User talk:Volunteer Marek
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Thanks
Thanks for your help on the Rodolfo Herrero article. Ramon4 (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Namibian war
Look, if you're surmising I am taking this discussion because I would want to exonerate the German army you're completely in the wrong lane. My concern is the value and reliability of the site, not to push some agenda. When I'm making points about fallacious editing leading to flimsy and false statements, edit wars and agenda writing, please recall that this is a place where anyone can edit more or less anything and people like to push in strongly worded, even sweeping statements on things they feel powerfully about, or think they "know". They don't risk anything by doing that because everyone is anonymous here, and no one has a reputation or a known job to protect, but that also makes things a bit harder than when you're discussing a subject in a circle of people where everyone knows everyone and one can count on that people are circumspect about things. Strausszek (talk) 07:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- I am not inferring anything about your intentions. But you do seem to be arguing that the term found in many reliable sources and encountered throughout the academic literature should not be used. And that's what I am disagreeing with.radek (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, genocide is a heavy word and that's why people like to use it. And once a story has landed in the news media, in political circles or "in the buzz" it tends to multiply, so you might get hundreds of "citations" and pieces that all seem to imply it was genocide but very few of which are based on any real scrutiny of what happened, of documents and testimonials on the event (in this case, too, much of the surviving evidence is most likely oral). The "recognition" by the German government doesn't look too grounded on any deep investigations of what happened, it should be seen as a political act to get a budding issue out of the way and to build good relations with Namibia and neighbouring South Africa. Strausszek (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but the link I provided on talk page is to academic sources which DO in fact engage in real scrutiny of what happened. Also, the point with the German government was rather that they've been reluctant to recognize it as genocide (partly because the Herero are themselves still persecuted in Namibia and hence unable to organize effective international pressure).radek (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, genocide is a heavy word and that's why people like to use it. And once a story has landed in the news media, in political circles or "in the buzz" it tends to multiply, so you might get hundreds of "citations" and pieces that all seem to imply it was genocide but very few of which are based on any real scrutiny of what happened, of documents and testimonials on the event (in this case, too, much of the surviving evidence is most likely oral). The "recognition" by the German government doesn't look too grounded on any deep investigations of what happened, it should be seen as a political act to get a budding issue out of the way and to build good relations with Namibia and neighbouring South Africa. Strausszek (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
DYK for First Battle of Rellano
|
On April 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article First Battle of Rellano, 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, quick check ) 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. |
Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Second Battle of Rellano
|
|
On April 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Second Battle of Rellano, 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, quick check ) 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. |
Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Confederate war finance
I'm having a great deal of difficulty in determining whether the good article review nomination process has been completed or is still unfinished, and if the former, where we should include our comments... AnonMoos (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I just nominated it and it looks like it hasn't been picked up yet, which means the good article review process hasn't begun yet. So no page to make comments yet. Of course you can let me know here or on the article talk page any concerns you have.19:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, my main general overall concern is that the article isn't really coordinated with article Economy of the Confederate States of America... AnonMoos (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- That article is more general. It's about the Confederate economy as a whole, whereas this one's about how the South paid for its military operations. The sections on "Money" and "Government Revenues" contain some overlap, and in general my sense is that they present essentially the same or similar info, just at different levels of detail (except my article's a little better sourced ;)). If you have suggestions on how to coordinate the two articles these would be much appreciated.radek (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
BLP contest
May be of interest: Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/Contest. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Jan Dzierzon
Imie i nazwisko Dzierzona zostalo zmieniona na Johann Dzierzon, to jest pisownia niemiecka. Britanica podaje Jan Dzierżoń (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/175400/Jan-Dzierzon) i tak powinno byc. Rowniez tu (http://bees.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=bees;idno=5017629) angielskie tlumaczenie pracy Dzierzona podaje Dzierżon, Jan. Czy skontaktowales sie z museum w Kluczborku, albo przeczytales dowody i fotokopie w podanych pracach Brozka, Gladysza i ks. Mazaka? Pomijanie zrodel polskich jest niedopuszczalne. Ci ktorzy chca zmieniac artykul powinni uznac wage zrodel polskich wage a nie lawirowac na drugorzednych przekladach i niepelnych zrodlach. Podane tez sa wspolczesne artykuly w prasie polskiej i napisane przez Polakow. Trzeba je wniesc do tekstu. Niech chociaz bedzie widoczne ze spoleczenstwo polskie ma silne zdanie na ten temat. Podaje Ci e-mail jezeli chcesz powaznie pracowac bez udzialu szpiegow: erudra@hotmail.com. --Soujdspo (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Bierz zawsze pod uwage ze: 1) w okresie Bismarck'a zniemczano imiona celowo 2) Poszukiwania liczbowe zapisu imion na internecie sa falszywka - autorzy wtedy i dzisiaj powtarzaja to co zostalo zniemczone i wprowadzone w pismie, clowo, przez nieuwage lub niewiedze. Jedyna droga czy jego imie powinno byc pisane Jahann czy Jan jest stwierdzenie ze Dzierzon uwazal sie za Polaka i kultywowal polskos, i tak jest zgodnie z dokumentami opisanymi w pracach Brozka, Gladysza i ks. Mazaka etc. --Soujdspo (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC) --Soujdspo (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)