User talk:Jacurek

Reference requested

Can you provide a reference for this? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Polanski = Sex Offender

When you can sight a specific rule in the BLP that would preclude the use of a valid adjective in the title sentence of an article that describes a topic of that article, then please do so and stop making false claims of vandalism. You have not made a single claim, logical arguement, or cited any rule that would give cause to not use the adjective sex offender or for that matter any other word that aptly applies. When you can do this do it in the discussion page and refrain from acting out of your own personal opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.108.47 (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, our anon person sure can copy and paste. *blink* Moving right along.
*I wanted to tell you that I think the great deal of editing you have done to the Roman Polanski article has improved it greatly. All the bestsinneed (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Warsaw Uprising

I've put it up for FAR: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Warsaw Uprising. DrKiernan (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Jarosław Kaczyński

Hello, could I kindly ask you to please stop removing info from this article without citing WP guidlines? The info is not 'tabloid' as you have claimed - it has been covered by many respectable Polish newspapers such as Wyborcza, Dziennik, Polska... As for BLP arguments - they are spurious. We are not saying he is gay - just that many notable people (Walesa, Palikot...) have suggested he is and that this has garnered a lot of media coverage. That is true and irrefutable. Thank you for your cooperation. Malick78 (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron Bielski

You forgot to sign :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Leon Feldhendler

Hi. I just left a comment there. Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Poles in 30th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS

I haven't heard anything about it before except perhaps for the fact that only Catholics were recruited (I think). Maybe if one stretches the definition of "Pole" to "pre war Polish citizen"? At any rate, until a reliable source is provided it shouldn't be in there.radek (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to dig in sources. For now, ask User:Molobo, he is our resident expert on those issues, I'd think.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

IP troll

Hi

First let me say that I have an opinion on this matter but I have to approach this in Wikiworld, with neutrality and without PoV

I know, I have been watching his edits, and that is why I mentioned all the stuff in my last post on the 14th SS page. He has been trying to get his point across, mostly it seems about antisemitism, even to the point of saying that Herge Tintin has a character which a Nazi collaborator claimed to be modelled on himself. On the Joe Redner chat page - "What is Joe's ethnicity ? Some claim his name is originally Jewish, while others claim he is from Gypsy background.....I asked Joe if his name was Jewish, he would not answer" I cannot understand why he asked this question.

I don't think he has bad intention, it seems more like he cannot understand why no-one wants to accept his point. It shows me that he is inexperienced with dealing with others so I am hoping he will calm down now and stop. He also seems to say contradictory things, "In Poland as in France, a number of fools at first resisted the Germans entering their countries" and then "My Polish grandmother's family in Krakow had no problem with the Germans at all, they knew the real terror was from the Soviets" obviously ignoring the fact that his grandmother must have turned a blind eye to the thousands of Jews and Communists being taken away or executed for the privelidge of not having the Soviets in charge anymore, a rather heavy price to pay I think

On the one hand it is either he has Nazi tendencies, and yet on the other he is defending Friedwardt Winterberg by saying that he had nothing to do with Larouche - who I assume is the LaRouche of the LaRouche_movement - basically saying that Winterberg is not an anti-semite and shouldnt be associated with one.

My problem is that if what he says is right, that the reference does exist, then he should have been allowed to include that in the page as he has done with his comment. "However, the Waffen SS and the Wehrmacht both enlisted Ethnic Poles into their ranks.[56]" The difficulty is that we normally would not challenge that information if he has cited the reference correctly and so without any evidence to the contrary it should be left to stand. The problem is that he has now cited it correctly, and we would have to disprove this statement to get it removed by stating contrary evidence and sources.

The article Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II even says in the closing paragraph of the Poland section, "In 1944 Germans clandestinely armed a few regional Armia Krajowa (AK) units operating in the area of Vilnius in order to encourage them to act against the Soviet partisans in the region"

I cannot stress enough that if he is right in some way - what then ? Is it such a big deal that Poles were collaborating. I think it should be pointed out to him that the article already says that there was collaboration at the end of the war with a small number of Poles to fight the Russians.

On a much more important note, it must be made clear where, if he does say it, Rikmenspoel got his sources and then we need to assess him as a credible or not credible source.

It is a very difficult subject, and without understanding hi intent, it is difficult to say which way to go, exclusion or inclusion with helpful advice and strong "reference it or else". I need to follow up on the Feldgrau forum to see what the author has to say himself and then hopefully we can asess the merits/demerits corectly.

If his part is to be included we could water it down to a more truthful statement "However there were a small number of Poles that did join the ranks of the occupying German forces"

I am sorry I cannot be more helpful apart from to keep battering him with "references, truth, discussion etc" and lets hope some of it sinkcs in and he can become a valid contributor instead of an ouitcast in need of proving something of which he is not himself sure yet.

Thansk--Chaosdruid (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

World War II article

The photos currently in this article were selected after a long discussion and there's an ongoing effort to prevent the number of photos from crowding out the text. Could you please discuss the photo on the article's talk page before re-adding it? Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI

You were mentioned and thanked by Greg in his final remark (I just found about it today by accident). Read his post here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI post on Allies of World War II

FYI, I've reported what appears to me to be block evasion at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible block evader continuing their edit warring Nick-D (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Cite fact date

lol I wondered where that came from - I thought I must have missed seeing it then realised you added it between edits lol
That will be my next mission I suppose - two hours without a coffee and still I go on..... lol
--Chaosdruid (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

well, so far only 7 references on the internet, and 6 of those are direct copies out of Wikipedia, one is a rewritten copy of Wikpedia. The rest talk about Ukrainians who were NOT in the 14th joining his army but I am unsure who could help search in Ukrainian texts. Haven't seen Faustian or Bandurist for a while but I have posted on their talk pages.--Chaosdruid (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Small point though, nothing mentioned specificlally on the Polish_II_Corps either --Chaosdruid (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ya, it should be there also..--Jacurek (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi can you provide me with a translation of the section please ? This is a website and as such does not seem to give references etc so I would appreciate being able to check this myself as it may refer back to the problem with our friend "ethnic poles"

1 were they released after capture etc

2 why were they released as they were POW

3 were they"Polish" rather than Ukrainian etc

thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Poles in Waffen SS

No Jacurek, there were no Poles in Waffen SS to the extent of my knowledge.

• Poles were considered sub-humans and thus unsuitable for this formation whose primary aim among others was extermination of sub-human people. I have heard about two cases where some people reported a Pole being forcefully drafted during combat into a formation, but those are only rumours and would consider two people, so nothing here. Remember that many of the Waffen SS were quite ideological and dedicated, and likely they would be quite disgusted to serve with people who in their view were something worse then animals.
• However you can sometimes find info about "Poles", note that this is an error and in fact is about former Polish citizens with German, Ukrainian or other ethnic background. For example the Feldgrau forum which I noticed being quoted claims members of Selbstschutz as Polish forces fighting for Germany, while at the same time claiming that they are Polish even if made out of Germans(If needed I can point this sentence out to you). IMHO this is quite manipulative and shouldn't be considered valuable source. Fortunetly Wikipedia prohibits forums and self-published non-scholary sites from being considered acceptable sources.

Cheers ! --Molobo (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Input appreciated

At Talk:Rescue_of_Jews_by_Poles_during_the_Holocaust#GA_Review. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration talk page

Morning

Youre at it early lol

I have started an archive for the collaboration chat page (message at bottom of that chat)

Are you around later, or can you say any of the sections you wwant left there for a while and I'll get miszabot set up later today

cheers --Chaosdruid (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC) PS - u in UK ? I just noticed the flag lol

K m8 - good edits btw - I was watching you and 24 at same time lol--Chaosdruid (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The quote on your User page

Hi. I think the quote on your User page is very true. I think editors sometimes take extreme positions to counter what they perceive to be the extreme positions of others, and it's nice to be reminded that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 18:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is an excellent quote. If you could source it, we could add it to some articles in the future.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I Googled it earlier and found it in this article, which I think is interesting reading. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you guys. I am really happy that you agree and like it.--Jacurek (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

14th SS

Hi

Hope all is well with you. In regard to your "will this work?" edit - that seems fine by me - on another note though...

Molobo says there were no Poles in the Waffen SS, but if there weren't then they couldn't go and join the Polish army, so one of the views must be wrong, either there were and they left to join Polish army or there weren't and it was Ukrainians who joined the Polish army to try and get back home - it's getting too confusing lol.
I'm thinking that may be where the qoute originated, someone may have thought that "the 170 that joined Polish army after Rimini must have been ethinic Poles" and so we get the references in the book our pet Troll quoted.

Anyway, I have had no reply as yet from the authors of either book so I will cary on waiting...

Cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration

Hi

I have to say that the wording you have used is not good.

We had consensus on the term collaborator so the section "...occupied by the Nazis to collaborate with the Axis Powers." was to remain as we had all agreed that it meant to co-operate traitorously, and to remove or rewrite the phrasing that talked about "Collaboration ranged from urging the civilian population to remain calm and accept foreign occupation,"

I ask you to revert or undo your edit on that basis - I do not wish to do it

thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

...."participation in controlled massacres formulated by Reinhard Heydrich"

(You wrote)
Hi and thanks for your recent edits. I would like to point out that this line .. participation in controlled massacres formulated by Reinhard Heydrich in Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust page is a little unclear and confusing. Can we rewrite this somehow or leave it as it was before? In my opinion this looks like an excuse for a behaviour of a bunch of primitive mobsters. The sad truth is that in most cases like Jedwabne the angry mob simply took revenge on innocent people for collaboration of a few and it is better to just clearly say it. Thanks again.--Jacurek (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• I’m sorry to say that your excessively fussy rewording of my statement and the removal of Reinhard Heydrich link discourages me from improving this article any further. German Nazi police was present there in Jedwabne, just like the NKWD before them. This is not a trivial matter, and in that sense, the environment was also “controlled” by the outside forces. Please stop imposing your personal views upon my work which is supported with relevant citations, and try to fix the rest of the article instead, because I’m not going to bother with it anymore. Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 15:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I did not mean to discourage you from further editing, I am sorry. I am aware that the Germans were around when Jedwabne happened but were they also present in other villages were similar but on smaller scale things happened? Probably, but we do not know for sure. I have heard about a case of two brothers from one of the villages near Grodno. One of them was a big scum who collaborated with the Soviets and fled with them before the Germans arrived. Few days later, somebody murdered his younger brother his wife and her sister, as a revenge. A lot of crap happened at that time and not everything was really controlled, that is all.

I really hope you change your mind and continue your contribution to this article which needs editors like you. Why don't we ask what others think? Would that be o.k.?--Jacurek (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• I see your point, about the ever-present potential for capital crime at wartime, but the extermination of Jews was not an accident waiting to happen, but a Nazi murderous policy. That’s why, in my view, it is as important to mention the instructions of Reinhard Heydrich, as it is to mention the posters proclaiming death penalty for Poles helping Jews. These were "two different sides of the same coin". If you can read Polish, please see the link provided by me right next to my comment, because his name is mentioned there. Needless to say, I would appreciate if you reinstated my bit about the Heydrich directive, if you want us both to work on this article. And, by the way, thanks for the words of support. --Poeticbent talk 23:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Post-war PL

See eg History_of_Poland_(1945-1989)#Creation_of_the_People.27s_Republic_of_Poland_.281944.E2.80.931956.29, I'm not saying there were NO Communists, but they were not the only ones active. They were the ones to succeed, but this took some time. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

I am responding to a report at WP:AN3, where you have been reported for edit warring. An explanation of what you plan next would be appreciated. Either there or here, it doesn't matter. Kevin (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert. Kevin (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Jews and Communists

Hi Jacurek. Let's go through that briefly again here, and keep the real discussion on the article's talk, ok? I just understood after your message that I have to make myself a little more clear:

• Communists. To be plain: I am a little annoyed that you ask me to delete that sentence. The source says so, the source is reliable and verifiable, the "disagreeing party" has provided nothing but hot air. The correct way to proceed would be that you come up with a source backing your POV ("only Communists in PL in 1945"), and then, per WP:NPOV, we'd present both sources in an outweighted manner. Nevertheless to cut down this "argument about a sidenote", Radek and me have worked out a way everyone can agree with and which I would support even without a source. Please read subsection "Proposed compromise", we're just stuck on style and phrasing, maybe you can come up with the the ultimative phrasing for a qualification sentence not interfering with the sourced sentence below.
• Jews. I am not the one who inserted the large chunks about Kielce, and if you read my statements on talk closely you will find that I proposed to inform the reader with (quote) "half a sentence and a wikilink". You will also find in my statements that I regard Kielce not the only reason for Jewish emigration, but as a trigger for the ones still there. Xx236 provided some more on this, my position here is inform but keep short.

A final note regarding your most recent comments: This is not about making Poles look bad. First of all, nowhere in the article it reads "The Poles did ...", but it is always qualified who did/said what. Second, don't over-identify with your nation, or you will ultimatively end up identifying with fools and criminals, or even lawyers and politicians, who are part of every nation. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

POV template

What dispute besides the ethnicity of the authors? Please outline at talk or self-revert. Maybe you confused Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II with Expulsions of Germans after WWII? Skäpperöd (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In the "German POV" section, nothing whatsoever was presented to justify the tag than the ethnicity of the authors of an estimated 70% of the sources the article uses. Please, do not judge people by their ethnicity (you did not so far, but you will if you place the tag again). I am really sorry we are having these disputes right now, but I hope we can resolve them in a reasonable manner. That is: If you think a POVs are unbalanced, state which ones. Remember your personal oppinions do not count as a POV, but only POVs of authors of reliable sources (check WP:NPOV on this). It would also be nice if you forward the other, RfC-discussion by presenting something we can integrate. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Expulsions

I will work on expulsions as my next project after Wielkopolskie Uprising 1848. Will notify you about that--Molobo (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Żydokomuna

Nice work. Congratulations on bringing the article to Good Article status. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :)--Jacurek (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How to combine references

First, in addition to adding an external link, please describe it! So instead of <ref>ref link</ref> please use <ref>ref link and description</ref>. Second, how to combine references if they are the same: Use <ref name=blabla>ref link and description</ref> instead of <ref>ref link and description</ref> for the first time you use such a reference, and <ref name=blabla/> for the second and so on times you use it. Read more at Wikipedia:Footnotes.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will.--Jacurek (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

La France

I largely agree with you. France in 1944/45 was a junior partner at best and the Big Three had the last say. However, France unlike Poland subsequently gained importance and the "Big Three" became the "Four Powers" in the war's aftermath. Thence, France unlike Poland did not really join a bloc, but largely acted independent and pursued her own policies. Despite the differing self-perseption of the grande nation, she never reached up to the role of the US or the USSR, yet she needs to be considered to be one of the "great players" in post-war Europe, also (and most important in the context) in regard to post-war Germany.

So while indeed France' "yes" did not really matter whether or how the expulsions were carried out in 1945, I think the French perspective is nevertheless notable because of her future role in European and especially Germany-related politics. I am not arguing for giving it more room than currently, which after all is a mere four words in the intro. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Victim categories confusing?

I'd appreciate your input at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_12#Category:Holocaust_victims and below.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding a new category for SURVIVORS of the Holocaust

Hi Jacurek: Regarding the two CfDs at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 12#Category:Holocaust victims and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 12#Category:Nazi concentration camp victims, while I agree that the categories need to be sharpened, but if they are going to become categories about people who DIED only in Category:People who died in The Holocaust and Category:People who died in Nazi concentration camps respectively, then in all fairness and following good logic and historiography, following that reasoning, there should now therefore be two categories. ONE for those who DIED and one for those survivors who LIVED such as Category:Holocaust victims who survived and Category:Survivors of Nazi concentration camps that would allow for that. I am positive you will agree and kindly take a look at the two above CfD discussions again and note that that should be so, that both those who died and those who survived and lived, and who were/are of course notable, such as Elie Wiesel; Joel Teitelbaum; Yekusiel Yehudah Halberstam and many others that I know as being important to Jewish history, and there are many others like this from many other groups. It would be a great shame and travesty if those names were expunged only "because" they survived and escaped the fate the Nazis had wanted for them by having lived and not died in the Holocaust and/or the death and concentration camps. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Center against Expulsions

I had to set back some expansions because of disruptive violations of wiki policies. Probably some of your edits were accidentally affected. Please check. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: New film

Interesting, yes, but how can we know it will be "Excellent"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland

Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland has awarded you a status of a honorary member (you have never officially joined the project by signing on its front page...). Thank you for your Poland-related encyclopedic contributions! Please consider officially joining the project by moving yourself from the "Honorary members" list to the "Active members" list here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Film

Thank you. It looks like a very interesting film. I'll keep an eye out for it. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Zanussi

Nie przeinaczaj tekstu. Tajny współpracownik to po angielsku secret collaborator. Informer to informator a był to szczebel niższy współpracy (Kontakt Operacyjny, Kontakt Obywatelski). Mathiasrex (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Bloc

As a heads up, the analogy you deleted looks like something thrown together, but it is actually straight out of the listed source, including the onion analogy. Also, the sentence around it, re the Russia's domination of the USSR and the USSR domination of the Bloc are obviously pretty basic historical points, and they are both contained in a boatload of sources (and are not exactly disputed by many, if anyone). None of that is particularly controversial stuff.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Apolinary Hartglas

Anybody can give out wiki awards, so if you think it is time, go ahead and give them out! :) PS. You have not activated your email? If you want to discuss awards "in secret", activate your email and email me :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Częstochowa Ghetto Uprising

No, no, help out! Messing up is part of the process. I've also started Częstochowa Ghetto since that was missing as well.radek (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-German Nazi concentration camp

Jasenovac concentration camp --Molobo (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you please

...look at what actual content you are reverting to instead of just assuming that it must be right if a co-national wrote it. Give your thoughts at talk, it's all listed there. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Złośliwy

Forgive me for adding the correct diacritics. Regarding your post at the JP article. Sorry you are out of here, but do you think Vilna, (now Vilnius) is the way to go? But Cracow, (now Kraków) is not? How should we resolve this inconsistency on WP? What policy do you think would best address this conundrum? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerning your recent edit at the Kraków article (and its immediate RV). I'm surprised that you were unaware that additions of Lithuanian toponyms at cities of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in Poland, are unnacceptable. It is a one way street. Only Polish toponyms, such as the one at the Kėdainiai article are permitted on English WP. The arguments or rationale for their inclusion are not valid if Lithuanian is used. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Except Krokuva already is in the article. If you want it in the lead then put Wilno in the lead of Vilnius.radek (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So is Wilno "already" in the Vilnius article. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, so what's the problem?radek (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A nie mówiłem. WP:DFTT. A przy okazji: [1]. Czemu nie? Bo nikt tak tam nie mówił... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen this?

Spieprzaj dziadu! Is this article notable? Ostap 03:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust

Noticed I said survived, I did not detail how they died. The edit is factualy correct. Any way, Wikipedia is wasting my time. --Woogie10w (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I got real ticked last week off when a user from Germany deleted a section on Nazi crimes in Poland on the Holocaust page and I got no support at all from the Poles or Jews on Wikipedia to restore the material. That's why I say Wikipedia is wasting my time. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep a watch on the Holocaust page, that user from Germany plans major changes based on his talk page comments. --Woogie10w (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

BTY did you read Unequal Victims by Gutman?--Woogie10w (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia has a bad reputation because the citiation does not often agree with the posting, you made the post off the top of your head. The source has different information. Wikipedia is a dog and pony show, a joke.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The source Thadeuz Piotrowski says otherwise, he based his figures on up to date information. Read the source in the link. Piotrowski is an expert on Polands losses in the war that were 5.6 million, Wikipedia is beyond hope.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Always check your sources. Vad Yesem has dated information--Woogie10w (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

To make a long story short the Poles that remained in the USSR after the war were counted as dead in the official gov figures. In any case read the Piotrowski link 5 million Poles died at German hands. The Holocaust is about deaaths in German hands, not including the Soviets--Woogie10w (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The figure of 6 million + Polish war dead is wrong, up to date information can be found in Gniazdowski, Mateusz. Losses Inflicted on Poland by Germany during World War II. Assessments and Estimates—an Outline The Polish Quarterly of International Affairs, 2007, no. 1.This article is available for purchase from the Central and Eastern European Online Library at [2]--Woogie10w (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I am definitely wasting my time on wikipedia, you have proved it beyond any shadow of a doubt Thank you--Woogie10w (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

well...maybe you are.--Jacurek (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Vilnius vandalism

You need to place a warning on the vandal's talk page. Then if the vandalism is repeated (you seem to be suffering from repeat vandalism by one individual) it is easier to ask an admin to block the user at WP:AIV This is generally faster than asking for page protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 20:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Zirmunai

Please leave your impressions, opinions, and preferences outside Wikipedia. "KGB killed A, B, and C." It's a fact. That A and B had problems with each other is totally irrelevant. Renata (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Falaise Pocket

It might be best to discuss your edit on the article talk-page rather than edit-warring (see WP:BRD for more information). I've opened a discussion there. EyeSerene^talk 16:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Any Messaging Service?

Do you have AIM or MSN? Yahoo perhaps? I would like to contact you so we can discuss the Enver Hoxha article. --Mrdie (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sobibor Jews

Hello. I put that photo on Leon Feldhendler page. I am currently working on Sobibor. My goal is to get as many of the killers and survivors up as I can. Since I see you are intrested, i am going to do the bios of the Sobibor survivors from the Eichmann trials. Right now I did a 100% rewrite on Alexander Pechersky and wrote new articles on Hermann Michel, Erich Bauer and Kurt Bolender. If you have anything to add, please let me know. Meishern (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments welcomed

I updated Polish Areas annexed by Germany [3] As your contributions have been productive I would welcome any comments on how to improve the article further.--Molobo (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Poland vs Polish forces

I'd tend to use "Polish forces", since the Polish government in exile was

• an appointed one
• limited in their authority over the Polish forces
• had no authority over a territory
• was acknowledged only by some states as the legitimate Polish government; in case of the USSR, this acknowledgement was just temporary

The above would be from the viewpoint that Poland cannot be considered a "state" during the war, as defined as being in charge of a territory's legislature, executive, and judicative. Which simply was not the case.

Yet I see the rationale behind the argumentation that Poland, though her government was not in charge of any territory, did exist in a kind of virtual nature during the war, and that this virtual nature even materialized to a limited extend in form of a so-called underground state. I see the government in exile was also in command of forces, though the command was primarily of theoretical nature ("fight and do what our allies say!") and did not extend to all Polish forces (eg the Soviet recruited ones).

So we have a body that in theory resembles a state but in practice does not (or only very limited). I tend to use "Polish forces" due to the definition of "state" being a practicle one - that is factual assertion of power in a given territory. Yet in terms of international law and recognition, "virtual" states are also possible.

So imho none of the rationales behind the conflicting positions is based on a logical fallacy, they are both reasonable. For now, I have not given it enough thought to weigh in the discussion. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

History of Polish Jews and copyvios

You know I respect your work, but you have to learn quickly what most of us have to learn: WP:PLAGIARISM. Rewriting takes time, but it is necessary. Attribution is crucial per WP:V anyway. Worst case, not respecting those policies means that your work will be wasted - articles will be deleted, and you may even find yourself banned. I'd suggest you take your time and review your past contributions, adding references and rewriting as needed where you can. Otherwise, others will have to do it for you - and they may be less forgiving :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

How you can help

Hi. Thank you for your willingness to help address this matter. I am currently reviewing the History of Polish Jews article, but it would be very helpful if you could identify any text you believe may be a problem in other articles. If you don't know, it would be helpful if you simply identified articles to which you contributed extensively in the past.

Unless you know that text is free for use (such as public domain material or material that is licensed elsewhere under GFDL), you can't use it in Wikipedia without using quotation marks (and only small amounts of quotation). This is true even if it has no copyright notice at all, since United States law (which governs Wikipedia) automatically grants copyright protection. (See WP:C and WP:NFC for policies on that.)

I am making notes at the talk page of this article, and I will identify any problem materials I find. Once I've finished, this article can either be restored (if it's clean) or cleaned up more if necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will admit that it's not fun, but it's a job that I've willingly undertaken on Wikipedia because I'm good at it. :) I'm sure I've required time-consuming assistance in the past from editors who are good at jobs that I'm not. It's a collaborative project, after all. Just, please, let me know if you are unclear about our copyright policies or how you can best use previously published text. Piotrus is right to warn you that putting material on Wikipedia that doesn't meet WP:C can get you into trouble, even blocked from editing, which would be a shame since you're obviously dedicated to improving articles.

I do appreciate that you are receiving this graciously. As I said at Piotrus's talk page, I believe that many people who run afoul of our copyright policies do so innocently. Unfortunately, some of them become extremely belligerent when it's point out to them. It's not pleasant for anybody, and much better if we can just get through it with as little fuss as possible. :)

You are welcome to stop by my talk page any time you have questions about how to use or revise something. (Revising can be trickier than it might seem. We have a user essay at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing that does offer some guidance.) We also have a project related to the issue where you might get help: WP:COPYCLEAN. Meanwhile, I'll get back to reviewing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Pyrrhic Victory

Germany's victory over Poland in the Warsaw Uprising was pyrrhic. Germany put all of its resources in Poland to squash the rebellion, therefore when the Soviet Union came they faced almost no resistance by the Germans in Warsaw. There isa saying that the only things the Soviets liberated were stray cats and rubble. If the Uprising did not occur, the Soviets would have faced heavy resistance in Warsaw therefore the German victory was pyrrhic. see "The Polish Way" by Adam Zamoyski (born in New York, graduate of Oxford)

Bez problemu

It was just a mistake, and the article needs a major rewrite anyhow.radek (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Jacurek. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

---

(Whether or not that's too close might depend on if you are giving credit to the source in the text itself. For example, if you said, "According to Gutman, the new details about Jedwabne mass murder were a shock to many Poles because it clashes with the popular knowledge of the war years, anti-Semitism and Polish-Jewish relations during the WW2." That allows you to stick a little closer to the source. Otherwise, you've got a very good start on revision and certainly what you have is nothing in the order of copyright infringement, as long as you don't have a whole lot of it. But I would try to change a few more key words, maybe like:

"Many Poles were badly shaken by details about the Jadwabne mass murder, which challenged national beliefs about the war years." (Nothing wrong with myth, I just preferred beliefs. :))

One of my favorite tricks for revision is flipping a sentence around. Instead of making the details the subject, I make the Poles the subject. I could also flip it by saying, "National beliefs about the war years were challenged when the Poles learned the shocking details about the Jedwabne mass murder." In that case, obviously, I've put the beliefs up front. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC))

Jews in Poland

		The Resilient Barnstar
		It's my honor to give you this barnstar in recognition of your resilience in returning to Wikipedia after being blocked and in learning from your early mistakes. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)