User talk:Dr. Dan: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:14, 10 March 2010

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 90 days are automatically archived to User talk:Dr. Dan/Archive 6. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Did you know & Signpost

Enchylium limosum

... that Enchylium limosum (example pictured) loves lime?
... that despite graduating last in his West Point class, Frederick Kimble eventually became a general?
... that the 2024 film 18×2 Beyond Youthful Days was filmed in Japan in March to capture both snowfalls and cherry blossoms in the same month?
... that a will bequeathing the Chestnut Street Opera House to the University of Pennsylvania was contested at the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania?
... that the comedian Jonny Pelham is one of only 200 people in the UK to suffer from popliteal pterygium syndrome?
... that after a CD edition of Taylor Swift's album Midnights containing the exclusive song "You're Losing Me" was released at MetLife Stadium, some of the first purchasers uploaded the song online?
... that BBC Breakfast's resident doctor Nighat Arif has advocated for more women to be given vibrators for medical reasons?
... that Soviet prisoners of war were the second-largest group of victims of Nazi mass killing?
... that Katherine Sleeper Walden was a journalist, postmistress, innkeeper, community organizer, environmental activist, and conservationist who now has three mountains named after her?

Copy edit request

Hi, could you please copy edit this article in my sandbox? If you going to c/e it please don't forget to add {{inuse}} template, then editing it (by this we will avoid edit conflicts). Thanks, M.K. (talk) 08:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays

Linksmų Kalėdų ir laimingų Naujųjų Metų! Novickas (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays To All

And Best Wishes. Please be sure to turn up the volume. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1qpwag8ddM

Oh, the memories! Minus the tears and nosebleeds! Thanks - Novickas (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Actually, I was thinking more about Humpty-Dumpty. And I thought the musical selection was a good choice. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, so I'm a little slow on the uptake. Enjoy the holidays, Novickas (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chopin

Cher Dr. Dan, Merci de votre message. I have read your recent edits on Chopin's article, and am quite satisfied that you gave George Sand's real name. And I am going to jump on the opportunity of your coming upon the scene to bring out a couple of points, three, in fact:

1. Chopin's birthdate: 22 February on a baptismal certificate, with an alleged (but generally considered erroneous) birth date recorded on it, according to a Wikipedian. Now, why is this "alleged" date considered to be *erroneous*? It is the date inscribed on the cenotaph with his heart in the church of Sainte-Croix in Warsaw. We know that Chopin's sister took his heart when she returned to Poland after his burial. When was the cenotaph built? What I am driving at: was she still alive when it was, because, if so, then she would have given the exact details pertaining to the date of his birth.

2. Chopin's nationality: Born in Poland, there is no doubt that he is a Polish citizen, naturellement. However, his father was a French citizen. Now, I have no idea what the law(s) on nationality - different in different countries, even now - were at the time of Chopin's birth.

Was a French expatriate considered a French citizen?
If still a French citizen, would the born-out-of-France children of this expatriate French citizen be French?

As the laws of France are now, OUI: Chopin would have both nationalities. But what were the laws in 1810?

If considered a French citizen because his father was French, then Chopin, once he moved to France, did not need to become a French citizen since he was one by birth.

3. Chopin's French passport: In my opinion, his French passport is no proof of citizenship:

The one we see in the article was issued for one year in 1837 to allow him to travel outside of France. Chopin was 27 years old, quite well known and well considered because of his artistry: the French would have done anything they could to facilitate his travels, and the only way they could do it was to issue a passport to him.
The passport issued to Chopin in 1837 does not say that he is a Frenchman, it says that his parents are French (de parents français), which includes his mother, implying she became a French citizen by marrying a Frenchman. Which also could imply that Chopin (and his sisters, by the same token) were French citizens because of the French nationality of their father. However, it does not say de nationalité française; but, again, this was in 1837.

The reason I am bringing this up is because it seems to me that somewhere in the article, it is said that he became a French citizen & the only proof given is the passport. (In fact, if the one issued in 1837 was issued for one year, then he must have had others as he traveled outside of France two or three times.)

Meilleurs vœux pour 2010.

Frania W. (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and trouble to elucidate your thoughts on various matters (birth dates, passports, etc.) concerning Chopin. Unfortunately the issue of his nationality (far too often) seems to raise concerns in some quarters on Wikipedia. It would seem that other than some type of nationalistic xenophobia one should not object to including his connection to France (emigration to France, acquiring French citizenship, primary residency in France), thus making him Polish-French (and of course, his father's heritage). And including that would be appropriate information for the lead. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do fight my own battles (which I call "windmills") at times on Wikipedia, but the (dual) nationality of Chopin is not one I want to go into because I realise that it touches some too deeply. Besides, being French with a Polish name, whichever way I turn, I can claim Chopin! Aurevoir ! Frania W. (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand your dilemma. Unfortunately, many of the people who are "touched too deeply" by such issues are the same ones that are less concerned about "touching other people's sensibilities" as in the Antanas Mackevicius matter [1]. There are plenty of other examples. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful with 3RR! I must go now. Will probably run into each other again at Chopin's page. Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cher Dr. Dan, I left a comment at Nihil novi's talk page & also something at Chopin's. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cher Dr. Dan, Yes, I am quite "aware". But I am also aware of what the Code Napoléon stated at time of the birth of Chopin, which touches the Chopin family since his father came from France, and leaves no doubt as to Chopin's French nationality. Unfortunately, it is difficult to find a book to reference this particular point, and what I am saying falls into Wikipedia definition of "original research".

Chopin & his music are so incrusted into the tragedy of Poland that, in my opinion, out of respect for the Poles, the French have been unwilling to claim him as their own. He is always mentioned as "compositeur polonais né d'un père français" (Dictionnaire Petit Robert)... yet, according to the Code Civil: "Tout enfant né d'un Français à l'étranger est Français." But, go say that to the Poles!

Tad Szulc is the writer being quoted in Chopin acquiring French citizenship four years after his arrival in France. These few lines [2] are enough for Wikipedia's requirements. It is obvious that neither Chopin's friends and protectors nor Tad Szulc ever consulted the French Code Civil. Until he met with the French authorities, Chopin himself may have been unaware of the fact that he was French, but the French authorities knew the Code, hence the issuance of a French passport.

In my opinion, Tad Szulc's book is not a good reference (for the nationality part), but it is the only one there is, so it automatically wins out.

Do you "readez" French?

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Dr. Dan, S'il vous plaît, allez ici [3]. Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merci. J'ai lu votre lien et le point de prendre bonne note. Le problème est que ceux qui s'opposent à des faits ne traitons pas avec la réalité. Que faire maintenant? Dr. Dan (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Que faire maintenant? Attendre une réaction et si elle se fait attendre, on peut toujours mettre les deux nationalités dans l'introduction de l'article puisque l'on est couvert par Encyclopedia Britannica. Ensuite, si nécessaire, en cas de controverse, on sortira le Code Napoléon ! - the problem being that it may be argued as OR. I am looking for something readable in English that would put an end to the debate. Comme vous vous en doutez, le plus gros problème sera d'éviter une bagarre entre éditeurs. Aurevoir ! --Frania W. (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I wrote earlier, Chopin is the last person I would want to fight an edit war over; in other words, he is not going to be turned into one of my windmills. If I can find it acceptable for en:wiki, the only reference/source I will use is the Code Napoléon and, as I understand the way Wikipedia functions, it has to be a secondary source, not the reading of the code itself (?).

In fact, there should be a calm discussion on Chopin's nationality/nationalities without anyone over-reacting when the word "French" is mentioned. --Frania W. (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strang article

Thanks so much for your recent contributions to James Strang. Your changes definitely enhanced the readability of that portion of the article, and are much appreciated! - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I placed a longer reply on my talk page. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to tell you "thanks" for the comment you made about my userboxes. I really like userboxes (you probably couldn't tell that, could you?!?); they are not just informative, but also—to me, at least—miniature works of art that really "spice up" any Userpage. Thanks again for your compliment (and your message in general), and have a great week! - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peace of Riga Caricature

Great, only that I don't read cyrillic so a translation would be welcome. Dr. Loosmark 04:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks. I think there is still a small problem with that caricature but it's not really important. About the Soviet leadership, in the 1918-19 time frame the majority was still for spreading the revolution abroad, at least Trocki and Lenin were. IMO we should replace "some" with "most". Dr. Loosmark 07:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, that I didn't "note" the Pole's resemblance to Pilsudski, or the ghoulish long, pointed, nails that both parties are using to dig into Belarus. Dan may i ask you what are you talking about? which Pole? Dr. Loosmark 17:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The representation of Poland in the caricature

. The caricature with the caption "Down with the shameful Riga partition. Long live an independent National Belarus". Dr. Dan (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well nobody said you noted any particular resemblances with anybody so why did you feel a strong need to specify that? Dr. Loosmark 20:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right nobody noted, other than myself, any particular resemblances. This is why I mentioned "that I didn't note that" in relation to the caricature. There wasn't any "strong need" on my part to do so either. Just a digression regarding many comments made concerning a caricature at the Bialystok pogrom (talk page). User:Malik Shabazz can bring you up to speed on that one. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh i see. a digression. Dr. Loosmark 01:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right! A digression. Subjective notations are unnecessary and uncalled for. They often get people into trouble. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you stop your anti-Polish POV pushing? thanks. Dr. Loosmark 04:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earth to Loosmark. What are you trying to start up again? Just what are you referring to? I'd like to know before you pull the plug [4] Dr. Dan (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i will explain why was your edit wrong. imagine for a second that the Soviet Union would not have invaded Poland. In that case after the Nazis were toasted the Polish Eastern border would have been restored to the 1939 state. considering that it is wrong to say that the border established with the Riga Treaty lasted till the start of the Second War (which was on 1 September 1939) but actually till the Soviet Invasion (17 September). Dr. Loosmark 05:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loosmark, first explaining why my edit was wrong is quite different than accusing me of "anti-Polish POV pushing". Please be so kind as to retract that comment and stop being so defensive. It's really uncalled for. Second, I've read your remark above and I honestly have no idea of what you are trying to say. Usually your English is much better. Please reorganize your thoughts and put them together in a more coherent fashion. It would be better to carry this dialogue over to the talk page of the Peace of Riga article. If you wish to apologize for your uncalled for PA, you can do that here. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i retractor my comment, it was unfortunate. Dr. Dan I want to give you barnstar for your contributions to wikipedia but I don't know how to do it. Can you please teach me how? Dr. Loosmark 05:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re the article - glad you liked the edits - I think it's in pretty reasonable shape now. The lead - perhaps you're right and it's too much info, but we should probably discuss that at article talk. I don't feel strongly about it tho. Later, Novickas (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your question

I don't even understand it very well. Dr. Loosmark 03:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What question would that be? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International naming

Yup, the conventions are in force everywhere in Europe (and not only in Europe). I believe it was either CIV or COTIF (both are in force), you can easily google it. Anyway, that's why Russian trains from Moscow to Paris passing through Warsaw have "Moskva-Warszawa-Paris" written on their sides rather than "Москва-Варшава-Париж". Polish trains to Moscow also call it Moskva, even though the letter V is not even in Polish alphabet. And yes, Polish coaches to Vilna (no direct rail link) operated by the Polish State Railways go to Vilnius rather than Wilno. Which does not mean that Vilnius is the Polish name for that place. //Halibu tt 23:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, however I believe the question was..."Do the train stations and airport schedules in Poland use Vilnius" (rather than Wilno)? Those in Germany use Vilnius, not Wilna. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, they do. Not sure if this link will work for you, if not go to [pkp.pl pkp.pl] and check for yourself. Warszawa-Vilnius through Minsk (not Mińsk). //Halibu tt 11:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link worked. Interesting that you say..."And yes, Polish coaches to Vilna (no direct rail link) operated by the Polish State Railways go to Vilnius rather than Wilno". In any case the issue that started [5] this discussion [6] is your belief that "Wilna" is currently the toponym employed for the city in the German language. As you know today, the Russians use Vilnius (Вильнюс) instead of the former Vilna (Вильна). I think a cursory review of the situation will demonstrate that the Germans have made the same change from "Wilna" to Vilnius. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, check any German language encyclopaedia: even if Vilnius is used, it is immediately followed by deutsch Wilna, polnisch Wilno and so on. //Halibu tt 23:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto!

Merci! --Frania W. (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chopin, (cont'd)

Cher Dr. Dan,

Voilà !

En latin: :http://diaph16.free.fr/chopin//actenaissancechopin.png

SVP, allez à la discussion sur la page de Chopin.

J'ajoute ce facsimile en note de bas de page à l'introduction de l'article.

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

...for that one. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skäpperöd, no need to apologize. Actually, I stumbled upon the article as a consequence of my interest in the cinema, and some of the works that were produced by UFA, prior to, during, and after the Third Reich in Germany. That being said, somehow the Norkus article was on my watch list and the recent edits made by the anonymous IP were not correct. It's not particularly an important article but deserving of some degree of accuracy. I toned down the "murder" to a more neutral "killed" following the German Wiki example (even though it's splitting hairs). The German article was also edited at the same time, by the same IP, with the same information. It seems that Dr. Loosmark is either stalking you, or me, or both of us [7]. But that's not really important. If I wasn't as busy as I've been lately, I might have worked on the article a little more as it has a lot of superfluous and non-encyclopedic information interspersed within it. Thanks for stopping by, but again apologies are unnecessary. Best. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about!? Dr. Loosmark 23:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[8] Dr. Dan (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 161: / Line 161: @@
 ...for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herbert_Norkus&diff=prev&oldid=348763076 that one]. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 16:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
-:Skäpperöd, no need to apologize. Actually, I stumbled upon the article as a consequence of my interest in the cinema, and some of the works that were produced by [[Universum Film AG|UFA]], prior to, during, and after the Third Reich in Germany. That being said, somehow the Norkus article was on my watch list and the recent edits made by the anonymous IP were not correct. It's not particularly an important article but deserving of some degree of accuracy. I toned down the "murder" to a more neutral "killed" following the German Wiki example (even though it's splitting hairs). The German article was also edited at the same time, by the same IP, with the same information. It seems that Dr. Loosmark is either stalking you, or me, or both of us. But that's not really important. If I wasn't as busy as I've been lately, I might have worked on the article a little more as it has a lot of superfluous and non-encyclopedic information interspersed within it. Thanks for stopping by, but again apologies are unnecessary. Best. [[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]] ([[User talk:Dr. Dan#top|talk]]) 23:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
+:Skäpperöd, no need to apologize. Actually, I stumbled upon the article as a consequence of my interest in the cinema, and some of the works that were produced by [[Universum Film AG|UFA]], prior to, during, and after the Third Reich in Germany. That being said, somehow the Norkus article was on my watch list and the recent edits made by the anonymous IP were not correct. It's not particularly an important article but deserving of some degree of accuracy. I toned down the "murder" to a more neutral "killed" following the German Wiki example (even though it's splitting hairs). The German article was also edited at the same time, by the same IP, with the same information. It seems that Dr. Loosmark is either stalking you, or me, or both of us [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herbert_Norkus&diff=next&oldid=348763076]. But that's not really important. If I wasn't as busy as I've been lately, I might have worked on the article a little more as it has a lot of superfluous and non-encyclopedic information interspersed within it. Thanks for stopping by, but again apologies are unnecessary. Best. [[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]] ([[User talk:Dr. Dan#top|talk]]) 23:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 :: What the hell are you talking about!? [[User:Loosmark|<span style="background:#acf;padding:2px;color:black; 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em">&nbsp;'''Dr. Loosmark'''&nbsp;</span>]] 23:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
+:::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZCrGk_7U_I] [[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]] ([[User talk:Dr. Dan#top|talk]]) 02:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)