User talk:Volunteer Marek

		The 100 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Congratulations on your steady stream of well-researched articles, in which more than 100 have appeared on the Main Page. Well done my friend. Poeticbent talk 10:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

		The Purple Heart Barnstar
		Za całokształt.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 20:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Eustachy Trepka

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Stanisław Murzynowski

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Hieronim Malecki

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Battle of Myadel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Polish-Lithuanian

Battle of Vilnius (1655) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Janusz Radziwiłł

Hieronim Malecki (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rector

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for great copy editing. My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, no problem and I'll keep an eye on it as you keep working. Be sure to DYK it. Volunteer Marek  21:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Then it will need more work. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup

Persecution by Muslims, quite right, obviously intended to push a POV. I may get to it another time, but right now I don't have the time or the spoons to deal with that AfD, given Wikipedia's own Muslims Are Evil machine. Dealing with the deliberate ignoring of policy becomes very tiresome. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that the article I tagged is Persecution by Muslims, not "of", though it looks like the other article might have some issues as well. Volunteer Marek  13:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. I meant the one you tagged, typo on my part. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean OR?

The reader that can see the clarication of the text. Or it is the truth which sombody does not like to be exposed? Please live this as it was without unnecessary editor war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.138.176 (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Alfred Mechtersheimer. Definitely needs more work. He was described as a "maverick" by one political scientist and his politics are not easy to peg. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusations

If you think that I am someone else's sockpuppet account, I think the correct venue for bringing it up is WP:SPI. That way the discussion on the article talk page can stay focused on content. Zeromus1 (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Gniew/Mewe

What's your opinion on this battle? Was it a Swedish victory or inconclusive? According to ALL Swedish and English sources I could find it's a "significant Swedish victory". The reason I'm asking you for help is that this guy "89.231.29.36" claims it to have been inc according to Polish historian Radosław Sikora. Also, he ignores Swedish sources on Swedish casualties which I find to be the most accurate ones (since Sweden also held the field); sources become more reliable if one side actually got the time to count bodies etc.

I opened up the talk page on "battle of Gniew" if you would like to give your opinion there. Imonoz (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking I really dislike these arguments about battle outcomes since for vast majority of battles it's essentially a judgement call. A lot of them are "inconclusive" for some semi-reasonable definition of "inconclusive". Here, looking over the sources you've assembled I think there's enough justification to call it a "Swedish victory". Volunteer Marek  20:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I answered your concern according to the Battle of Wenden (1626). There's a possible source in one of the links. I feel this article needs some numbers on strenght and a little information which I may be able to add if I know there's a reliable source somewhere. Imonoz (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Replied on talk there. It looks like three battles in more or less the same area. Volunteer Marek  00:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Polish- Soviet War

I don't quite understand why you undid my change. Polish- Soviet war was a fight for the very existance of Poland, not about Belarus and Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.49.28.175 (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was actually both. It started out as a fight over where the border between newly independent Poland and newly revolutionary Russia was going to be - i.e. about the territory of present day Ukraine and Belarus. But it did develop into a "fight for the very existence of Poland". Perhaps that sentence should be modified to include both aspects. Volunteer Marek  13:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The 100 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal

		The 100 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Congratulations on your steady stream of well-researched articles, in which more than 100 have appeared on the Main Page. Well done my friend. Poeticbent talk 10:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ticking off your contributions medal also at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. All best. Poeticbent talk 10:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!  Volunteer Marek  21:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

For helping out with the Stanisław Żółkiewski GA review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-10-15/Op-ed

I am surprised you haven't voiced your opinion there yet :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. Right now I have very mixed feelings about the specific proposal. Volunteer Marek  18:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You

Are obviously being goaded and are walking into a block with open arms. I have removed your claim of outing[1] Please calm down and go have a nice cup of tea. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If I'm being goaded, which is probably true, then shouldn't the goader be the one getting the block? I'm gonna drop it for now, and let things settle, but this is very obviously intentional WP:HARASSMENT. Volunteer Marek  19:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

As that user has now posted a link to an external website I have brought the issue to ANI.[2] Darkness Shines (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

History of Poles in Königsberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Kingdom of Poland and Pomeranians

Borzęcin, Lesser Poland Voivodeship (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Roma

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Question

I saw a comment on AN that you had asked me not to use your former username back in March. Is that the case, and do you have a diff for it? If it's true, then I apologise profusely - I have absolutely no recollection of that request or the context in which you made it. Prioryman (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The diffs are out there, I don't feel like looking for them right now. Anyway, apology accepted. Thanks. Volunteer Marek  19:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Fahrenheit

Hey, i would like to know why you deleted the words "Dutch German-born" in the article "Fahrenheit". The "Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit" article states that he was German, and that the "Britannica" says so. So why didn't you alter "Dutch German-born" to "German-born" or just "German", but deleted it all? Regards, David Hamburger90 (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the talk page. Most sources actually call him "Dutch-Polish" rather than German. Some anon ip's been monkeying around with the info. Volunteer Marek  14:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes ok, it seems to be disputed. A good solution in such cases is mentioning the language: "a German-speaking physicist, engineer and glass blower born in Gdańsk (German: Danzig), which was then part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" for the Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit article, and "German-speaking" for the Fahrenheit article. Do you want to insert that? Hamburger90 (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, the source actually given calls him "Polish-born Dutch", with no mention of any German speaking. Yes, there are other source which call him German but even there it's generally either "Polish born German" or even "Polish Dutch German". Going into explanations of where each one of those comes from is too much detail for the lede and borders on OR. Just stick with sources.

In the Fahrenheit article I would simply omit any mention of nationality since it doesn't matter. Volunteer Marek  17:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

But there are other informations on the page which say something else. Actually it would be better to write "German-speaking physicist born in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth". This gives more information and is more useful than "Dutch-German-Polish". And there is no reason not to include "German-speaking physicist" in the "Fahrenheit" article. The fact that he can apparently only be described as "Dutch-German-Polish" makes the usage of the expression "German-speaking" even more useful. By simply writing that he was a "German-speaking physicist born in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth", and later mentioning that he moved to the Netherlands this "Dutch-German-Polish" thing can be omited. Hamburger90 (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians

You joined the Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian, which is being discussed at its entry at Categories nominated for deletion.

You may wish to join the category Category:Wikipedians working towards even enforcement of civility.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Renaming your user essays

May I suggest moving User:Volunteer Marek/gt and User:Volunteer Marek/HnH to something that looks better in the category view in user essays? Also, why did you remove links to those from your userpage, it took me a while too find them again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Borzęcin, Lesser Poland Voivodeship at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Andrzej Sapieha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mińsk and Mikołaj Sapieha

Sapieha family (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mińsk

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Fractional reserve banking protection

Hi Volunteer Marek. This is just to let you know that I removed your request at WP:RFPP, as it was duplicating a request further down the page. I've semi-protected Fractional reserve banking for one week - hopefully that should take some of the burden off. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, I looked at Criticism of the Federal Reserve, but I don't think it really needs protecting yet. The disruption you describe is only being caused by one IP, so it would be better dealt with by a block than by page protection. Feel free to let me know if the situation changes though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Gleiwitz

In your wholseale revision of my edit, you are re-attributing that Hitler, in his Sep 1 speech, stated that "at the same time as the Gleiwitz attack, there were other incidents orchestrated by Germany along the Polish-German border, such as house torching in the Polish Corridor and spurious propaganda output. The entire project, dubbed Operation Himmler and comprising 21 incidents in all." This is not factual, check his speech, so re-adding that cite to support those words about Op Himmler is problematic.

Clearer - attributing the fact that the attacks were orchestrated by the Germans and the fact that Operation Himmler comprised of twenty-one incidents to Hitlers speech is obviously invalid, either the cite should be removed, or the text couched differently.

I re-ordered the two other cites as that is the order they do confirm the text.

Further - I see now that the cite I moved for the 1st September speech (on the day of the invasion) is attributing the text "For months before the 1939 invasion..." - again it should be removed, or the text couched differently.

I quoted direct from the speech as nowhere in his speech does Hitler actually use the words "defensive" or state they are using defensive actions he states clearly that they are repaying (whether true or not) Polish actions, like for like and will continue to do so.

Further - Hitler continues, stating/propagandizing that bomb will be met with by bomb, gas for gas, "until the safety of the Reich and its rights are secured". The word "defensive" used in such a way is unscholarly (employing sarcasm): Hitler's aims at expanding the Reich are clear and stated in that very speech - as he sees it "restoring German sovereignty over German territories". Another solution would be to drop the word entirely and have instead of "as justification for Germany's "defensive" action against Poland" simply "as justification for Germany's invasion of Poland."

The article is very short, these sorts of clarifications are not problematic. FYI I was formerly an admin, with two FAs and some few DYK articles to my credit, and would appreciate more than a hand wave of "the paraphrase is perfectly fine. It says 21 incidents right there" to re-insert the above stated problems in your wish not to include an actual quote rather than any paraphrase.--86.6.187.246 (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think having the entire quote from Hitler there is very useful - it's better to summarize it. If your objection is to the number 21, then I've removed it. Personally I do think the word "defensive" is implied in the quote but if it really bothers you then perhaps leaving it out would be ok. The fact that the attacks were orchestrated by the Germans is pretty solid though, right?  Volunteer Marek  01:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

More generally I would prefer to see a secondary source here rather than either a (Wikipedian's) description of a primary source or a direct quote from a primary source. Volunteer Marek  01:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits to the article, that does help, though the speech cite still needlessly supports events leading up to it - second para, Context section. It'll be no great loss.

There are lots of things from various sides that could be used as quotes, choosing which ones to ex/in-clude certainly has its issues - I'm not mindful about that provided we, without any "slant", just relay the bare info from the primary sources. As to the solidity, are you asking me personally or encyclopedic-wise? There might be slightly different answers involved :) 86.6.187.246 (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Volunteer Marek. You have new messages at Talk:Financial crisis of 2007–2008.
Message added 18:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please comment. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Pomerelia

Hi, the article says "In 1210, king Valdemar II of Denmark invaded Pomerelia, whose princeps Mestwin I became his vassal.[14] Pomerelia regained independence from the Danes in 1227." - I think that the sentence is erroneous. Mestwin I in May 1212 he participated in the great congress Polish dukes and the Polish episcopate in Mąkolin (according to article "Mściwój I gdański" in Polish wikipedia) and dependence on Denmark ended in 1211. What do you think about it?Kcdlp (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Borzęcin, Lesser Poland Voivodeship

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Apollo 11 lunar sample display, Apollo 17 lunar sample display

Responded to your concerns.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

At your convenience, could you do 2 additional article Reviews in addition to Lunar basalt 70017 Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the list you did is an excellent idea!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that ONLY 1 article Review of a hook is required even for a multiple article hook. Is that right?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure myself actually. Also, this 30-in-1 nom is a bit unprecedented so I don't know if we can apply usual practice to it. But I think other editors have volunteered to do some reviewing to satisfy the requirement. Volunteer Marek  23:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Advice Re: admin decisions

I have only been editing for a month. I ran across the article Abstract figurative in the course of exploring visual art topics, and nominated it for speedy deletion as nonsense. This was was denied without reasonable explanation, but a suggestion that I improve the article with research. Now the article is on the AfD list. This is certainly confusing to the novice, since merely pointing out that the article was self-contradictory and unreferenced should qualify it as nonsense. I see my role as adding needed content as someone familiar with the visual arts, but does that mean not getting involved in cleanup, which is an admin function?FigureArtist (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is for stuff that it's pretty obvious no one's gonna object to deleting. Here apparently there was some concern that someone might object. But I agree that the article is non-encyclopedic, which is why I nominated it for deletion. And even as non-admin you can express your opinion at the AfD, or even nominate articles for deletion yourself (provided the rationale is good). In fact, I'd encourage you to comment at the AfD (accessible via the big banner on top of that article), since you wanted to speedy it. Volunteer Marek  14:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

My initations to Rsloch

I think also Rsloch has pro-German no objective attitude. My friend entered table on article 'Silesia' and he reverting it without any argumentation. I attempt to invite him to argumentations (you can see my notices on his talk page). I am afraid he will not leasing to the invitations.--Burham (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ostra Brama

I never know that wikipedia have a policy of delete sourced information. You can add other reliable info to counter mine, but delete my info is out of question. Don't play the censoring game in this encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a propanganda machine of CIA or MI6, mate. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You know, when you start throwing around accusations about CIA or MI6 propaganda, it's a pretty clear sign that you're POV pushing. A 1946 book entitled "Great Conspiracy: Secret War Against Russia" is simply NOT a reliable source. This is not "censorship" (a word which doesn't make sense in a context of an encyclopedia anyway), it's simply Wikipedia policy.

Also, you're not 'adding' info, you're completely changing the text. Volunteer Marek  18:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

1. First, any adding or deleting can be regarding as changing the text.
2. Second, you say it is not reliable but I say it is. In wikipedia, it is not about right or wrong, it is about verifiable.
3. Third, if you say that I am POV, then add your own reliable source to counter mine. Deleting mine is out of question.
4. Fourth, you say that I am pushing POV but I say that you and some other users are also doing the same.

Clear enough, mr "Soviet is evil" ? Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Refrain from calling me names.

Look, it's simply not a reliable source. Read WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. You can ask at WP:RSN as well.

 Volunteer Marek  01:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• I was waiting if anyone will actually use the "The Great Conspiracy. The Secret War against Soviet Russia", and here is it!. Wow! That is one I actually read in Russian. This is like using Elders of Zion for sourcing. We are moving back in time not only to Soviet Brezhnev time propaganda, but to old time Stalinist propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You're quite correct. The truth is, though, that Brezhnev era sources are widely being used, e.g. many PRL authors here. We should discard those, too, I think. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 10:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not Russian versus Polish sources, but WP:RS versus WP:FRINGE. Actually, the "Conspiracy" book was written by two Western conspiracy theorists to prove that victims of Stalinist show trials were real "enemy of the people". There are other books of same variety, such as "Moscow, 1938" by Lion Feuchtwanger, which is possibly a good source on ideological subversion of writers, but not about anything else. My very best wishes (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know that it's pro-Stalinist refuse. It's available in Estonian, too :)Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 13:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if my words are vandalism or hurt you, but it seems to be that many enwiki users forget about how wikipedia maintains its neutrality. Wikipedia keeps its neutrality not by delete selected information because of Soviet this, Soviet that. It preserve that neutrality by accepting and expressing many points of view together. So if you see some articles are too POV, the only good thing to do is add verifiable sources from the other points of view to restore the balance, not by deleting the sources. Deleting like that is not making wikipedia more neutral. It is CENSORSHIP. To be frankly, I am sick of some users using the agrument "Soviet this, Soviet that" and delete the information, even if the sources are taken from reliable sources such as Russian Archive Agency (Russian, not Soviet). I used to think En.wiki is the most neutral wikipedia version because English users can be the citizens of many different countries, but now I am gradually believing that it is merely a propaganda machine of CIA and the anti-Soviet powers. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think what you are talking about is anti-Soviet Soviet propaganda: Советская коммунистическая пропаганда, потеряв ориентиры, постепенно смыкается с антикоммунистической и антисоветской. Например, антисоветская пропаганда утверждает, что советским государством со времени его возникновения правили одни преступники. Советская пропаганда утверждает почти то же самое. Десятки высших руководителей государства от Троцкого до Хрущева объявлены и до сих пор считаются врагами народа, зонтами империализма и иностранных разведок, в лучшем случае, антипартийными фракционерами и волюнтаристами. И антисоветская, и советская пропаганда утверждают, что никакого социализма с человеческим лицом нет и не может быть. (see here). My very best wishes (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Casimir Pulaski

Hey. I did a quick check on Pulaski: American Heritage, Columbia, Encarta and Oxford Dictionaries use the anglicized name (Casimir Pulaski), while Britannica, Chambers and Webster's use the native one (Kazimierz Pułaski). I didn't find entries from the other major reference works. Prolog (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire

I'd be interested in your thoughts there; I've posted mine at User:Piotrus/CERFC. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

David Irving

I removed "holocaust denier" from the introductory sentence of David Irving, but you (and someone else) seem to have a problem with this.

I thought that the purpose of the introductory sentence was to name them, and to list what occupation they do/did. Is this not correct? All other people seem to have their occupation there, rather than things they're known to be linked to.

Is there perhaps a guide somewhere explaining it? Thank you.

Edit summary

In your recent edit to Battle of Ciudad Juárez (1911), your edit summary states "been over this several times". However, I do not find any discussion by you on the talk page. Please remember that edit summaries are not intended for communicating with other editors, only for describing your edits. Please use the article talk page for discussion, new-to-the-article editors should not have to search edit summaries for your contributions to a discussion, and are quite justified in simply ignoring any input which has been communicated in this manner, where it cannot be readily seen as part of the discussion. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The only discussion on the talk page is exactly about this issue, hence I'm at a completely loss as to how you managed to miss that. And skip the lectures please, I've been here way longer than you.VolunteerMarek 04:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Check your e-mail. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

VM, my point is that you did not engage in discussion, and that the discussion is about the text, not the image. And I note that you continue to use edit summaries to address people, which is simply not proper. In fact, it's quite rude. Yworo (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it? What makes you think so? I do it at least once a week. (Maybe I'm rude...?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Re maps in the article on Poland.

Hello Volunteer Marek. I have noticed your activity in many of the Poland-related threads. I have put a request to add a map of the early Polish state (10th/11th cent), but it was rejected (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Poland#Edit_request_on_10_December_2012_.28Map_of_Poland_in_10th.2F11th_century.29)

Don't you think that such map would be worth including (given the reasons outlined by myself in that edit request)?

109.76.164.113 (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ełk Lake

Thanks for your help on the translation. Much appreciated. Rsloch (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Signature

Hi, not sure if it's a bug but your signature doesn't currently contain a link per Wikipedia:SIGLINK. Cheers. Hack (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing it out. I think it should be good now: Volunteer Marek 21:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Magnates of Poland and Lithuania

What's your thought on this discussion? I might have been too harsh, but the bureaucratic argument annoyed me a bit. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Careless editing

Please be more careful when editing. Your reversion at Dance Moms restored a circular redirect that was previously removed and "Shepreviously" is not a word. As for primary sources, it is quite acceptable to use primary sources. Regarding the image, it is not possible to obtain a free equivalent of the cast photo. In any case, this would require turning the article into an image farm. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if there were minor mistakes in the previous version that does not justify the extensive WP:OR in the article. If you're bothered by the circular redirect and "Shepreviously" then remove the circular redirect and put a space between "She" and "previously", rather than doing a blanket revert. And no, primary sources are generally NOT acceptable, except in some special cases because they lead to original research. This is what's happening here.

And the image does not justify fair use for several reasons.Volunteer Marek 08:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no OR in the section that you removed, when you added the mistakes mentioned above. I suggest you review WP:OR to find out what constitutes OR. All content is easily verifiable; television episodes are acceptable primary sources - this has been tested many times and I suggest you read WP:TVPLOT, which references WP:PSTS. Whomever added the text originally has come to the same conclusion I did when I've watched the episodes, there has been no analysis, just a clear statement of what has occurred (ad nauseam) in the episodes. As for the image, that it was "uploaded by indef banned user"[3] is completely irrelevant. The editor was blocked only 4 days ago, the block had nothing to do with the image and he hasn't edited the article in months. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that text is OR consisting of the writer's opinions and gossip. Note that I'm not the only one who noticed this, as another user tried to remove the text before but apparently gave up in the face of your obstinacy. As to the image, it fails fair use for several reasons, none of which are that it was uploaded by a banned user - though that doesn't help either.Volunteer Marek 16:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely incorrect. Have you ever actually watched the program? What is written is effectively a direct statement of what occurs in the program, including the "confession cam" videos provided by the mothers and dancers. There's no OR at all and you haven't demonstrated that any of it is incorrect. Everything is verifiable, in accordance with the policy on primary sources. The original version did contain some stuff that shouldn't be there because it was really irrelevant to the series and the twitter claim was unsorced but everything else is fine. That another editor claimed something doesn't prove he was right, it just proves that he hasn't bothered to verify the content, as he should have. Since we're having a dispute over content, we should be following WP:BRD and this edit is [[WP:DE|disruptive editing] at best as, when there is a dispute over content the status quo reigns. Unfortuately, this is the status quo, not the cleaned up version.[4] Please do not continue to edi-war over this, but instead continue to discuss it on the article's talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Do not remove valid refferences

You deleted a reference to David Ames Wells (1890) from Economic growth saying it was too old. Apparently you are not a student of economic history. This is one of the most important economic works of the period and is often cited. According to your reasoning Adam Smith references shouldn't be allowed either. Please do not delete references unless you have read enough of them to know whether or not they are appropriate. Use the Talk page or use a tag calling for more references if one is inadequate.Phmoreno (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Adam Smith should not be used as a reference either, except for opinions of Adam Smith. See WP:PRIMARY. A reference from 1890, used to support a potentially controversial claim, is too old.Volunteer Marek 16:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. This is not a "potentially controversial claim". It is so widely accepted that a reference isn't even needed.Phmoreno (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. The source comes from the time before the advent of quantitative methods in economic history. More recent research has quantified and revised a lot of the claims concerning where the actual productivity increases occurred. For example, way back in the 1960's already, Robert Fogel showed that the non-quantitative assessments of railroads' contribution to economic growth were very exaggerated (Robert_Fogel#Cliometrics_and_Railroads_and_American_Economic_Growth). More generally, I really dislike the phrasing '"Great sources of productivity improvement...". What exactly is a "great source" of a productivity improvement? Like a really spiffy source? At the very least shouldn't it be something like "Some sources of great productivity improvements...". That's just bad writing. Also, what exactly does the word "great" mean there? How much? 10%? 15% 1000000%? Volunteer Marek 19:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, the correct insult should not be "Apparently you are not a student of economic history" but rather "Apparently you are not a student of history of economic thought".Volunteer Marek 16:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy:

"primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them"

This source has been reliably published (it was widely read at the time and is still available in modern reprints) and the whole point of the book is that the cited productivity changes, price decreases and improvements in living standards, which are explicitly described in the book, are the main theme of the book. This is without question. One secondary source who cites Recent Economic Changes is Carlota Perez, but I remember seeing others.Phmoreno (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The point is that this might be a potential primary source for what people thought in 1890's. It's not really a reliable source concerning what actually happened during the Industrial Revolution since it has been potentially supplemented or revised by subsequent research. If newer research agrees with Wells, then it shouldn't be that difficult to cite modern research. If it doesn't, then it should be modern research that is used, not stuff that's more than a century old.Volunteer Marek 19:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have read Wells (apparently not from your uninformed comments) you have no idea how this source relates to the appropriateness of the reference. Yes there are other more modern sources, people such as Milton Friedman, Anna Schwartz, Murray Rothbard, David Landes

read sources like Wells, but none of these people are as reliable as Wells. Why? Because wells was the leading authority on technology in the U.S. at the time.Phmoreno (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I haven't read Wells. That doesn't change the fact that we should not use a source from the 1890's. I don't understand your logic regarding Friedman and others, bringing them up appears to be a red herring.Volunteer Marek 05:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your logic about a source being too old. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.Phmoreno (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

A red herring? What the hell? Are you into conspiracy theories? WTF is the matter with people?Phmoreno (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

So you haven't read the source but you are going to judge whether it's appropriate? I keep a list of my sources with hundreds of pages of notes on this subject and use the most appropriate ones.Phmoreno (talk)

The economists and historians only know half the story. I don't trust them for the technical part, especially because they didn't see it happening in person.Phmoreno (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Liberals love revisionist history.Phmoreno (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The source is from 1890. We should use modern sources. I don't really care whom you trust or not and I have no idea what liberals have to do with anything. That's a strange remark.Volunteer Marek 19:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If you or anyone else has modern sources then add them, but do not take out valid sources. That's rude!Phmoreno (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Rudeness has nothing to do with it. It's simply not very good practice, or very encyclopedic, to use sources more than a century old to cite facts.Volunteer Marek 08:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Bali ultimate

I don't understand how AE works. Is that done and dusted? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sikora

[5] To jest praca doktorska Radosława Sikory.

Pozdrawiam!Kcdlp (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Obrona potoczna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Turks, Kingdom of Poland, Ruthenian and Podole

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "talk:Paul Krugman".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 07:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Help needed Hi :-) I hope it's not rude what I'm asking. On the Germans page due to a long discussion we came to a conclusion that Einstein should be taken out of the image due to the fact he himself stated that he doesnt see himself as a German and wants nothing to do with it. In another discussion it was decided to put Angela Merkel instead of him. Later we came to a conclusion to put Pope Benedict instead of Marx. The problem is we need someone who knows how to edit that specific picture used in the infobox. Could you please replace Einstein with Merkel? I saw you replaced someone in the past there, therefore ask for your help. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Here are the original discussions: [6] [7] [8] (this one is where the vote took place regarding] and here is the discussion on who to use instead of Einstein: [9]. Here is the discussion who to put instead of Marx: [10]. Just wanted to let you know about the discussion on the Poles page, though with a delay but I understood that Poles was actually written about the nationality to. On the Germans it's different, that's why they came to a different conclusion. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Before making any changes to that image I'm gonna wait till the discussion is concluded, which, best as I can tell, hasn't happened yet.Volunteer Marek 03:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC) It's a bit more complicated with that page. The discussion regarding Marx and Einstein is concluded, now they are talking about different stuff which is that character of the article. Also, there is a phenomenom of new editors with only one edit in their account coming to try to ster the discussion, we have reason to assume those are sock puppets and ignore them. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC) The discussion on Talk:Germans about Marx and Einstein has not ended. What has happened is that experienced editors from elsewhere have noticed the previous discussion and are now commenting. None of them are meatpuppets or sockpuppets from what I can tell. Mathsci (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC) The discussion have ended. Just because you and one or two new people jumped in and bring the same arguments which were already answered it doesn’t mean in re-started. That’s the thing, yesterday even people who originally opposed to taking out Einstein and Marx agreed that they should be taken out. PS stalking Wikipedians is actually against the rules. You admitted to doing it to Evildoer187 and now you are doing it to me. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Following a poor misguided individual around to make sure they don't break something is not stalking. And no the discussion has not ended.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Suggest replacing Einstein with the brilliant German mathematician David Hilbert. "One source notes “David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein.” Another source notes “Einstein presented his paper on November 25, 1915 in Berlin and Hilbert had presented his paper on November 20 in Göttingen. On November 18, Hilbert received a letter from Einstein thanking him for sending him a draft of the treatise Hilbert was to deliver on the 20th. So, in fact, Hilbert had sent a copy of his work at least two weeks in advance to Einstein before either of the two men delivered their lectures, but Einstein did not send Hilbert an advance copy of his.” Apparently Hilbert’s work was soon to become “Einstein’s work.”" 61.38.32.27 (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Trolling by banned User:Mikemikev Frobgwozzle (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC) I don't know if I want to get into that discussion but Hilbert does seem like a great choice. The only concern may be that you already got Gauss in there, so you'd be stacking up the mathematicians. But IMO, you can never have enough famous mathematicians.Volunteer Marek 21:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC) I'm assuming the 61.38.32.27 IP wasn't the same editor as Guitar hero, forgetting in to sign? Volunteer Marek 17:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Changes undone at Military History contest page I'm hoping you made a mistake, but why did you undo an edit to this page by which I added an article to the contest, and updated my score? Not only did you undo it, but you marked it a "minor change", which makes it hard to AGF. If you believe I'm doing something not according to the rules of the contest (which may be possible, as its my first time entering it), let me know and explain any changes; otherwise I'll have to take this up with with the WP:MILHIST coordinators. Cdtew (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Um, I don't recall making that edit, which is as you say, an obvious mistake. It's possible I accidentally clicked the rollback button on my watchlist. My sincere apologies.Volunteer Marek 15:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC) That's OK, I was confused as well. Also, my edit summary on that page's history should say "I'm not assuming vandalism" -- critical typo on my part. Didn't mean to imply I was assuming it. Cdtew (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Outstanding DYK nomination If you're content with the current (ALT3) hook on Template:Did you know nominations/Devil's Tower Road, as you suggested on WT:DYK, could you please add the tick so that this nomination can be resolved? Thanks. Prioryman (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Template:Did you know nominations/Devil's Tower Road You should probably move your approval further down, so it's not missed in amidst the piles of comments. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Sure.Volunteer Marek 14:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Hevelius Deer Volunteer Marek, I read your discussion with User:Discordion (nomen est omen?) on the Johannes Hevelius Talk page and I must say I was quite impressed by your clear and straightforward way of reasoning. You did not get yourself distracted from the main point, gave to-the-point answers and were able to find Discordions weak points. I'd like to congratulate you with that and hope you will continue this way. I met this user because of a contribution to the Carl Linnaeus page, a contribution which I questioned, and I can only hope that I would be able to defend the case, should it come to a discussion, in the same healthy way as you did with Hevelius. Cheers, Wikiklaas (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks.Volunteer Marek 06:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Edit warring Hey Marek, you know the score: edit warring is edit warring even if you're right, as on National Radical Camp (1993). Don't continue edit wars if you're caught up in the action: notify, and let the system deal with it. It usually does. Please consider this a warning of the friendly kind--I'm about to drop a more formal warning on your counterpart's talk page, who will be blocked not just for edit-warring but also for POV pushing if they continue. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Marek, Yes, the Facebook page reference is not allowed, thank you for brining my attention to that. However, your opinion on National Radical Camp (1993) is skewed towards the Jewish point of view (and I do not even think that Polish Jewish patriots would agree with you). In addition, you are deleting all of my edits, even though I am doing my best to incorporate both points of view and always back them up with references. Stop being a hypocrite! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaskusia (talk • contribs) 03:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Grow up.Volunteer Marek 16:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC) I took a look at this as I have VM's talk page in my watchlist. Well, this is one of the rare cases when I agree with VM. He reverted blatantly partisan changes, the aim of which was to present the organization in the favourable light. So, I don't see the two parties as equally guilty here. Also, when I now look at the justifications of the opposing party (″Jewish point of view″), it seems pretty clear that VM was reverting simple Nazism. -Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Miacek, who said the two parties were equally guilty? No, that was not "Nazism". It was POV editing, to be sure, but you should read up on what edit warring is, and this isn't a case where an admin can hit "block" because of partisan editing. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Drmies, with all due respect, come back and lecture me about reverting anon IPs and freshly created single purpose advocacy accounts AFTER Pending Changes or something like that has been implemented.Volunteer Marek 03:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Both sock and master have been indefed by Rschen7754. End of story. Poeticbent talk 04:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC) DYK for Obrona potoczna  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC) About Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress and.. erm... yep, I'm completely confused Hi Volunteer Marek. Oh goodness gracious me, I'm completely confused. Which is, which is not, and what is "neither fish, flesh, nor good red herring"?--Shirt58 (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure what it is exactly you want me to do.Volunteer Marek 04:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Oops. While I'll never be guilty of WP:TLDR, reading what I wrote above strongly suggests that I am prone to WP:Being concise is good, but seriously WTF are you on about, Shirt58? OK. To clarify. Joseph Stiglitz was the chair of two inquiries. * Commission of Experts on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System. Reference question: the references cite this as as under the aegis of the United Nations General Assembly, or specifically the President of the United Nations General Assembly. Which one is correct? Content question: were the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank involved in this in any way? * Commission of Experts on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System. That one's simple. Needs an economist to tidy it up. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Trade globalization I wrote an economic DYK, perhaps you'd like to take a look? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC) It's good overall but I think there's a bit of confusion between measuring "Trade globalization of a particular country", which would be sum of its exports and imports to its GDP, as defined in this source [11] and "Trade globalization overall" (i.e. world wide), which would be just the sum of exports to world GDP (since one country's exports are another's imports), as defined in this source [12]. Good point, very good one. I see you have clarified this already? Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Zamoyski Fee Tail Hey thanks for your help. I appreciate it. Tymek (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Source code and the Tragedy of Commons Hi Volunteer Marek! You reverted my change to the ToC article. I do not agree with your argument that code would be non-rivalrous. Hardin, in his own article, gives the example of a clean landscape getting polluted by advertisement signs. You can have the analogous situation in source code: clean code being polluted by e.g. commented-out code. But you can also put other code smells there. Ironically, by reverting my changes, you have proved yourself that (wikipedia) code is rivalrous. Orbiteus (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Is the tragedy of the commons mentioned explicitly in the source? (And, without addressing this particular example or meaning to be insulting in anyway, reverting bad edits - and I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm wrong here - is more like cleaning up the commons).Volunteer Marek 12:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Not considering it an offense. Yes, the source explicitly mentions the ToC wrt to source code and references Hardin's article but does not explain very much. I could email you a copy of it if you like. Regarding cleaning up: couldn't you also remove signs from the landscape or put fish back into the ocean? (Well, ok, won't probably help very much practically, but in theory...) Who says you cannot "repair" the commons? So, I didn't mean to imply you were changing the article for the worse. It was without judgment. I just meant that you are affecting the article and thereby directly affecting my use of it. Isn't that rivalrous already? An article provides only limited word space for covering a certain area of knowledge; for when there are too many words or the article is not well-structured, it is crowded and difficult to read -> degraded. Likewise, an incomplete article is bad. Looking at Common good (economics) I think the distinction between rivalrous and non-rivalrous is really a difficult one to make: Is a park totally crowded with people still serving recreation well? Putting bad stuff into the air degrades it (as in Hardin's article). Another article goes on to explain that "rivalrous" is not strict but a continuum, and therefore open for interpretation. I would say that wikipedia article code (not the information therein), source code, ... are rivalrous goods - at least to some degree. Would you agree? Orbiteus (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for February 6 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bolesław Gebert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for February 13 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. Chojnice (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Thirteen Years' War Kamień Krajeński (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Kingdom of Poland Sępólno Krajeńskie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Thirteen Years War Więcbork (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Kingdom of Poland It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Amazon Hi -My Polish is so so, so I check out Google News to improve my skills. Największy na świecie koncern handlu internetowego Amazon do ochrony swoich centrów logistycznych w Niemczech zatrudnia neonazistów, którzy zastraszają pracowników sezonowych z Polski, [13]--Woogie10w (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC) German language The map has been restored without any explanation.Xx236 (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC) National Radical Camp, some "facts" are misleading... Lilek404 (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Hello, I disagree with removal of my edits in article about ONR. Some of the "suggestions" and refers shouldn't appear as facts in a source called "encyclopedia". It makes the article unreliable and false. I felt also very disappointed being accused of publishing my personal view, when I was relying only on certain sources. Actually, I was relying on facts. If You wouldn't mind reading explanation of my edits, it would be really nice. ;) Talk Jażdżewski z was dupków zrobił.Volunteer Marek 01:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Elections As I understand it the Sejm elected Maximilian king and then were persuaded to change their mind and elect Báthory. That would be a 'series of elections'? Rsloch (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Well, no it was still just a single election. Just like the Bush v. Gore thing would've been a single election even if the Supreme Court for some reason had subsequently reversed itself. Also, it was really the Senate (which was one of the chambers of the Sejm) which choose Max, not the Sejm as a whole. Bottom line for Wikipedia though is that I've never seen any source refer to this contest as a 'series of elections' rather than a single election. That kind of phrasing also serves to confuse the reader, IMO.Volunteer Marek 19:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Warning Your editions break core rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, this data must be modified. Changes by user Benwing is typical original research, for example "However, because many Silesians consider themselves ethnically distinct from Poles, there is an ongoing movement to create a distinct Silesian ausbau language: i.e. a standardized literary form based on the spoken varieties, which would then allow a claim for separate language status to be made" and this is not Neutral point of view, for example: Benwing removed information about Lach. This version is more neutral. And also, you reverted all my edits (including my change about the format of page and information about Middle Polish language). Your edit is typical vandalism. Of course, you as Poles, you do not have a neutral point of view, but this is Wikipedia, not your private page. Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is core rules of Wikipedia. Sorry. If you ever make a blind revert and enter to Wikipedia data break rules of Wikipedia, I preach this to administrators according to the core rules of Wikipedia. Franek K. (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Ok Franek, don't try to scare or intimidate me, especially when it's you who's aggressively pushing POV across several articles, against the consensus of several users. If you knew how many times some editor showed up on my talk page to leave a warning sign then got promptly blocked for their own shenanigans, you probably wouldn't want to draw attention to yourself in this way. This is particularly true for fairly recent WP:SPA who seem to be thoroughly versed in Wikipedia policies.Volunteer Marek 19:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Wrocław Yesterday, you undid another IP's edit which added a possible demonym for this city to the article. Does Wrocław have a demonym, and a name for people of/from it, or not? And if it does, what is it please? Someone would like to know... -- 92.13.94.45 (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Don't know what to do Edit history fails again! - Can You Recognize It? Poeticbent talk 09:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cursed_soldiers&curid=6432872&diff=541680081&oldid=541679614 Yeah, that's User:Silar - indef banned on en-wiki but apparently still active on Commons.Volunteer Marek 19:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Poverty in Poland Finished my stab at it. Not too happy, couldn't find good sources for comparison with EU/OECD. Perhaps you can clean it up a little? PS. Template:Did you know nominations/Poverty in Poland if you come up with a better hook. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Hmm, by putting all the various poverty lines and definitions together in one sentence or paragraph it's very hard to follow which index changes how. I think the article could use a better organization in that sense - first discuss the absolute international poverty measures, then the relative poverty measures, including the national one and then the indices of inequality. Also, I'm not quite sure how really good is that CASE/Volkswagen source. There are some weird claims in there that don't seem to match up with other poverty research, but to really comment on that I'd have to go and dig out some sources.Volunteer Marek 07:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Oh, no worries, I know the article is not very good. I couldn't find very good sources, and you are right the structure may not be perfect :/ That's why I thought I'd ask for help :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC) I have a comment for you at Talk:Poverty_in_Poland#Confusing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC) it would help to know... ...who the indef banned user is. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC) See two sections above: [14].Volunteer Marek 08:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks. that makes it easier :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC) I'd file a checkuser request if I had time and if it wasn't completely pointless (since it's trivially easy for him to change his IP). If you feel like doing it then aside from the obvious quacking at a couple of articles, note that he's been putting in his own pictures [15].Volunteer Marek 08:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Silly Commons re: [16] ??? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Yes, I would prefer to keep my uploaded files local and avoid Commons to the extent its possible. Unfortunatly there's no "PD but don't upload to Commons" license and I guess I can't stop people from reuploading the files.Volunteer Marek 14:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC) But WHY? I find Commons a rather useful concept. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Good idea in theory, horrible in practice. You should know as you've been burned by some of the people there yourself.Volunteer Marek 05:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC) While I disagree with you in your opinion of commons, you might want to consider adding {{Keep local}} to your files. Ryan Vesey 05:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Hmm, I thought I did. I clicked the little button in the upload wizard but I guess that's not sufficient. Thanks for the info.Volunteer Marek 05:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC) I've been trolled much more here, yet I am still here. I don't think that an occasional troll on Commons is a good enough reason to remove an image from the project's very useful categorization system. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Question So, is Vigilant like WO's rabies-infested attack dog that you all sic on people? Because that was...well, virulent is the best word for it. Why do you all keep him around? I can't see him elevating the conversation very much. SilverserenC 06:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC) How the hell should I know? Who's "you all"? S/he is quite... "poignant" though.Volunteer Marek 06:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC) On certain websites, when users persist in creating material that collect information about others that could be considered annoying and disruptive, cooler heads come along and remove it. The creator of that material is then given a dirty look but is otherwise allowed to continue participating. Sometimes they go off on a little tear, but no one is really harmed. This is true of both sites beginning with 'Wikipedi,' and two users with whom I have an acquaintance. :) →StaniStani  08:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Erika Steinbach About 4 000 characters have been removed without a discussion.Xx236 (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Let me save you some time, VM: in December. Granted, the edit was problematic adding "Polish nationalist president", sic. I am no fan of the Kaczka, but still... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Regardless of the Kaczynski issue, the sourced text should be restored.Volunteer Marek 15:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Cleanup needed on aisle Commons Cleanup needed on aisle Commons--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Gąsawa massacre Probably ready for a DYK now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Hmm, ok, I'll try to finish it off tomorrow.Volunteer Marek 03:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC) I'll go and nom it today, tomorrow it may be too late. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks.Volunteer Marek 18:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC) IP 83.249.164.128 is Boeing720 at 12.February 2013 Hello again, I just remembered that I added "Poland" at the following article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_countries#Countries_with_close_relations_to_the_Nordic_countries As I have told You my auto login jumps out work whenever I use f.i. Swedish Wikipedia (or any other),and my IP-number also changes f.i. when I hven't used the computer for somedays. But I'm the one who added Poland to this list, and I was angry that "Upswedes" and others had forgot about Poland. In Scania, om motorways I see Polish lorries and cars all the time. And I would argue that Denmark and Scania and Blekinge (another province stolen by Sweden) has far more and better relationships with Poland than f.i. with Finland. (Of course this applies also to Germany, but that beside this point). Best greetings Boeing720 (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Externality Hello, I noticed you reverted my edit in the externality article a few times, although I agree with you, that the list of positive and negative externalities should ideally have references to somewhere that specifically discusses 'externality'. However because such a reference does not appear to exist, obvious negative and positive externalities should be included instead, and the obvious externalities should not be challenged, especially when they have references to back them up as my edit has. Please reply to my talk page. Boundarylayer (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Actually quite a number of examples in those lists (positive and negative) do have sources. The ones that don't, including the one you're putting in, should be removed.Volunteer Marek 17:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Ok, look, the negative externality of nuclear waste listed in the article does not have a reference. Although it is a real negative externality(and it is incorporated in the price of electricity) it should not be touched in the article, and left included in the article. However only in the interests of balance did I included the positive externality of nuclear waste- use in radiopharmaceuticals. This is also true, and therefore balances the list. There are plenty of entirely unreferenced and dubious externalities in both lists if you feel the need to trim the list down. I simply do not understand why you are removing the obvious, and referenced externalities? Boundarylayer (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC) But the text you're adding is not really referenced because there is no mention of externality in the sources. That part is your original research.Volunteer Marek 17:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Yes I am aware that the references don't mention 'externality' directly, but they are obvious positive externlities. Do you disagree? If you wish to enforce a strict policy of removing all sentences that do not have references, you would first remove pretty much everything in the entire positive externality list, as most of it goes entirely unreferenced. Then once you've done that, and only my text passes through this first filter, then we can talk, as only then is it rational to censor my text because it doesn't specifically state the word 'externality' in its references(although like we both agree, it is a case of a positive externality). Is this honestly what you are arguing for? Boundarylayer (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC) The way it usually works is that unreferenced text can stick around until someone objects. Apparently no one's object to the OTHER unsourced portions of that section. I'm objecting to the inclusion of your text because it is based on original research, not sources. Yes, there is a citation, but none of the sources given call this an externality (and frankly, I'm not convinced it qualifies).Volunteer Marek 18:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC) I have since provided a reference that specifically states that it is a positive externality, so despite your opinion, quite frankly it does qualify. Please see the article edit history. I think, for your own mental consistency, you should object to the OTHER portions of the section, as they are entirely unsourced. You appear to be highly biased against my well referenced text, yet have no problems with all the unreferenced text in the article, this is not mentally consistent. Boundarylayer (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC) I'm gonna take this to the talk page of the article in question. I'm not sure what "mentally consistent" even means.Volunteer Marek 21:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Transclusion of contemporary template versions on old page revisions At the WT:ACN discussion about Coren's resignation, you commented as an aside about an old revision of the arbcom page from June 2011 showing the committee as constituted now not in June 2011. This, as was noted there, is due to that being transcluded from a template. Presently, the current version of the template is transcluded in all circumstances, but there is an open request at bugzilla to change this behaviour - see Bugzilla:34244. I'm sending you this message directly as my reply in the thread is a day behind the current point of discussion so will almost certainly just get lost! Thryduulf (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks! Volunteer Marek 14:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Jan z Jani For You information, I have forwarded issue of spelling to Dispute resolution noticeboard. Best regards, camdan (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC) DRN I forwarded the Michalek dispute to DRN to have the discussion centralized and mediated in an appropriate venue. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Hmm, well, thanks for trying, but that didn't seem to work. We should probably wait and see if anyone chimes in at RSN.Volunteer Marek 15:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC) AE Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Volunteer_Marek Russavia (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC) This is nuts. Without your posting, which seems to have been fair minded, JW would not have been alerted about the context of the Russavia weirdness. Perhaps it would have been safer to email a statement to ArbCom and after getting no serious objections posting it. Perhaps you could pledge to do something like this in the future? Is Sandstein an Arbcom clerk? I thought his defeat in elections for ArbCom and the criticism of his performance as an administrator would have made him ineligible for such a position. Why is he running roughshod over that page? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC) WP:AN discussion A discussion which relates to actions or comments made by you can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Peter Damian socks. Fram (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Hah "the graph doesn't make any sense. Lets draw a straight line to indicate a trend. Ok." This is why I love Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 18:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Article of interest I've expanded Pagan reaction in Poland. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Arbitration enforcement discretionary sanction: Interaction ban The following sanction now applies to you (in accordance with the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions): You are indefinitely banned from interacting with Russavia (talk · contribs), as described in Wikipedia:Banning policy#Interaction ban. For additional clarity, this interaction ban includes (but is not limited to) forbidding you from alleging that Russavia engaged in misconduct outside the English Wikipedia. You have been sanctioned for the reason(s) set down in the results section of this arbitration enforcement request.. This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision. This sanction has been recorded on the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a topic ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. You may appeal this sanction using the process described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeal. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal. If you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  Sandstein  07:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)