User talk:Volunteer Marek

Lechia

The day [this happened], I checked the sources and it seems plausible. Now undabbing I came across it again. Just for me to know... don't you think the author is right ? My best regards to you and Piotrus....:) ! Oh by the way, Prussian Homage (painting) deserves a GA don't you think ? Krenakarore ^TK 20:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Lech" <--> "Ledzianie" connection is only one of numerous theories and not even the most popular one. Even the connection between "Laesir" (and variants") and "Lechia" is not very well established. You can cherry pick a source which is supportive of this (these) theories - which is what the user did here - but most sources dismiss them as flights of fancy.VolunteerMarek 05:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Project proposal

Hi, I write because I have an idea for a wikiproject that would focus on news events of the kind that doesn't fall under the WIkipedia:In the News categories - that is news that are interesting for people who care about something other than sports, distasers or international politics. Currently there is no place on wikipedia to find news of cultural events or events that are primarily of interest for specific minorities or subcultures in the world (including subcommunities interested in academia, music, arts, or literature). The aim of this project would be to get articles that are newsworthy but doesn't fit the current ITN criteria featured on the main page - and to promote awareness of topics outside of the sports-politics-disaster triangle. I was thinking you might be interested.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poland project tags

I assume you are tagging milhist article with Polish task force articles with WPPOLAND template. I think that for case where Polish involvement was small, like here, we don't need a WP:POLAND template. Currently this article pops up in the Top 20-30 most popular articles in Poland WP scope, which I don't think sounds reasonable (just like the case of Russian tsars we discussed recently). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, feel free to change it though in a lot of these cases it's really a judgment call.VolunteerMarek 23:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jo0Doe on commons

The second half of this thread: [1] shows that he is active on a Russian website devoted to among other things outing wikipedians. If he's not banned from commons, would his participation in that site be a bannable offence?22:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:copy vio

I really don't know what you are talking about. It's not copied "verbatim" from the source, just the quotations of leaflets and newspapers are (properly) cited, and that's how it should be. Please don't remove content just because you don't like it. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:PARAPHRASE.VolunteerMarek 19:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"but the text is copied word for word from the source" - please show me what exactly is copied "word for word". HerkusMonte (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright it's not 100% word for word, but 99.5% or something. One more time - read the links I gave you. Here is the relevant part in WP:CV:Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure (this can also raise problems of plagiarism). Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues.. In other words, you can't omit an adverb or two and then claim it's not a copyright violation.VolunteerMarek 19:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You still didn't tell me which parts exactly are "copied". It's rather obviously your attempt to remove things you don't like from the article. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're asking. The parts which were copied are the parts which I removed, obviously.VolunteerMarek 20:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There’s nothing "obvious" here, you should simply take a closer look at WP:PARAPHRASE:

"Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with quotation marks, if direct quotation; without, if indirect), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text ...together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph."

The quotations of newspapers and leaflets are used with quotation marks and clearly attributed, thus not affected by WP:copyvio. What remains are a few sentences to connect these quotations.

"Polish nationalists viewed the Settlement Commission as an attack by "Germans and Jews".

Which is based on

"Polish nationalists protested the German Settlement commission as an assault by "Germans and Jews."

I don’t think this is a copyvio especially as

"Close paraphrasing is also permitted when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing. In general, sentences like "Dr. John Smith earned his medical degree at State University" can be rephrased "John Smith earned his M.D. at State University" without copyright problems."

Further on we have:

"In 1912 a leaflet warned that "...(quotation) "

based on

"At a 1912 demonstration against the commssion, Polish nationalists distributed leaflets warning..."

hardly a copyvio.

And finally

"Polish newspapers published the names of those who bought at Jewish or German merchants and claimed that "..(quoation) " were recorded, "..(quotation)"."

an abstract of

"Local Polish papers published the names or initials of local residents who purchased goods from local German or Jewish merchants, seeking to direct public opprobrium to these supposed traitors of their nation: "The Misses B.", wrote one paper, "are patronizing the Jews. Is this a proper way to show respect for their recently deceased mother?" Another Polish newspaper claimed to keep a "black book" in which it recorded "the names of those who for a Judas penny have sold their land into the hands of the colonization commission ... in order that our posterity may know of the infamous deeds of these betrayers of their country"."

Please specify your concerns. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, look, it's obvious that no matter what I say you're not going to take my word for it. Why don't you get a second opinion then, for example from User:Moonriddengirl who deals a lot with copyright issues? VolunteerMarek 15:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk archives

Where are yours...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Happened across this, thought I'd respond! This user doesn't keep any. Nik thestoned 14:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's was mostly laziness but then I realized, why keep'em anyway? Isn't that what the "history" tab is for?VolunteerMarek 22:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee Review

Please be advised that the Arbitration Committee has now opened a Review of the background relating to the Request for Amendment at which you submitted a statement. A Review is a streamlined version of case, with a short window for presenting evidence.

The Committee invites any evidence you may wish to give directly related to any of the following matters:

Is Mathsci engaging in improper conduct in respect of Ferahgo the Assassin?
Is Mathsci being harassed by socks?
Should Mathsci be pursuing socks in the R&I topic?
Are the contributions of Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam, outside of article space, functionally indistinguishable?
Should Ferahgo the Assassin be site-banned coterminously with Captain Occam per WP:SHARE?

Evidence should be presented on the review evidence page and should be posted by 26 March 2012 at the very latest.

For the Arbitration Committee

Mlpearc (powwow) 16:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Alfred Jahn

On 18 March 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alfred Jahn, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1968 the rector of Wrocław University, Alfred Jahn, supported students who were striking against communist censorship and lost his position as a result? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alfred Jahn.You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Western betrayal

Don't we have a policy against making prejudiced comments on Wikipedia? Comments like this are offensive.[2] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For starters it falls under NPA as well as the "Direct rudeness" part of WP:Civlity (personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;). Frankly, the only reason I haven't reported Malick78 for these statements is because I thought that trying to ignore him was the best course of action, but he's been following me to various articles and making those statements, and also because I actually really dislike reporting people (even when it's justified it makes me feel a bit dirty, in a "fink" kind of way).VolunteerMarek 22:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And just in case you were wondering whether or not those statements are part of the pattern look at [3], which he created *just now*. Now, that's potentially a notable article, but it's also obvious that this user is going around trying to just piss people off (myself included) with provocative edits/articles. Actions like these are the very definition of "trolling" (and of course trolls usually do try to find a legitimate excuse to hang their trolling on - but it's still trolling).VolunteerMarek 22:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Quest, is Western betrayal a topic of interest to you? Have you studied accounts of the negotiations and promises, particularly FDR and Stalin? Just checking. A fire burns out faster if left alone, it takes longer if you stir the smoldering ashes. Just saying. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@V??rum?? (sorry, this is what a copy and paste from IE to TextPad did to your name.): This is a topic of moderate interest to me. I enjoy reading about and watching documentaries on WWII. I have no idea what your last 2 sentences mean. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to you for jumping to conclusions without having done any appropriate homework (including not doing something as simple as checking the current state of the article). What prompted me to suppose ownership was having found your removals of what you call "trolling". They may indeed be that. But no one should ever simply delete another editor's posts on a talkpage - or edit them in any way (other than simply reformatting for clarity, as needed). Usually the best way to deal with angry crap is to just ignore it, and let it speak for itself. If someone is actually following you around to bug you, report it.

Separately, I am still concerned about POV. I tend to think the title itself, while obviously POV, is okay as it stands. But I would rewrite the lead to say, instead of

Western betrayal, also called Yalta betrayal, is a term that refers to a range of critical views concerning the foreign policies of the United States, United Kingdom and France between approximately 1919 and 1968 regarding Central Europe.

something more like

"Western betrayal" is a term that is used to refer to a range of critical views concerning the foreign policies of the United States, United Kingdom and France between approximately 1919 and 1968 regarding Central Europe.

The reference to Yalta needs to come out of the lead because it cannot apply to the period 1919-1944, and should be introduced further down in the article. Putting quotes around the term helps with the POV problem, and I also think the phrasing "a term that is used to refer to" sounds much less POV than "a term that refers to". I first came to this article from the query posted at MoS; I'm not unfamiliar with the history and arguments concerning the "betrayals", but do not have good enough expertise for jumping into the editing fray myself. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You made this revert, please see Talk:Western betrayal#March 2012 I asked for a source to back up your editorial statement. A reply on that talk page would be appreciated and perhaps could help with the development of the article. -- PBS (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make this an opportunity to unhate!

The Fæ classy in crisis LGBT ally Barnstar!

Recently there was some anti-gay hate here on wikipedia and you worked to unhate. Because we need to show our overwhelming support of what people hate on to create unhate whenever it shows up. I compel everyone that supports unhate to repost this on their user page or talk page and especially on any page that has been the location of LGBT harassment or ignorance, that way the haters will know the only consequence of their hate will be more gayness and education and community. Congratulations on being an unhater! LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

News

Check out my Sandbox for a taste of how I think the news idea might work. I created the two main articles for that news entry today based on news coverage. (Liu Lu and David Seetapun). I've taken the project live at WP:Small News.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. How frequently would the articles be swapped out? In other words, what kind of article improvement/creation frequency are we looking for here? Also, how will the project be made more visible?VolunteerMarek 23:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking that the articles won't be swapped - the box is a scroll box so they will eventually go down to the bottom - out of view. Perhaps when the project becomes popular with updates every day we can start pruning the list according to some criteria we'd establish. I am not sure how to attract editors and improve visibility - ideas are welcome let's move to the project talkpage?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good.VolunteerMarek 23:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you DARE erase info from MY talk page

Here you erased info from my talk page. For someone who has told ME not to come to your talk page, and someone who claims that I AM stalking you - to erase others' comments from MY talk page is just amazing. If you dislike what someone has said on my page, you tell me that and I'LL DECIDE whether to delete it or not.

And regarding your comments above about my sandbox - the fact that you noticed a change on my page so quickly suggests, again, that YOU are the one with the unhealthy interest in ME.Malick78 (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As per here, please don't delete edits - even on your own page - unless they break the rules. I fail to see what was wrong with the above. What rule did it break exactly? Malick78 (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I will not stay off your talk page. You came to mine and deleted sb's comment. That is unacceptable. Also, deleting my comments from your page is, in my understanding, not allowed. Please leave a link to the policy that allows you to delete my comments from your talk page on my talk page please. Or here. Up to you. I will reinstate my posts on this page until you show me why you have the right to delete them.Malick78 (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]