User talk:Volunteer Marek

A Barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		easily warranted, just for the quotes on your user page (especially George Best) Achowat (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Holodomor mediation issue two

Hi Volunteer Marek, this is a boilerplate message to let you know that we have moved on to issue two of the Holodomor mediation, victim estimates. At the moment we are accepting statements from all participants, so if you want to make your position on this issue known, then now would be a very good time to contribute. Your statement should be no longer than 200 words, and should include both your opinion on the issue and what you hope will be addressed in the mediation. We will be accepting statements until 00:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC), or until we have statements from all spokespersons. Please note, however, that even if you miss this deadline you are free to contribute to the mediation at any time. You can find the appropriate section on the mediation page here. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings

Wesołych Świąt i Szczęśliwego Nowego Roku

Linksmų šv. Kalėdų ir Laimingų Naujųjų Metų

Frohe Weinachten und besten Glückwünsche zum neuen Jahr

Sca (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Andrzej Bogucki

Merry Christmas Victuallers (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for your perspective on SOPA

Hi Volunteer Marek, there's currently an ongoing discussion about splitting the Stop Online Piracy Act page at Talk:Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#ONGOING_DISCUSSION_-_Splitting_the_Article. You've familiarized yourself with the entry before, and your insight and perspective on the matter would be appreciated. Hope to see you there, Sloggerbum (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Volunteer Marek: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Dobiesław Kmita, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Szreniawa (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) 10:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Image:Cedynia.jpg

Any idea what the actual subject of the image is? although I am a bit surprised it hasn't already been deleted for not having verifiable information/licensing. Rmhermen (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's "Battle of Grunwald" by Wojciech Kossak. I *think* Kossak's painting's go into public domain ... in about 25 minutes, well, in 2012, since he died in 1942.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

More information needed about File:Kelus.jpg

Hello, Volunteer Marek!

It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:Kelus.jpg. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images.

If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.

Thanks again!Template:Z136 --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Excluding involved editors from AE

You are completely out of line, and your posts at AE and my talk page were so devoid of professionalism that they left me astonished. Most people at AE and WT:A/R have said they think the idea would work, although a few have opposed and some more want something less than an outright ban. In what universe is that not "broad support"? If you thought I misjudged the support for the proposal (which is perfectly possible), then you could have said so without the vitriol and unpleasantness. Frankly, this is precisely the sort of behaviour which makes the English Wikipedia an unpleasant place to work, and you should give serious thought to whether your comments on my talk page and at the notice board are of benefit to anybody. AGK [•] 13:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. There are many things which make Wikipedia an unpleasant place to be but stating bluntly that some kind of sketchiness is going on is not one of them. Indeed, IMO it is in rare supply. What is out of line is misconstruing a whole series of comments as "broad support" to go ahead with a policy change that does not in fact have "broad support".

I honestly have no idea how you came to the conclusion you seem to hold - the very skewness of your assessment is precisely part of the reason why a dissenting opinion had to be worded in strong terms. So you'd get the message.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk page stalker: AGK, while the criticism I saw on your talk page ([1]) was rather strong, I see VM's post at AE as very insightful. Your criticism of VM above is about as out of line as his post to your talk page (granted, "he" started it). May I suggest you both backtrack, shake hands and try o AGF one another? Now, that I've read yours and VM's post, I guess I'll go and post something at AE myself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Your sig

Please consider keeping some orange, so it is easy for others to find your posts. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

But it's over for now. Maybe I'll try to come up with a different "noticeable" color scheme for the off-season.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Per popular request.VolunteerMarek 21:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Volunteer Marek: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Antoni Jan Goetz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Polish

Armia Ludowa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ministry of Public Security

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Louis Antoine de Saint-Just

Thank you very much for your kind words at the Saint-Just GA review. They are greatly encouraging to me, and I appreciate them very much! SteveStrummer (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the license info for the Fleurus image, and thanks again for your review. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Marek Edelman

The discussion on this matter is inconclusive, as I suppose it must be, so i am willing to allow the status quo. I must point out that your speculation is wide of the mark, however. 86.12.129.12 (talk) 10:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're calling "my speculation" - the comment on talk page? If so, I'm pretty sure Edelman himself claimed this. Your claim on the other hand is completely unsourced.

I'm also going to put back "and an Auschwitz survivor," in front of Bartoszewski, as that's pretty important.VolunteerMarek 13:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion would be greatly appreciated =

See tis discussion: [2] and the changes to the article here: [3]. While the article may not be perfect from your perspective, do you feel that the changes mean that it no longer deserves the nuetrality tag?Faustian (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Potential copyvio

At 20 złotych note as well? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup.VolunteerMarek 23:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Volunteer Marek. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 23:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Communist Poland Copyright issue

There is a dispute regarding an image that was scanned from a old Polish magazine form the communist era. The person who uploaded the file claims that since it was a state owned publisher, the photograph can be copied due to an alleged public domain claim. I myself believe that even during communist era, publishers protected their work form being ripped-off, or missuses by other printing houses... and I doubt that there is no copyright protection whatsoever. If you have any knowledge on this subject, your input would be much appreciated, at this point I'm trying to get other users involved. Discussion page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Polish_Army_Soldiers_1951.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.227.161 (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidence page of Arbcom

Dear Marek, there's a section on the workshop page specifically for analysis of evidence. Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't analysis of evidence evidence? Anyway, it's not really analysis of evidence, it's more like "I'm too lazy to link to the diffs myself so I'll just refer to one of the million people who've already done it" kind of thing.VolunteerMarek 00:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Heinz Guderian

Cześć Your comments are much appreciated, sometimes I have the feeling I am all alone on Wikipedia

I found a real scary item recently , Newt’s reading list [4]

The guy is a fan of Heinz Guderian and wants to put his finger on the nuclear button, now that is scary.

--Woogie10w (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't going to vote for him anyway. But yes, it is weird and scary.VolunteerMarek 01:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Volunteer Marek. You have new messages at Salvio giuliano's talk page.
Message added 02:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 02:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You reverted my removal without even trying to discuss the issue with me, therefore I have just reverted your edit. Please do not restore it or I'll have no other choice but to ban you from contributing to the case. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 03:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I just responded on your talk page and you reverted me "without even trying to discuss it". Is there an "immediate danger" clause here? If not, then leave it be, discuss it, then AFTER discussion remove it if you still think that's appropriate.VolunteerMarek 03:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I had warned you and you chose to revert me again. Please consider yourself banned from participating to the case. If you wish to have my actions reviewed, you can appeal this sanction to the Arbitration Commitee. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 03:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Morning..

Noticed you had a number of contributions to the Fertility and intelligence article. When reading through it, I was a bit surprised not to see any mention in the bit on the 'Who's Who' studies about corrections for differing rates of illegitimate children. I've only come across the one article that apparently mentions this, but don't presently have access. Have you come accross anything of the sort? Cheers, Nevard (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Labour Party (Poland)

Hi, I had a brief look at Polish language sources, it seems that there are a multiplicity of similarly named parties and that both Polish and English sources are confused. It would be a lot of work to sort them out. Ideally the name of a leader/leaders and a date/place would be helpful for each one. Basically every comment in the stub needs a solid WP:RS. (PS, doesn't bother me, but technically the person who proposes an RM cannot add support, though I doubt an Admin will be bothered, as it's a common mistake) Cheers!. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The main problem is the naming. SP was a pretty major party, at least for a parliamentary system, so finding sources and getting things right won't be that hard. Info on PP might be a bit scarcer but the basic facts are easily sourced. Just got to decide on the names. Thanks.VolunteerMarek 01:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Szczecin

Evening,

The introduction should provide a brief summary, it didn't so I removed the unnecessary text. As I explained on the talk page for the article including only one election can and often does create a false impression. As far as we know that may have been the only time (in a free election) that the city voted that way. We'd look foolish is it was wouldn't we?

I don't mind you disagreeing, or correcting my typos but deciding that part of the intro is the 'wrong part' to cull suggests ownership and that is naughty. Rsloch (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

First, you didn't explain anything on talk, just started edit warring. Second, when I left a note on your talk page, you removed it with a comment 'deleted' - why should I treat *your* comments on *my* talk page any differently?

But ok, let me assume good faith here. The thing, is the issue of the election has been discussed at length on talk. Yes it is a single election - but it's a very significant election, the one which consolidated Nazi power in Germany. As has already been said on talk (please read it), if you, or anyone else, wants to find and include info on any other notable elections they are welcome to do so - but that's not a reason to delete this particular point of information.

As to the lede stuff - yes the lede is too long. But not because of the info you are trying to remove. In fact this text in the lede just summarizes succinctly what is found in the article text, as a lede should do. If you want to shorten the lede, remove something else.VolunteerMarek 00:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

My addition to the talk page, plus my edit summaries clearly explained my point of view, one result can and often does create a false impression. We do not know if the results show a drop, or an increase in the far right vote in the city, which is why solo results are pretty valueless. If the material is left in place we have an article that doesn't include present day election results but does have one, and only one, from the early 1930s. That doesn't strike you as odd?

Have a look at what I have removed. Lines such as 'Police, the seat of Police County, situated on an estuary of the Oder River' are hardly succinct. There was a lot of verbiage.

And I always delete things that will just cause arguments.

Rsloch (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what additions to the talk page you are referring to, since there were none. Likewise your edit summaries weren't particularly informative.

We do not know if the results show a drop, or an increase in the far right vote in the city, which is why solo results are pretty valueless. - it would be nice to know the change in the vote but the fact that we do not have that information do not make the actual vote info "valueless". I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion.

If the material is left in place we have an article that doesn't include present day election results but does have one, and only one, - that's because it was a pretty important election. More important than others.

Have a look at what I have removed. Lines such as 'Police, the seat of Police County, situated on an estuary of the Oder River' are hardly succinct. There was a lot of verbiage. - I got no problem with this edit.

VolunteerMarek 01:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

And yet oddly I'm 'top' of Talk:Szczecin.

Isn't that just a tiny bit of POV? You are determining that one election was more important that all the others of the Weimar Republic (and Poland), and then from that putting unique weight on Stettin's results in the article. And oddly it is also the only one you seem to have figures for.

Rsloch (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

And yet oddly I'm 'top' of Talk:Szczecin. - Huh? Searching for you on the talk page I see one short comment which you left in a middle of a already existing previous discussion (which is why I missed it). You should know that new comments should be left at the end of a discussion not in the middle of it.

Isn't that just a tiny bit of POV? - I think you misunderstand WP:NPOV. The elections which brought the Nazis to power WERE more important than just any ol' run of the mill election. This is why it is being included. If you have election figures for any other notable elections, then maybe we can add them.VolunteerMarek 01:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

A quick look in the 'History' section of the Talk page would have shown you my comment. You should avoid making allegations before performing simple checks.

Not wishing to go around in circles, I am arguing that one out of context localised election result should not be given unique significance because it can and often does create a false impression. Shall we agree to disagree?

Rsloch (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Więż

I sent you an E Mail re Więż--Woogie10w (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Raising content editions on talk before editing..

Thank you for the advice, I would have ran my additions to Louis Antoine de Saint-Just's page past other editors first on "talk" but I am editing for a class and due to the black out am on a limited time schedule. I apologize if it seems rude or disrespectful towards those who are working very hard to maintain the credibility of the page. I understand that my editions will probably be removed soon, though I feel they are accurately written and justified in being there.--User:HIS30312CaitlinI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.60.192.99 (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Anders' Army (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Italian Campaign

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

added a link pointing to Kijów

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Abolition of serfdom in Poland

You may be interested in this article from the economic history of Poland. The source I used had some more info, but nothing struck me as very useful. At the same time, I feel that the subject could use more expansion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look over it. I'm actually more interested in the other side of the topic - the emergence of serfdom in Poland (and Europe east of the Elbe in general) since that's the part that's a little weird historically.VolunteerMarek 06:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Serfdom in Poland waits for a good treatment. Well, in fact, it waits for any kind of treatment... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 07:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah...VolunteerMarek 16:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Volunteer Marek: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

General Semantics

Thank you for monitoring the article on General_semantics. I would like to discuss your edits to the "Identification" and "the silent level" sub-section. Perhaps you acted in haste, annoyed by the conduct of editor Kikoman77. I have posted the following to Kikoman77's user:talk page:

Dear Kikoman77.... I infer from your edits of the General_semantics article that you seriously care about the article's content. So do I. A different editor contested your edits, made other changes, and now has flagged the article, disputing its "Neutral Point of View."

I hope you and the other editor may both look at the General_semantics talk page's "Major Edit Intended / Installed" section, dating from late 2011. I believe the January 24 2012 changes by the two of you are more destructive than constructive. Both of you disregarded Wikipedia's guideline cautioning against deletions. I'm happy to participate in a conversation that may lead to dispute resolution. Regards, Canhelp (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The tombstone photos

I can't say I understand why you're using these tombstone photos. In and of themselves they're nice photos but they don't really illustrate the subjects of the relevant articles as well as the alternatives. As infobox pics they also seem a bit... morbid. I think they should be included in the relevant articles somewhere but they don't make for very good infobox or "lede" images.

It's sort of like if I uploaded photos of my figurki krolow and put them in for infobox images. (Btw, you wouldn't happen to own any of these, would you? I need a few to complete the collection).VolunteerMarek 09:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The tomb effigies, except for Jadwiga and Władysław of Varna, are from the period and give the closest representation of the monarch in question. They carry an authenticity that Matejko's and Bacciarelli's pictures of royals do not possess.

As to Sienkiewicz — apart from a few scenes in Quo Vadis (as when Petronius stops Nero's mouth, under pretext of preserving Nero's voice for the benefit of mankind, in order to save a potential victim of the emperor's), Sienkiewicz is essentially a John Wayne of Polish literature: patriotism, optimism and shallowness. Nihil novi (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, did you know that the story of Jadwiga's selling her jewels to renew the Kraków Academy has a later parallel with Stanford University? The Stanford Museum has a painting of the jewels Mrs. Stanford sold off to pay for Leland Stanford Junior University. Nihil novi (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "authenticity" is the sole criteria which should be used to determine what images go in the infobox. The problem is that they're sort of hard to see and I think they're trumped on purely aesthetic grounds by either Matejko or Bacciarelli (not because the effigies themselves lack aesthetic value - quite the opposite! - but just because a photo of a statue generally does not do justice to the statue itself). Again, I think it makes total sense to have the photos in the article but for the infobox I would prefer something more eye grabbing.

As to Sienkiewicz, I don't necessarily disagree, but come on, it's a fun read. I think I already said I'd be fine with removing him from the Poles image collage.

And yes I knew the Stanford story though never thought of it as parallel to the Krakow Academy - thanks for pointing that out.VolunteerMarek 19:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Gdańsk vote

Your latest edit at Poznan violates the Gdańsk vote. I don't think you seriously want to deny the city of Poznan had periods of German influence/rule throughout its history and was known as "Posen" also in the English speaking world. Contrary to the rules of the Gdansk vote you removed the historical name. Please restore the proper name in accordance with the Gdansk vote.

Also remember that: Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism.

Thanks in advance. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the GD vote is meant to apply to places in Poland which were only part of Germany during periods of occupation. This is a different case then Gdansk or East Prussia. You wouldn't argue that GD vote justifies insertion of German (Nazi era) names into every single Polish place simply because all of Poland was under Nazi occupation during WW II would you? VolunteerMarek 19:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

By the same token, since Polish units took part in advance on Germany in 1944-1945, one could add Polish names (and Russian, French, and so on...) to all places in Germany. Let's not go that way, shall we? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Now, back to Poznań, the times of the Prussian partition have resulted in the creation of the Grand Duchy of Posen and Province of Posen. Perhaps those constitute a case where having Posen in lead would be useful? This discussion may be better suited for the article's talk. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Volunteer Marek/Absalom Boston has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Absalom Boston, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Remember this map?

[5] Think it is Polish spy posing as German researcher smuggling vile Polish nationalist propaganda? I believe it is very likely(maybe even using a commie time machine) ;) --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Mentorship

I have closed the unblock discussion regarding Mistress Selina Kyle. Since you agreed to mentor them, you are now the official mentor of the now-unblocked User:Mistress Selina Kyle. Please try to keep up with them, and if you notice problems brewing, try to head them off before it becomes an issue again. As you have been a champion for unblocking this account, I hope this goes well. Good luck. --Jayron32 04:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Good luck. Yell out if you need anything, as always. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You motherfuckers.VolunteerMarek 05:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You volunteered. It's you're job now. Next time, maybe you'll keep your mouth shut ;) Seriously, just keep an eye on things, and if shit starts going south, drop me a note on my talk page, and I'll look into reblocking. --Jayron32 05:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No, ok, it's fine. The "you motherfuckers" was typed while I was laughing out loud.VolunteerMarek 05:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I understood your tone just fine. I wasn't giving you a warning, just a reminder of the situation at hand. For the record, I am sure you will do fine in this role. Your note on their user talk page shows you are taking it seriously. --Jayron32 05:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Volunteer Marek. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Map of Pomerania

There's a large number of historical maps based on the Allgemeiner Historischer Handatlas at Commons [6]. I'm not aware of any discussion about the usage of these maps or the reliability of the publisher. Could you specify, where it has been "explained" why the map shouldn't be used. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but Commons doesn't have a NPOV policy, which is why you can upload basically anything that isn't a copyvio up to it. I could make a map showing Poland's borders on the Rhine and it would be fine. But Wikipedia DOES have a NPOV policy, which means that 19th century propaganda maps shouldn't be used to ostensibly portray factual information (and in that particular map, Droysen went a little crazy with the color blue). Since it's obviously from a 19th century source, and published by a prominent nationalist of the era it doesn't qualify as a reliable source. It COULD be used in the article on Droysen himself or on his work to illustrate his ideas and concepts. But it cannot be used for factual matters.VolunteerMarek 19:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same question Herkus Monte asked, since I noticed you removed this map from a number of articles. Having read your comment above, (1) Could you please point me to a source that calls the editor of the Handatlas, Gustav Droysen (not to be confused with Johann Gustav Droysen), a "prominent nationalist of the era"? (2) Could you please explain how "Droysen went a little crazy with the color blue" in the map? The areas between Netze/Notec and Küdow/Gwda did belong to the New March after 1296 (Gahlbeck 2002:117), and the Belgard/Bialogard Daber/? and Welschenburg/? areas were Brandenburgian pawns after the treaty of Vierraden in 1284 (Benl 1999:102, though the margraves allowed Bogislaw IV to administer them again after 1288). The results of the Kremmen (1236) and Soldin (1250) treaties are depicted correctly. So it's rather the date in the file name that's wrong, not the map itself (except for a probable inaccuracy about Belgard as described above, but I wouldn't call that "propaganda"). Skäpperöd (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Droysen was a Prussian nationalist is pretty much common knowledge. Hell, that's his claim to fame. He was the guy who pretty much started the whole "Prussian nationalist historiopgraphy" deal. If you really insist sources can be easily provided, but again, it's not really something that is controversial.

As to the contents of the map itself, you yourself note that the map is an inaccurate depiction of the state of affairs in 1250. Add to that the Belgard mistake and you've got two+ ways in which the map is inaccurate right there. Why include it, even putting aside its dubious origins? Find another, more accurate map instead.VolunteerMarek 23:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You are rather obviously confusing Johann Gustav Droysen (1808-1884) and de:Gustav Droysen (1838-1908), the publisher of the historical atlas. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not. I think you're the one confusing the two. Though I guess JGD the Elder could be said to have founded Prussian nationalist historiography rather than his son, GD. Either way, that doesn't change anything.VolunteerMarek 18:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your quote: "The fact that Droysen was a Prussian nationalist is pretty much common knowledge. Hell, that's his claim to fame. He was the guy who pretty much started the whole "Prussian nationalist historiopgraphy" deal."

That was the other Droysen. Please, provide sources that the Gustav Droysen we are talking about here, i.e. the editor of the Handatlas, was a nationalist, and that the Handatlas is propaganda. These - so far unsubstantiated - nationalist/propaganda claims you made in your e/s were the basis on which you removed maps from several articles, and if it turns out that these claims can not be substantiated, the edits should be reverted. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

[7] [8]. Seriously, if those maps are correct (and as you yourself noted, they're not), then it shouldn't be hard to find a non outdated suspect source to include instead.VolunteerMarek 02:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Absalom Boston, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

 Chzz  ►  23:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Pointless drama

In the edit summary of this edit you call Barths a Nazi. Barths is a living person. Please substantiate your allegation asap or take appropriate steps to remove the edit summary from wikipedia. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Our article describes him as having received awards bearing the Swastika and having allegiance to Nazi Germany.

Granted, the edit summary could have been rephrased as "notable because of service to the military of Nazi Germany".

I don't read German, and cannot make sense of the other sources.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure everything "official" in Nazi Germany had a swastika on it, that doesn't make the recipients Nazis, neither does (compulsory) service in the military of that time. I am confident that VM will not start arguing along that line and take appropriate action, that's why I posted here and not at AN/I. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of his official awards lack swastikas. (I remember a historian explaining SS members as conscripts, also, apparently counter-factually.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, as much as I'd distrust Reagan's reputation as a historian ;) SS-membership often was 'voluntary' only on paper [9] [10], so I'd be careful even to call a former SS member a Nazi just on the grounds of SS membership, but that's a different issue... Skäpperöd (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If you think the edit summary should be removed you have my permission to ask somebody about that. The article when I prodded it had a big swastika flag in it, the only information was about his service for Nazi Germany and it spoke of him in the past tense, as if he was no longer living.VolunteerMarek 17:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand from your above comment that you called Barths a Nazi based on the swastika in the Nazi German flagicon in the infobox of Barth's article (which is not "big", but the only one present in the article when you prodded it), and that after consideration you do not uphold the claim that Barths was a Nazi. Please take appropriate action then to have the Nazi-calling removed, that really is not my responsibility, but yours. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, look. If your real concern was about Barths, you would have already gone and "taken appropriate action" - whatever that is - to have the edit summary removed. I said I have no problem with that, though it's pretty obvious you're trying to make a mountain of a molehill (as Kiefer says above a more exact edit summary would have been "notable only for service for Nazi Germany"). The fact that instead you waste time haranguing me on my talk page pretty clearly shows is that you're just using this in an instrumental way - not because you care about the edit summary itself but as a pretext to continue the kind of low intensity harassment that you engaged in (on my talk page, and other venues) previously. Or, based on our previous interactions, maybe you are looking to provoke an irritated and somewhat uncivil response which you can then diff-harvest for block shopping somewhere. Either way, your actions are undertaken in very bad faith. So drop it.VolunteerMarek 20:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary has now been deleted as a potential BLP issue and is now only visible to admins. Drama over, let's move on - Alison ^❤ 20:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!VolunteerMarek 20:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Drezdenko, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom of Poland (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) 10:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

pl:Partia Pracy (Polska)

Jakbys to stubnal, to Labour Party (Poland) trzeba bedzie przesunac, z powodu disambigu... | If this is created, Labour Party (Poland) will need to be moved due to disambig needs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ay, that RM was taking so long I almost forgot about that issue. I left a comment on talk to that effect and if there's no objections soon, then I'll go ahead and do it.VolunteerMarek 19:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

WP Poland in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Poland for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope you'll take the opportunity to talk about the project, VM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see a problem. People: please sign your posts there, and do not remove posts by others. Thank you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah yeah, I see that too. So where should I add my response? At the bottom? A separate section?VolunteerMarek 19:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see how it's supposed to work (by looking at previous versions). Can you have Xx236 sign his comments? I'll add mine afterward, I don't want our comments to be confused.VolunteerMarek 19:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[11]. I asked him, but... I'd suggest you restore and sign yours, and then restore his and sign them with {{unsigned}}. In the meantime, I am canvassing others to join in. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words in the interview. Portal is 90% done by User:Kpalion, I believe. Oh, and I think you misread one section question: they ask advice about portals, and you give advice about wikiproejcts. May want to move it to one of the later sections. And you still need to restore X's thoughts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. AAMoF my user page hasn't been updated in quite a while. From the top of my head, Battle of Radzymin (1920) is now a GA, Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp is a FA (established primarily for Poles, hence WP:POLAND). //Halibutt 01:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Radzymin's already in the project and Mauthausen was in Austria so I'm not really sure it belongs.VolunteerMarek 02:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat

Thank you for your concern, but this was no legal threat. Community consensus is that the legal threat warning is used for content or editorial disputes where the threat is directed at Wikipedia. My proposal was about a website trying to damage Wikipedia. ironically, I merely tried to defend Wikipedia against the website, and my proposal was not directed at Wikipedia in any way. PaoloNapolitano 10:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you consider yourself likely to take any legal action against the site and its constituent editors? Such as myself? 'Cause that's what it sounded like. For some, that's a 'chilling effect.' →StaniStani  14:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I wast just seeking community consensus. PaoloNapolitano 16:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Divisive rhetoric is not a way to reach consensus. Be more aware of people's feelings. Why don't you visit Wikipedia Review and lurk for a while and see it is not the hateful monolith you think it might be? →StaniStani  06:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Volunteer Marek. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 00:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drmies (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for retracting. I don't agree with either block--but let's try and not have to disagree with even more blocks... Drmies (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PaoloNapolitano 14:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC) −

I've looked at the two edits complained of, and while they were not the politest I don't think they are blockable. This on the other hand I would have blocked for, had you not very sensibly struck your comments. Please, consider this a friendly warning (if such a paradoxical thing exists...) not to get carried away in discussion. You'll get your points heard much better if you turn the volume down a bit. If in doubt, draft it, walk away for ten minutes and then come back before hitting Save page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I was in a hurry when I wrote my post. I saw the two edits and in my opinion they were uncivil and impolite. I understand your warning and I will take it into account the next time. As for the edit you presented me with here, go ahead and block him if you want to. I agree that the edit is even more incivil than the other two. PaoloNapolitano 16:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw that he "struck" his comments now. (Didn't understand what you meant). He is still responsible for his edits even if he takes it back, reverts it, etc. It is all about thinking twice before editing. PaoloNapolitano 16:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Paolo, the "you" in my comments just above was addressed to Marek, not to you. Indeeed we do all need to take responsibility for our edits and it would have been better had the diff I posted never been made. But striking comments through is a form of taking responsibility; it implies that a person is retracting what they said in the heat of the moment (while leaving it visible so they can't be accused of hiding the evidence.) Hopefully we can put this one to rest now and I'll close the ANI discussion shortly. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I lost my temper (generally I got no problems with temper, but one situation where I do tend to loose it is when I see somebody else getting bullied). I took it back. The advice about the ten minute break is a good one, thanks.VolunteerMarek 18:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sense and Nonsense

(I meant to post this here last night but somehow i screwed up and it ended in a template somewhere - its probably moot by now so just consider it an explanation of my thinking yesterday regarding bugs) For me it makes perfect sense that if someone is misspending their energy to the detriment of others to try to refocus the energy to something useful. If Bugs' ineterest is truly just ANI related as opposed to writing an encyclopedia then given the energy he has been putting into ANI it is perhaps it might be worth itto consider whether we could harness that energy for a better purpose. I think this proposal could be an example of thinking outside the box in a good way and escaping the ban/no ban dichotomy that appears to be the default solution to any problem at ANI. Just saying.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

18th century

I understand. I wish we could afford to be picky, but we just don't have people for that. It's not like I was helping Ahj with Bialystok topics because I particularly care for that place... somebody had to. Perhaps you could convince somebody else to help out. If everyone who posted in the interview would just review one article... :D --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Your involvement with MSK and Wikipedia Review

As I've now seen you demonstrate a rabidly single-minded viewpoint multiple times in support of Mistress Selina Kyle (referred to as MSK going forward), I would appreciate it if you would disclose any involvement you may have with them and Wikipedia Review. You behavior thus far in responding in opposition to anybody who feels that any sanction against MSK are inappropriate leads me to believe that there is a dilution of consensus in relation to MSK. Hasteur (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur,

Your tone ("rabidly") is out of line, regardless of the subject or audience or provocation.

Volunteer Marek is a good editor, who has a record of speaking out on behalf of unpopular editors, even those who have specialized in bedeviling him. There is no reason to allege any nefarious WR connection, especially when VM has edited openly there as well as here.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Hasteur, nobody made you special prosecutor and these aren't the McCarthy hearings. Please stay off my talk page.VolunteerMarek 15:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Hasteur's comment seems to me quite reportable for action somewhere. Although I do not support dramu, this is indeed quite scandalous demand and tone. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh, not worth it.VolunteerMarek 01:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Volunteer Marek/Sidney V. Haas has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sidney V. Haas, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Sidney V. Haas, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Err, VM, why didn't you create it yourself? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Defamation warning - sorry for multiple posting

Sorry for the multiple posting, I clicked the Twinkle link once, don't know why it added it multiple times. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Go for it

Re: [12]. I cannot review it as it is significantly my work :) I think it is not far from a GA; in fact I nominated in in the past. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK popularity

How to explain that Rewolucyjni_Mściciele got only about 2,5k hits? Was the hook not bloody enough? ("... that the anarchist Revolutionary Avengers group from 1910 to 1914 has been described as the most radical terrorist organization in the history of Poland?")?

There's huge randomness in these I think.VolunteerMarek 03:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Siege of Kolberg (1807)‎

I didn't quite understand your comment at Talk:Siege_of_Kolberg_(1807). Are you removing yourself from that discussion? Because if not, even though you may not want my 3O opinion I am willing to work you and 24.202.1.112 to improve the article. Eomund (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There isn't that much of a dispute left it seems. 24. was trying to remove a source but now has included both sources as I initially suggested. Barring this being some kind of feint, the dispute seems done to me.VolunteerMarek 03:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Feeder of lice

Let me know (on my talk page) if you need help DYKing that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna add some sources tonight (time permitting) and then try to finish it up over the weekend, though that may be past the DYK deadline or whatever. But some help would be very much appreciated.VolunteerMarek 23:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I copied the Banach biography that you added to his article. I can review the DYK blurb. Just let me know.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kiefer. The next project in the pile is actually to bring Banach's article up to GA. If you have any sources or time to help that would be great.VolunteerMarek 03:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hint. Nominate it ASAP. Reviews may be delayed by days, and you can always ask for a little more time to finish it/address the issues - those are easier to get than nominating something past the deadline. Yeah, bureaucracy :(

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. You should nominate it before the deadline. Then you have a the weekend to fix it. I've read the Banach biography several times, and have made pilgrimages to the Universal Bank; I can quickly review the article. (Now, it needs citations, of course.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Will try, though I don't think I can manage before Saturday.VolunteerMarek 03:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll nominate it for you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. But it still needs a good bit of work and referencing.VolunteerMarek 03:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. You may want to suggest a better hook when you're done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll try. The article is more about Rudolf Weigl and the feeders themselves rather than the Nazi experiments in typhus (which probably should be a separate article).VolunteerMarek 04:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I added some refs, but couldn't find them for all the claims. I find it myself much easier to add refs to a sentence as soon as I write it. It avoids hunting for a ref for a particular fact in various sources later. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, some of it is from the hardcopy Banach book I have. I'll try to add those cites in later today. And write the "Procedure" section (which is from one of the online sources).VolunteerMarek 22:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

fyi

Given your role as MSK's mentor, I'd suggest you review [13] Nobody Ent 19:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Prosba w sprawie commons

Witam Pana. Do kategorii na commons'sie "Category:Personifications of Poland" uzytkownik "Silar" aka "IP 46.174.24.10" wstawia bezsensowne pliki propagandy hitlerowskiej i hitlerowskie znaczki pocztowe z okresu okupacji jako ... "personifikacje Polski / Verkörperung von Polen / personification of Poland" czy moglby Pan zajrzec na commons i ewentualnie posredniczyc w dyskusji z adminem angielskojezycznym ? Znam jedynie jezyk niemiecki. Wpisy na dyskusji u tego uzytkownika nie maja sensu gdyz je kasuje jako wg niego "spam" zarowno jako "silar" jak i "IP 46.174.24.10". Dzieki z gory za ewentualna pomoc. 80.171.87.11 (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Jest gdzies dyskusja w tej sprawie?VolunteerMarek 14:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Zaprosilbym tez anona do zalozenia konta, i korzystania z pomocy na polskiej Wikipedii. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review

Thanks for your comment on Wikipedia Review. The response was alas predictable.

I have suggested elsewhere that people read Alec Nove or Serge Christophe Kolm on Allende's impossible economic-policies; Kolm's Solutions Socialistes even has discussions by former officials in the Allende government---with none of the vitriol or abuse to which you were subjected.

You were right that the case of Guatemala (1954) was even worse than Chile in 1973.

I would add that Guatemala in the 1980s was a useful reminder that Latin America had at least one country with a ruling class and military that was more than a puppet of the CIA---indeed a ruling class and military that eschewed the "communist influence" of the Reagan Administration as it pursued scorched Indian policy.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Surprise Jimbo Award

	Surprise Jimbo Award
	Za caloksztalt. Pozdr, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Dzieki. But that thing sort of creeps me out.VolunteerMarek 22:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Snyder - Causes

Witam. W arcie Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia dał Pan refa do "Causes..." Snydera, jakoby w zachodniej Galicji Polacy zabili 10 tys. Ukraińców. Można prosić o cytat? W innych jego książkach, które znam, Snyder takiej liczby nie podawał. To chyba jest jakieś nieporozumienie. GlaubePL (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Mozliwe. Podalem po tabelce ktora jest na talku - nie chcialem calkiem usunac informacji o liczbie Ukraincow zabitych przez Polakow i troche sie spieszylem. Sprawdze.VolunteerMarek 22:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(en: It's possible (that it's a misunderstanding). I used the number based on the table on the talk page - I did not want to completely remove the information on the number of Ukrainians killed by Poland and was in a hurry. I will double (the information).)VolunteerMarek 22:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Racja. The Snyder number of 10,000 also included the Ukrainians killed by Soviets and Nazis. I corrected the text.VolunteerMarek 22:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

" "there is no doubt that the crimes committed against the people of Polish nationality have the character of (...) genocide"."

what page?--Львівське (говорити) 02:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

42.VolunteerMarek 02:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's the whole paragraph in Polish:

W świetle przedstawionych wyżej ustaleń nie ulega wątpliwości, że zbrodnie, których dopuszczono się wobec ludności narodowości polskiej, noszą charakter niepodlegających przedawnieniu zbrodni ludobójstwa. Fakt podjęcia przez przywódców OUN-UPA decyzji o usunięciu ze wschodnich terenów II RP, a w przypadku Wołynia o wymordowaniu wszystkich Polaków zamieszkujących sporne ziemie, w celu uzyskania terenów „czystych” etnicznie przed ewentualnymi rozmowami pokojowymi po zakończeniu wojny, znajduje oparcie w ujawnionych dokumentach, zeznaniach setek świadków, opiniach biegłych historyków, relacjach znawców przedmiotu i posiadanych przez nich dokumentów archiwalnych. Antypolskie akcje, mające na celu fi zyczne zniszczenie (eksterminację) ludności polskiej na Wołyniu, zostały zaplanowane i przygotowane przez polityczne i wojskowe gremia przywódcze OUN-UPA, a wykonane przez podległe im oddziały zbrojne i podporządkowane grupy samoobrony ukraińskiej oraz agitowanych do tego celu chłopów. Morderstwa i wytępianie ludności cywilnej na Wołyniu zostały podjęte w celu zniszczenia Polaków jako grupy narodowej, traktowanej jako przeszkoda w utworzeniu „Wielkiej Ukrainy”. Za uznaniem, że omawiane zbrodnie stanowią ludobójstwo, przemawiają jednoznacznie: organizacja mordów, ich przebieg, rozmiary i zasięg terytorialny oraz cele i motywy, które tej akcji przyświecały. Nie zmieniają tej oceny ewentualne motywy poboczne, którymi mogli kierować się poszczególni sprawcy mordów, jak np. motyw zemsty, zysku czy też przekonanie, że jest to jedyna droga do odzyskania niepodległości, a więc swoiście pojęty motyw patriotyczny

It's actually a legal text. The purpose of this section of it is to establish that crimes committed during the massacres are not subject to the statue of limitations as they constitute genocide. Basically this is the prosecutor's office saying that "if we identify anyone responsible for the massacres still alive, yes, we will prosecute them, even 65 years later" and justifying this procedure according to national and international law.VolunteerMarek 02:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You beat me

[14] to it [15]. But then, I actually improved Wikipedia [16]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

But then, I actually improved Wikipedia - therefore, at some point you will be eaten! Or at least nibbled away at.VolunteerMarek 04:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry I'll eat the revolution before it eats me! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests

What was the reason for this? if its known we can easily undo and remove the tag.Lihaas (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The section on United States in the Reactions part is a close paraphrase of the source. So is the sentence "On 24 February, the German Army announced that 50 soldiers will leave a military base in Taloqan after a group of peaceful protesters gathered outside the base". There may be more - basically every sentence I checked was either a straight up copy-paste from the source or a very close paraphrase.VolunteerMarek 06:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Feeder of lice

Hello! Your submission of Feeder of lice at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The specific part where it discusses Nazi testing after the Soviet invasion is the section in question, as that would be where I thought the hook was referencing. It mentions one or two people, but it isn't spelled out clearly: THE NAZIS USeD HUMANS TO FEED LICE FOR TESTS. It mentions a few people. It appears to suggest that some one used human lice testing as a way of saving some Jews, but it isn't entirely clear from the reading. Best solution might be to explicitly state it (like an introduction paragraph summary sentence, then providing details) or yeah, figure out a way to make it more clear. --LauraHale (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, gotcha. Yes, that part needs a little bit of work.VolunteerMarek 01:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest you fix this soon; DYKs are not held long, so it may be failed in the near future. It would be a shame. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Fortitude and sitzfleisch!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Precious

Enjoy: User:MER-C/Monopoly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

DRV notice

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:TFD deletions by admin User:Fastily, which occured following the closure of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 24#Template:New York cities and mayors of 100.2C000 population. Be advised that I have opened Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 27#User:TonyTheTiger/New York cities and mayors of 100,000 population.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I just perused your userpage and this, and enjoyed both greatly. :) MastCell ^Talk 19:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!VolunteerMarek 20:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

do not cut, if you're under bench

Hi Marek, you have just removed my contribution to the wiki about Jozef Swiatlo. Any reasonable arguments ? Have you any sources deprecating the information about Swiatlo's service for the west ? Have looked into my sources ? Regards mpelc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.96 (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that whole "Operation Splinter Factor" thing is a conspiracy theory, by Steven Steward, the source you added [17].VolunteerMarek 21:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

English

Hi, why did you delete the word 'sic' here? What exactly does "English" mean in the context of the war? It's surely a mistake. Hence 'sic'.Malick78 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a "sic" in the source? VolunteerMarek 22:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No. Do you understand what "sic" means? Malick78 (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sic erat scriptum. And?VolunteerMarek 22:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, "sics" are never in the original source. That's the point. If you're asking if it's in the source, then you don't know how it's used. Some help. Malick78 (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(Oh, and in clicking on your name to get back to this page I saw your main user page and the offensive language in the first two quotes. Would you mind changing it to something less offensive, as per this? Many thanks.) Malick78 (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't insert [sic] in quotes, its editorializing and uncouth to boot.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh and that guideline does not prohibit potty language on user pages - you are failing to understand it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Why shouldn't sic be used if a quote has something wrong and we want to show that that's how the original had it, and the info should be treated with caution? (Let's be honest, many users around the world don't know the difference between England and Britain, and a 'sic' there can show that 'England' isn't the right term). As for user pages, the policy says "not censored" doesn't apply (it's only for articles), and that user pages shouldn't "be inconsiderate" and that "you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense". I'd say using the f-word is offensive, is inconsiderate to those who weren't expecting offensive material (I wasn't), and makes WP seem a bit trashy (the disrepute bit). Malick78 (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Using 'sic' shows that an editor thinks he or she knows better than the original source and wants to draw attention to that fact. Using it in a direct quote is tampering with and evaluating the source as a primary source, which we should not be doing. There is a pretty strong community consensus that "Fuck" and similar expletives are not offensive or inconnsiderate unless they are directly used to demean or attack others. Just try bringing your annoyance with Marek's userpage to WQA or ANI and you'll see what I mean.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Malick78, the "offensive" paraphrase of the Voltaire quote on my user page that you object to, the one about "cultivating motherfucking gardens" rather than engaging in unnecessary drama is basically the only reason why I haven't brought up your long term pattern of harassment and stalking up on AN/I or other similar venue. So far. At some point the fucking levee breaks, as does my patience.VolunteerMarek 00:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Really, can we do without all the fucking? "Sic." is used to indicate an obvious error appeared as such in the original source so that others don't think the error is on the part of the person quoting the material, such as spelling errors or "up" when "down" was obviously intended, and so on. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The quote was: 'After the war, General Alfred Jodl commented that the Germans survived 1939 "only because approximately 110 French and English divisions in the West, which during the campaign on Poland were facing 25 German divisions, remained completely inactive."' A [sic] after "English" would show those that don't know that there was no such thing as an "English division". Isn't it therefore "an obvious error", Vecrumba?

As for "stalking" you Marek, don't flatter yourself. I made an edit - then you made one, deleting the 'sic' I added - with no edit summary regarding that. And instead of getting into a petty edit war, I came here in good faith to ask what was wrong with the 'sic'. You answered in such a way that it was evident you didn't understand what 'sic' meant. (I'm not surprised though, Polish barely uses 'sic' and most Poles don't know what it does. Still, that's hardly my fault.) Either way, stop making such a fuss. Malick78 (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you did start stalking my edits. No, you didn't come here in good faith. Yes, I do know what 'sic' means and how it is used. No, you do not know how to properly use it - note that the SECONDARY source I added does not use it. Do you know better than the source? Yes, your comments about "most Poles" are a form of trolling.

Don't post on my talk page again.VolunteerMarek 18:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

And btw, "sic" IS used in Polish [18]. After all, it's Latin, not English, so why shouldn't it be used?VolunteerMarek 19:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I do know better than the source :) Your source was shit and obviously so - any idiot knows there were no "English divisions" in WW2. See here for details. As for coming to your talk page, I will frequent it as and when I like - but primarily when you delete my edits for unmentioned or spurious reasons. Time to admit you were wrong, me thinks. Malick78 (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)