would not make sense in 19th century. Anyway, just asked. --Lysy^talk 07:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

for the most part, "ethnic" usually means someone that identifies as belonging to that group. seeing as there was no Poland at the time, one could not be a Polish citizen, but it is confusing to say, He was German, but also Polish. perhaps we could use the term Polish-German, as that is more common these days, as I am German-Canadian, and English-Canadian, etc. etc. The citizenship/nationality coming second. We could even start a category of Polish-Germans to stop some of the racial arguing over people like Copernicus

--Jadger 11:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting (and tempting) idea, but I'm sure there would be many, who'd immediately oppose that. Hmm, I don't know.--Lysy^talk 12:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys! Unless someone was academically "challenged", it would almost be absurd to deny that Dzierżon, was ethnically Polish. Although I have seen many instances of certain editors and groups of editors try to deny the ethnicity of various persons on WP. Calling some one an ethnic German has nothing to do with nazism, any more than calling someone an ethnic Pole has to do with Sarmatism. It is very appropriate to acknowledge a person's ethnicity especially in areas (like Empires), which were usually multi-ethnic. My two cents. Dr. Dan 15:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

why would Polish-German to be so unnacceptable to you Lysy? I havent heard any reasons why it would be unacceptable, but I would like to hear them as I can't think of any.

--Jadger 02:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, actually I would not mind it. Ideally, however, I would leave the article as it is: Polish by ethnicity, German by citizenship. --Lysy^talk 06:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Krzysztof Celestyn Mrongowiusz

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:

1. Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion notice(s)
2. Make your case on the article's talk page.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. John Reaves 10:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I only "throw vandalism accusations around" to vandals, such as yourself. Your not allowed to remove speedy deletion tags. The content removal was accidental, I just reverted without looking. John Reaves 10:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

Can you help out with the answer. If a student was studying medicine at the University of Warsaw, in let's say 1880, was the instruction in Polish or Russian? Dr. Dan 16:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Warsaw University, in 1880 = Russian. I don't know if medicine was still taught there in 1880 but I'm almost sure it was. --Lysy^talk 17:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

See Warsaw_University#1857-1869 and following section. I still need to read how the situation looked after the January Uprising - i.e. if the universities were closed for some time, or not. For example, what happed with WU from 1865 (end of uprising) till 1870 ('Imperial University of Warsaw' begins)? I am 99% sure that it was closed from 1831 to 1862, though. On a related note, women were banned from universities (which is why Maria Curie-Skłodowska had to leave the Russian partition...) for most of that period, I am not sure if it they were allowed to universities before 1917.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it continued until 1869, when (1870) it was replaced by Russian University, which had Russian faculty and was boycotted by Polish students. So if Dr. Dan asked about 1880, it would definitely be in Russian. --Lysy^talk 08:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The pl article has better dates, although it's still somewhat confusing: zamknięcie Szkoły po Powstaniu styczniowym w 1869; the date is also confirmed at pl:Szkoła Główna Warszawska But... the Uprising ended in 1865, didn't it? So the logic is somewhat strange... repressions 4 years after the end of fighting? And yes, there is no doubt that in 1880 the language would be Russian.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Might be, the policy of the post-uprising repressions lasted for a number of years. --Lysy^talk 17:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you look...

...at my question at Talk:Vilnius University? Perhaps you've some materials to answer it. PS. A jak rozszerzysz Krzysztof Celestyn Mrongovius, to mozna by zDYKowac :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

axis article

which ones of my edits are factually incorrect? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.84.237.99 (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Actually all of them. I've explained it in the edit summary of the article. --Lysy^talk 08:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for welcoming me on wikipedia and posting the "help /orientation site" on my talk page --Sushi Leone 13:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Memories of Universal Victimhood

on the Talk Page of the Expulsion of Germans after World War II article, I provided a link to [[an article]characterizing the Expulsions meme as a framing of the German experience as a "shared victimhood". Nobody has responded. Would you take a look at the article and give me your opinion?

Thanks.

Richard —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 19:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

"commonly quoted" estimates of deaths in Expulsion of Germans after World War II

Hi,

I understand why you deleted the sentence regarding "commonly quoted". Here's what I was trying to communicate to the reader.

The range of estimates runs from 500,000 (Haar?) to 3 million (U.S. Congressman Reece - 1957). However, the range of estimates that seem to be given widest credence are 1.1 million (Overmans?) to 2.2 million (Center against Expulsions). I was trying to point the reader towards the 1.1 million to 2.2 million. Perhaps this is not appropriate.

I was responding to objections that Reece's 3 million number was ludicrously high (perhaps it was). I also have the sense the Haar's estimate of 500,000 may be too low. Do we have a way of evaluating these various estimates? I don't mean that we should do the evaluation (that would be OR) but can we somehow communicate that the mainstream opinion runs between 1.1 million and 2.2 million with 500,000 and 3 million being extremes at both ends of the range?

--Richard 20:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Adalbert von Winkler

Likely will interest you :) PS. ...belong to us, but the ref goes over me? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On January 12, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Christoph Mrongovius, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

This article kindly nominated by Piotrus. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Zadymy

Good for you then. AAMoF I did not return yet, I merely had a day or two off and wanted to take a look at how's the business going. I filled two or three translation requests from the Lithuanian noticeboard (no wonder the Lithuanian ultras didn't like them, I bet they wanted some hagiographic articles), added a word here and there. However, I'm definitely not in a right mood to correct all the idiotic things done by you-know-whom in all the articles. Sure, this would mean that instead of NPOV in Polish-Lithuanian articles we'd end up with extreme nationalist Lithuanian POV instead (Vilnija anyone?), but what the heck. They want it - let them have it (at least for a while). We too had our Space Cadet period in Polish-German relations, didn't we. //Halibutt 22:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Soviet-Lithuanian Treaty of 1920, was selected for DYK!

On January 15, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Soviet-Lithuanian Treaty of 1920, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 23:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI

the anon user 216.171.96.18 is the same user as the 131/Serafin fellow. he uses the 216 address when at a different location. he has used it a couple of times now. He has now started removing other user's comments [[1]]. Just thought you should know that you are still dealing with the same troublemaker here.

--Jadger 00:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, as I have said before, his being Polish or German did not have any effect on the reason he is notable. It is indeed frustrating to think we could better spend our time expanding articles and improving Wikipedia, but instead we are stuck in this muddy trench warfare kind of thing where we have to repeat the same thing over and over to no end. I think Wikipedia needs stronger rules admin that are willing to use it to its full authorization.

--Jadger 01:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head there with your concise statements. I agree totally with everything you have said. 131 has not learned from his multiple blocks and so a longer one is needed I feel, not a Molobo-esque block, but one that will atleast teach him that what he is doing is unnacceptable. This is worse than the common vandal, as this person is tenacious and has an agenda, whereas the common vandal is just pulling a prank once or twice, not nearly as disruptive as this user has been. There has been one benefit to his edits though, I now have more respect for the users I have previously opposed, and my opinion of them is much better than it was previously.

--Jadger 03:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Geographic names

Did you look at Khoikhoi's last edit before you reverted to it?

It's a different issue altogether. He is now questioning the position, consensus at Talk:Istanbul and elsewhere, that we should use Istanbul, not İstanbul, when English spells without the diacritic. There may be disagreement on how far that extends; but there has been repeated agreement on the principle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

User:LUCPOL

I just want to ask you if you would be willing to help me stop User:LUCPOLs wikipedia propagandist and compulsive lieing spree, ive made a report but im not yet finished....here it is User:R9tgokunks\User:LUCPOL-- Hrödberäht 06:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Message 22Jan07

You have a message from me @: [2]--131.104.218.46 20:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My revised perspective on the expulsion of Germans after World War II

When I started getting involved with this page last year, I assumed that the central debate was related to whether or not the expulsions were justified. It seemed more or less accepted fact that the estimates of deaths were somewhere between 1.1 million and 2.2 million.

Recently, however, comments by a number of editors have led me to believe that the number could be much lower (400,000-500,000 per Haar and Overmans). Moreover, it seems there is no easy way to estimate what the "excess number of deaths" might have been over the death rate that would have occurred if the expulsions never happened.

The above is a brief summary of a discussion that is taking place on Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II under the section heading "Uncertainty of estimates of deaths".

Would you please read the discussion and then give me your opinion either on the article talk page, my talk page or via e-mail?

Thanx.

Richard —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 00:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

RE:Jadger/Expulsion

I do not think it is a personal attack, I pointed out his fallacious argument, and made a comment on it. It may have been uncivil, but my patients is growing thin with him. I am also at the current moment combatting a very disruptive mad-at-the-world-so-the-USA-is-to-blame teenager so some of my exasperation has spilled over onto here. I am sorry if any of my comments come off sounding aggressive, but right now my personal life is kind of in a crisis stage, so I am more flustered and it will probably show in my edits. bear with me please.

--Jadger 05:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lysy, I would like to direct you to user:jadger/draft expulsions where I made a exact copy of the Expulsions article as the first edit in the history, then I edited and added some things from there. I did this so you can see all of the changes that have been made from the actual article by comparing the oldest and newest version. It is still a work in progress, your own additions and comments are asked for.

--Jadger 15:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

On your continues removal of referenced information

Stop removing referenced information like you doing on Vilnius University. Thank you. M.K. 16:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all this is not the "single POV". Didn't you tried at least google books, (which are preferred by many Polish "researchers") to check this "single POV"? Btw, I see nice timing [3]; [4]. And such "acidental" timing occurs for while now in different disputed articles. Coincidence? And yes, you can drop me a biographical index of English books there your POV concurred on occupation. M.K. 17:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you meant by your "nice timing" comment, but Piotrus is not a sockpuppet of mine if this is what you're suggesting. --Lysy^talk 08:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, I do not accuse you for suckpuppetism; if I do your name and suspected sock would be on display in check-user dir. But lets me explain that I have in mind. You see, for some time you and user:Piotrus started rotating campaign of reverts, just look - [5][6] [7] [8] and so on. So my question - what tools you both using to coordinate your reverting campaign on articles - msn, google? M.K. 11:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither I have asked Piotrus for help nor brought the article to his attention. If I needed help with this particular article, I would be rather asking Lithuanian editors for it. --Lysy^talk 11:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Lysy, lets leave it as you say. M.K. 11:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop your personal attacks

Stop your personal attacks, such as this [9]. Thank you. M.K. 09:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, where do you see personal attack in this ? --Lysy^talk 10:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Replayed on VU talk. M.K. 10:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)