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)

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)