From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is but an archive. Please add new comments in new sections on my Talk page. Thanks in advance. Halibutt


You have been invited to join in mediation regarding placenames in Central Europe. Please accept or decline this request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation# English/Polish/German/Nazi names of the Polish cities . You may also indicate who, if anybody, you would like to act as your representative if you do not want to participate personally, as well as your preferences regarding the choice of mediator. Tuf-Kat 23:18, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Some Polish users insists on inserting Polish names in the Munich and Kiel introductions (sources: [1], [2], [3], see history), and have even started an edit war, despite the fact that these cities never have been Polish. I therefore have reinserted the German name of Warsaw, as a former official name of it. The name Leningrad is also included in the St. Petersburg article. -- Nico 13:31, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies please vote to keep it. Cautious 20:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please see: User:Ed_Poor/Mediation. Ruhrjung 23:33, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


You are certainly right about the status of German in Lithuania. I only added the German name because there was and still is a (nowadays small) German minority. Just for the sake of information. I hadn't seen that the name had been removed before. Sorry. -- 11:06, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Supplement: I wasn't at all aware of the "name war" going on here. It wasn't my intention to further kindle it. If it weren't for the minority I would never have thought of inserting the name. In very much the same way I would support the addition of Polish etc. names to German cities, if there are or have been such minorities. I am no expert in the field, though. :-) -- 11:16, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Have there not been other Polish governments in exile? Adam 09:14, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Halibutt please enter the IRC channed #wikipedia at freenode server. And be sure to look at Prussian Holocaust - especially See also section. -- Forseti 14:23, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Re:Music of Poland. You do not need to insult my intelligence. I am perfectly well-aware that Central Europe and Eastern Europe are not the same thing. If you do not like the fact that Poland can be considered in either group (according to both Central Europe and Eastern Europe), then take it up at those talk pages please. I suppose it is probably too much to ask you to take any further disputes to the talk page before reverting. Tuf-Kat 01:32, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- I overreacted. It has not been a good day for me... Tuf-Kat 04:06, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

your request for comments[edit]

I don't know how much of an naïve appeaser I am (or am perceived to be), but I would like to emphasize that I feel to have aims similar of what you've stated in the preamble. The critical question is not how to get rid of Nico. Although he is much of a fringe extremist, he is in no meaning alone - just like our newly banned collegue is rather a loud representative of a opinion-current than a true saboteur. My approach has been, and remains to be, to communicate with the civil and intelligent Nico - trying to use social awards rather than social repression. The uncivil and stupid Nico, I try to ignore, and in any case avoid to gratify. I also believe in making this approach clear and obvious for Nico.

--Ruhrjung 10:32, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

on Germans and Germanness[edit]


is as far as I came now - I've other things to do in my life too, unfortunately ;-)

--Ruhrjung 13:50, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See also: User_talk:Cautious#moving_articles

Thank you for your comments, which I appreciate very much - particularly they bear hopes in respect to the Hanseatic League and its relation or non-relation to Germanness. I look forward to any day when I've more time to write and read. This week I've too much (civil) work scheduled. :-(
--Ruhrjung 17:19, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Let's see now if I can concentrate on this for a moment. Yesterday evening was consumed at the Polish Corridor, and it all ended predictably with me being very angry with myself for having spend soo much time there — in vain! :-((
--Ruhrjung 19:39, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)


For them of us, who use English as a lingua franca, and haven't studied Latin, it might seem somewhat confusing that you downgraded the Vistula article by taking away the name we learned on maps when we were young and receptive. Your neighbors may seem as important to you as the Kenyans (or is it in Tanzania Swahili is spoken, I don't know) but seen from the other side of the Baltic, your edit seems odd.

In school, this river was one of the most significant things I learned (and still remember) about Poland. I think you might consider to improve the article by a map instead of removing the link to the readers' memories. Yes, I was taught Latin, but the Latin writers we read were not very concerned with northern Europe. It's a pure coincidence that I remember Vistula as the Latin name.

Having relatives from Finland, I understand the feelings of unease over being seen through mightier neighbors' eyes, but you don't see many Finns eradicating the Swedish names from wikipedia articles on Finland, do you?

Thank you for your answer. I can think of three groups of intressents, for whom to write English language Wikipedia articles on Poland. Expatriates in the US, people from countries of the European Union, the generally curious internet surfer. It may seem as the second category is not your prioritized. I'm sure we can live with that.

Why do you keep removing the German name of Warsaw? This name has historical interest to English readers. The encyclopedia is not written for Soviet-time Poland. And your fellows keeps inserting slavonic names (even bolded) which are hardly relevant in articles dealing with German cities. Nico 04:40, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Smart noticing that this user has only posted on the talk pages of Gdansk and Szczecin...that is rather suspicious, especially since they've been posting there for over two weeks.. Do you have suspicions that it might be a sock puppet of a particular person? Whoever it is seems more temperate than Nico, at least. At any rate, I'll keep my guardup. john 20:16, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quickpolls evaluation[edit]

Typical! When someone express "total agreement" with me, then I'm in the process of modifying (the location of) my message. [4] You may want to remove or change your concurrence.
--Ruhrjung 15:20, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Native vs. most common (Kyiv/Kiev) poll[edit]

If you are still interested which form to use for city names would apprichiate yours vote on --Inhvar 12:53, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I strongly suggest not renaming files when copying them across Wikipedias. First, you run the risk of uploading duplicates (Wrzeszcz, Obroncy), second, it'll make it more difficult to merge Wikipedia image resources when is finally set up.
I'll also post this comment on some images-related talk page.
PS: Note: you also renamed GD032003 ubt.jpeg into Ratusz.jpeg. Bad idea - filenames are intentionally obscure so that they don't get overwritten by accident. Ratusz is a common word, so this picture is potentially in danger of being replaced by another image.
18:56, 2004 May 5 (UTC)

Poles in India[edit]

Since you clarified that this was only a small camp, then, yeah I think its not necessary to be mentioned in the history. (Don't worry I won't take any offence). On Monday, our newspaper carried a small article on this camp. The Polish ambassador recalled the close ties between India and Poland dating back to WW2 and how India assisted Poles. A very few Indians know that there were such camps right here, I don't know if todays Poles were aware of such camps in India, as it wasn't mentioned in Wikipedia. (but from your school, I think I'm mistaken). As far as adding such information about camps are concerned, details are sketchy. As I mentioned, people have forgotten here. On the internet nothing much is found about Valdivade. I'll try and research more, before adding details about the same. However I'll only be able to finish in June as I have my exams around the corner. Regards Nichalp 18:31, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

I tried that link on Hanka Ordonowna, but I didn't get much information. No article on her on Wikipedia too. Thanks Nichalp 20:15, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Polish Consulates[edit]

I didn't know that so many consulates were set up by the exiled Poland govt. I was under the impression that the consulate in Bombay offered Poles greater protection from the Axis (& later USSR) since it was geographically so distant. However after the katyn incident weren't the Polish turned against the Soviets to have consulates still open? I suggest a page be created mentioning the list of such camps. What do you think? Nichalp 19:54, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I have prepared a new article in place of the old one, which is a obvious non-sense. Please, feel free to express your opinion. Talk:Carpathian Ruthenia, Yeti 21:00, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Czesc Halibutt,

Jezeli potrzebujesz Herby i Flagi polskich miast - mam je do wszystkich wiekszych miast na dysku. Do dwuch posiadam rowniez pieczec (Gdansk i Krakow). Pozdrawiam.

Dzięki, może się kiedyś przydadzą. Tylko że nie wiem jak się z Tobą skontaktować. Może założysz sobie konto na wikipedii? Halibutt 12:32, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
To jest moje konto Emax 20:16, 19 May 2004 (UTC) W razie czego, napisz. Pozdrawiam.


Can you please point out a second head for me?

Since the start of it's existence as a polish fief in 1525 the Prussian Eagle always had one head. The location of the crown, or the inscription on the chest differred over the years. But not the number of heads. Maybe you're thinking of the Austrian Eagle? In your defense: the original Coat of Arms of the Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights DID contain a two-headed black eagle, but it was changed in 14th century. There is many Prussian artifacts in Gdansk, generally unknown. The characteristic feature of the black Prussian Eagle (of the Kingdom times) and the red Brandenburg Eagle is the long snake-like neck, never present in the Polish Eagle.

stimulating the barbarians within us[edit]

I think you understand that I'm not quite happy with your role at Gdansk. My feelings are expressed at Talk:Erika Steinbach [5], but they are actually even as relevant for what's goes on at the Gdansk-article and its talk page. I realize of course that we all do mistakes, and that we all have bad days.
--Ruhrjung 01:11, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

History of Lithuania:[edit]

About Belarusian language. Language, which was used in Great Duchy's state offices is one of Eastern Slavic languages. The problem is, that it functioned, when Belarusian , Ukrainian or even Russian languages in modern sense of these words didn't exist. In these times, it was called Russian and concerned as such, having the same name with Russian language in Moscow Duchy. Thus it's more problem of its name, than one of essence. In order to distinguish Russian in post- Kievan Rus lands and Russian in Moscow Russia, some historians proposed to use Latin name Ruthenian for the first. Maybe it would be logical to use it also for language in Great Duchy. - I, myself, also did this way. For example, I used “Ruthenian language” in Culture of Lithuania. Also I prepared to do it in the revision in History of Lithuania two days before. But, when I looked to the article “Ruthenian language” I found to my great surprise, that Ruthenian does not include meaning of “language of Great Duchy” As I remember, in an earlier version of article this meaning was included. So, I decided to leave “Belarusian” as it was before, for this problem needs deeper revisions. But the problem exists, I don't negate it.

Concerning correctness of usage of Belarusian, I only can say, that without any doubt, Ruthenian (in Great Duchy, I mean) is more closer to modern Belarusian than to any other East Slavic language. But problem isn't in it. We should use the same name, what speakers of a language did (for example, Latin, not “ancient Italian”). For the same reason we can't use name 'Lithuanian' language for this Ruthenian , for Lithuanian commonly meant my native language. But when we use original name 'Russian' the problem of distinguishing arises, as I said. By the way, all Eastern Slavic languages are very similar. So, ones could quarrel endlessly, to which language Ruthenian was closer. Linas 10:50, 2004 May 22 (UTC)

"Just as I thought. Then perhaps we need to correct the Ruthenian language to include both the Rusin language and the language of P-LC. Halibutt"
Well, I agree. I had been afraid, that somebody rejected this meaning of language of Grand Duchy. But I looked through the history of “Ruthenian language” and found, that problems there were different and didn't concern Great Duchy. - Maybe something like: “Ruthenian language – scientific term along with West Rus(s)ian, Official Slavic and Early Belarusian language, used to describe variant of East Slavic language, used as official language in state institutions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 14th -17th centuries.”?

I only don't remember the format of double or multiple articles. For this “Ruthenian” should be the second definition after the present, shouldn't it? - I think, you may include a simple definition and we will be able to add something, like relations with Belarusian, influence to Lithuanian etc. Or I'll include it, but some days later.
Linas 14:02, 2004 May 22 (UTC)

I promised to include something about usage of Ruthenian language in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. But I afraid, I couldn't keep this promise right now. I supposed, that something is wrong with these Ruthenian articles, but didn't find in Ruthenian language anything obstructing. However I find now, that these articles are very irregular. Especially Ruthenia, which even is NPOVed, what concerns Grand Duchy of Lithuania, at least. There are two choices now. Or to write additional definition, thus increasing also the disorder, either to revise all these articles, regularizing texts, being involved into editing wars and so on. I, myself, would like the second way, but presently I have no time...

Ruthenia now expresses point of view of Russian (or, better, East Slavic) nationalists on Grand Duchy. Where could be agreed only with the statement, that Lithuania was state of all: present -day Belaruses, Lithuanians, Ukrainians. However primacy in state ruling affairs of Lithuanians before 1387 and Catholics after 1387 is indisputable and recognized by historians. Maybe, Belarussian language could stay for some time in Grand Duchy of Lithuania. At least, it's not such a big error. Linas 09:25, 2004 May 26 (UTC)

Max Berg[edit]

Hi, could you identify the building, the Hala Ludowa or Century Hall in Wroclaw that was built by Max Berg? Is it this one? Dunc Harris | Talk 09:10, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Noam Elimelech[edit]

Halibutt, you're correct that Lizhensk is not the name of the town. However, all Jewish writings that quote him spell this town as Lizhensk or something similar. As long as the redirects are in place, this shouldn't be a problem...
I've got very similar experiences with a number of other towns. Many towns in Lithuania had names in Yiddish. For example, I discovered that Slabodka is generally called Viliampol, the formed being used by Jews. The same goes for Volozhin in Byelorus, the site of a famous yeshiva and therefore rather well-known to Jews. Would you be able to help identify the correct towns, and perhaps write a few stubs on their geography??? JFW | T@lk 14:32, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's right and I believe that the article about Rabbi Elimelech should be moved back to Elimelech of Lezhinsk. That's the name by which most English-speaking people interested in the history of Hassidism would know this town. The same applies to many other centers of Hassidism, like Ger (Góra Kalwaria), Bobov (Bobowa), Kuzmir (Kazimierz), etc. And I think that these Yiddish names should be used in Hassidic-related articles (with the Polish/Ukrainian/Lithuanian names in parentheses of course). --Kpalion 17:25, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I could try to help identify those places. Just send me the list or post it here and I'll see what I can do.
As to Kpalion's proposal - I wouldn't be so sure about it. It only creates greater confusion. Also, there is a rather common policy to translate all the kings' names that are not names per se but rather nick-names. That's why Kazimierz Wielki is Casimir III of Poland. Similarily, the names of many prominent Hassidic and Jewish thinkers are not names per se but rather toponymical nick-names, and therefore should be translated to English, using the current name of the place. As long as there's a redir in the spot - it's all ok. Halibutt 12:18, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fine, Halibutt,[edit]

If you can't see the difference between a city that was called Londinium 2000 years ago, and a city that was called Stettin 60 years ago, go right ahead. john k 05:00, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, I will. Halibutt
Let me add, that phrase formerly Stettin was reached as a painful compromise for both sides. You can read discussion at Talk:Szczecin/Archive 1. The main problem of controversy is apparently because Stettin before 1945 was the name of Szczecin both in English and German (As in Churchil's speech about Iron Curtain). It was agreed, that since this is English Wikipedia, Stettin is related to former English name, not German. Nevertheless the fatal coincidence of the same name in English and German is still causing much controversy. (Warsaw does not have that problem as Warsaw is different from de:Warschau). I hope I cleared the situation enough. Przepla 09:12, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I understand that it is a compromise version. Moreover, I will not interfere and will treat it as a rule in other articles as well. Comming up next - New York (formerly Nieuw Amsterdam). Halibutt 10:53, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and I'm sure the Lithuanians will be happy with Vilnius (formerly Wilno), the Germans will appreciate the Dresden (formerly Drezno), Berlin (formerly Berolina) and Aachen (formerly Aquisgranum). Not to mention all of the Ukrainian, Belarussian and Latvian city names that will be changed shortly. Long live the consistency! Halibutt 11:29, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
The Wilno was renamed in 1939 so, if Wilno was previously called Wilno in English, you are right. Wilno should begin with formerly Wilno. The issue with Szczecin, is similar with Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon). Frankly I am quite puzzled with this name debate which is apearing over and over. Why is everbody caring about it? It is just a name. Moreover formerly Stettin is both factualy correct and useful, since for some English speakers Szczecin is still called Stettin (like for me Sri Lanka is still called Ceylon), and is referenced by Churchill's speech. Quering Britannica Online [6] shows that Stettin is inserted in header of Szczecin article, Wilno in header of Vilnius article, but New Amsterdam is not inserted in New York article. I don't get it. Why is everybody obsessed here with how some former names are inserted? Nevertheless, I will appreciate any solution which would end this forever. Przepla 13:20, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
AAMoF I was acting as a devils' advocate here. Hopefully something will come out of this. What I was pointing at is that there are still no rules regarding the names that should be inserted in the header. Undoubtfuly a piece of information about how the city used to be called is needed. However, there are some double standarts here: many users insist on putting as many former names in the header as possible (including the Nazi name of Gottenhafen that was used only by German administration for 4,5 years during WWII), while at the same time the very same users oppose putting former English names in articles about cities in anglo-saxon countries. While there's nothing wrong in saying that the city of Szczecin was previously known under the name of Stettin, there's also nothing wrong in saying that the city of New York was previously known to the English-speaking world under the name of New Amsterdam. Some rules need to be set and we should use them consistently. It's a typical either-or situation. Halibutt 14:35, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
OK, Thanks for the explanation. You are right, we need some strict rules about that. Przepla 15:00, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest that, say, names by which a city has been known in the last hundred years or so should be listed in the introduction, while centuries old names should not. This seems reasonable - frequently someone could be reading a book from the early part of the century that uses an older name, and it would be good for them to be able to find the new name quickly. On the other hand, someone is unlikely to come across quasi-contemporary references to "New Amsterdam." But maybe that's just me. I'd be perfectly happy to see, say, Oslo (formerly Christiania) and Vilnius (formerly Wilno or Vilna), for instance. john k 15:42, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Dear Halibut,

yes, I believe that Russian spelling belongs to the article. By the way, despite you are trying to be neutral, even your wording is biased - "kept the puppet Ukraine alive" seem to me somewhat derogatory to Soviets (including Russians and Ukrainians).

The unbiased fact is that official language of Soviet Union was Russian. And Ukrainian was official in Ukraine too, but just too.

As far as I know, there are more references in official documents to Львов that to other spellings aggregated.

Drbug 16:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re:Central Europe.[edit]

It should be clear enough why the map was removed. It implies that Central Europe excludes the Alpine countries, which Tuomas is arguing for. I have asked him to show me a single source for his claim, as both the CIA World Factbook as well as all English-language encyclopedias I've seen, including Britannica and the Colombia encyclopedia, clearly includes the Alpine countries. If he continue to revert without citing any source, I have to restore the old version. Elizabeth A

May I protest against this misrepresentation of my view? I argue for connecting the claim of for instance Liechtenstein's categorization as Central European to a source. And I argue for inclusion of different points of view instead of stubborn reverts stating an alleged singular truth, "Central Europe is frequently, particularly in the Western World, taken too include" a list there Liechtenstein and Switzerland are undistinguished from Poland. On the talk page this misconception is demonstrated to be inconsistent with present-day usage, why I think it's important to attribute that view to an authoritative source - as the CIA Factbook.

May I add, that Central Europe is not one of my particular interests. Which doesn't hinder me to know what everyone else knows; the Slavonic countries have to be given a more promient mentioning than Liechtenstein or Switzerland or even present-day Germany. It can be noted, that so it was until May 6th, and my involvement in this page has been a try to establish a balanced wording taking the arguments of Elizabeth into account. /Tuomas 07:09, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hassidism: naming convention[edit]

Hi, could you please have a look at my proposal at Talk:Hasidic Judaism#Naming convention: Hasidic dynasties vs Polish/Ukrainian towns and let me know what you think? --Kpalion 10:52, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Freedom Union[edit]

I renamed Freedom Union in Freedom Union (Poland) because there exist more parties with the name Freedom Union. E.g. in Czech Republic. Gangulf 21:23, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On the "Polish contribution to World War II"[edit]

Thanks for cleaning up the article, you did a great job! Halibutt 16:04, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome! I would like to point out that the Operation Tempest article needs the same attention. ^_^;DocWatson42 18:12, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Allied policy towards central europe seems like a waste of time and energy. Shouldn't you be expanding articles that will reach a larger audience, like History of Poland? Still, the article is so fully about Poland, that your title does not seem to fit. Lack of help during the winter war in Finland seems just as POV as Poland's betrayal. This is not the place for essays with encyclopedic language (you make it seem neutral, but the topic is not, and no, i don't mean controversial, I would like to see this taken up by more than just poles). You know, there is a Polish version of Wikipedia,, perhaps efforts on such an article would be more useful there. In any case, more people would see it.

Another note: I notice that most of this information is already present elsewhere, much of it is already in articles specifically about that topic. The content is ok, but POV can never be overcome in this topic. I suggest you think about adding sections to other articles (a sentence or three) describing that Poles feel betrayed and so on, but note that, the Western Allies could have done little to help Poland. And as I asked before, please confine Polish nationalism to the sidelines when writing articles.--naryathegreat 19:04, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

I deleted those comments for the same reason I changed my messages on your talk page. Anywho, couldn't you at least comment on the fact that (or present evidence they could have) the Western Allies could not have helped Poland in your article? Also, in any case, Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies will need to be deleted. Even in your article it has outlived its usefulness. Since you feel this way about your article (and the title is much improved), please submit a delete vote on the VfD for the page so that yours can takes its place and that one redirected to yours.--naryathegreat 23:34, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

I replied at this page. Halibutt 04:27, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

List of alternative country names[edit]

Good point, Halibutt. I'll get to work immediately. (When I read your message, I thought you were referring to alphabetizing the English names, which of course are already alphabetized, but then I understood you were referring to the alternative names.) BTW, congratulations for starting this page. I think it's great! Pasquale 19:06, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Education in Polish cities[edit]

Dzięki za Twoje uwagi na temat polskich uczelni. Mój plan polega na tym aby dodać listę polskich uczelni wyższych, na podstawie oficjalnego spisu MEN, do stron angielskich i polskich. Drugim krokiem będzie przetłumacznie nazw polskich na angielski. PolishPoliticians 02:17, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pełna akceptacja dla Education in Warsaw

Erika Steinbach/Erika of Rumia[edit]

I understand now, thanks for the information. Regards -- Solitude 15:06, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I am wondering if you could take part in the discussion in Talk:Szczecin or perhaps talk with User:PolishPoliticians about it. You are sharing his views, but you are much more sensible person, so I figure if perhaps you might want to cool him somehow, or make a real discussion on Talk:Szczecin. Thank you. Przepla 21:04, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Napisałeś: "the sentence Szczecin (formerly Stettin) might be misleading and certainly is offensive to some of us". Dla mnie zdanie to nie jest obraźliwe. Czy możesz wyjaśnić, co w tym zdaniu może mnie (jako Polaka) obrażać? Dzięki.Przepla 20:21, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Allied policy towards Central Europe[edit]

I just stumbled upon this. Reads like a nice article; keep up the good work :). Thue | talk 16:19, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Naming issues[edit]

I have made a proposition in Talk:Gdansk/Naming convention#Other_concepts. In short, it's sing most controversial names when first name appears in artcile and making a msg saying that the names are controversial and pointing to article explaining why. Please, contribute your opinion.Szopen 10:43, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Personal History[edit]

I have no Idea if I am utilizing the correct venue or not, so please indulge me for a moment- or not. I come from a polish family (Canadian born) and my father told me that he came from Futoma. My grandfather was in the Polish calvary, I've seen pictures and he had a saber on his mantle. He ( my grandfather) came over to Canada in 1938. To make this short, his name was Wellington Osip and there is some speculation that this was not his true name and that it was changed when he came overseas. As you can see, it is an unusual surname ( I believe there are only a handfull in Canada) and I am curious to hear about any information I can about this.

If anyone can share some light please e-mail:

Powstanie Warszawskie[edit]


Chetnie pomoglbym przy tym art. ale zaden ze mnie historyk. Moge zrobic jakis research. Czy masz dla mnie jakies zadania ? Kpjas ☤ 22:11, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Znakomita robota z powstaniem warszawskim. bardzo zaluje, ze do piatku bylem na urlopie, a kontakt z siecia mam dopiero dzisiaj. Szopen 06:37, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Foto Powstanie Warszawskie[edit]

Zobacz Autor nieznany Młodzi harcerze podczas powstania warszawskiego. Warszawa 1944; autor nieznany z archiwum dokumentacji audiowizualnej, Warszawa

Zamieściłem. Może uda Ci się znaleźć coś więcej? Halibutt 09:46, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
",BurningBuildingsWarsawUprising" + ".jpg" (napisalem e-mail do autora) (na tym serwerze są zastrzeżone prawem aut. jak sądzę)
nie mam też 100% pewnosci czy wszystkie z w/w nadają się do użycia ze wzgl. na prawa autorskie.
Kpjas ☤ 12:17, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your changes to Ukrainian Language[edit]

Don't get your point in deleting my NPOV, Halibutt. Are you telling me I can't dispute the item (together with many other contributors) just because it is not in the list? I'm not well familiar with Wikipedia rules on that, but it does look like bureaucracy or censorship. If such a painful problem is not in the list so please add it there before I will (as you are a kind of moderator). As for comments to my NPOV, I did add it to Vandalism in progress. Hope you wouldn't delete the template again (showing you are a vandal or censor yourself). And anyway, forgive all my newbie mistakes. Best wishes, AlexPU 11:25, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Specific references are Norman Davies recent Rising '44 and Richard Overy's Russia's War. Neither of these two are the ones who did research in the Soviet and German archives which was done by a number of scholars whose work I have not read: Werth, Conversino, Glantz and House. - SimonP 15:27, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

The Soviet forces did reach the Vistula in July, but they were unable to proceed. German resistance along the river was heavy, and the Soviets took many causalities in the fighting there, far more than they had in the advances of the previous few weeks. They Soviets did establish pockets across the river, but these met heavy German resistance and the Soviet force was too depleted at that point to truly press the offensive. The Red Army had already advanced further than they had intended in the summer offensive and supplies were running low. Stopping and regrouping was the standard Soviet behaviour whenever resistance was encountered. It is certainly true that Stalin had little interest in seeing the uprising succeed and that if the Soviet leaders had taken a riskier gamble than they were used to they might have been able to reach the city in time, but the view that the Soviets halted purely out of a malevolent desire to see the uprising crushed is almost certainly incorrect. - SimonP 17:56, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

w:fr:insurrection de Varsovie[edit]

Hello, I am interested about good ressources or bibliographie in french for "compléter" this article. Greudin 19:00, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Warsaw Uprising Article Move Problem.[edit]

Dear Halibutt,

at first, I'd like to repeat that I respect and appreciate your intentions with the Warsaw Uprising article!

However, there seems to be some practical problems with the way you chosen:

The first problem is with copyediting. Copyediting is the worst enemy for the editing history. I.e. all these contributions made by numerous authors will be considered (in the history) as a contribution made by single user (one who pasted new version in). Which is a violation of the GNU FDL (however, I don't think any of contributors will stress it). There are also some other minor problems not worth to be mentioneed now.

The second problem is relatively minor one. You have to insert comments into every section for editors to notice that there is also another place where this article is being edited. It is not natural way to edit Wikipedia articles.

I don't oppose your actions, but I advise you to think a bit isn't there another more concordant way to achieve your goal in relation to the article.

Thank you for your attention!

Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 20:42, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for the heads up, whether i end up getting involved or not. --Jerzy(t) 12:19, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)

What;s happening with RFC:CVA? It seems that it's not even listed in main RFC page.. i myself requested for mediation in your name (I feel sometimes are far too civilised) but i think request for arbitration would be needed quite soon... Szopen 10:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Naming wars[edit]

Since you were either directly or indirectly once involved into edits revolving around "proper" naming of cities like Gdansk/Danzig etc i thought you may be interested in my proposition in User:Szopen/NamingWar. I would want to create a way aimed at stopping the revert wars in future - through creating something like a msg (in see also list or header) explaining that's there is compromise and why, and by linking to the article explaining changes of the statuses of the Royal Prussia province (I would prefer it ot have it as separate article, not scatter it in plethora other articles). I would be happy to hear from you. Szopen 09:20, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Halibutt,

I have replied to you and Naive cynic on my talk page.

Pasquale 18:05, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ciekawy tekst ?[edit]


Znasz ten tekst ? Co sądzisz ?

za bardzo w tym nie siedzę, ale trochę bylem zaskoczony tymi ocenami, w por. z oficjalną wersją historii.

Kpjas 08:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tekst ten interesuje mnie głównie w kontekście Wikipedii. Chodzi mi o to czy jest to fringe rewizjonizm czy też mainstream polskiej myśli historycznej o tej kampanii. Czy więc czerpać pełnymi garściami i wstawiać te opinie do artykułów. Chyba za wcześnie ? Kpjas 12:18, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Summer is over[edit]

Hi. I don't know if I'll be more of a frequent contributor now, when it seems as the summer has left Scandinavia on its tour to the South. But I have not forgotten you. Your ambitious works are on my mental watch- and to-do-list. :-9

--Ruhrjung 14:59, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

Smola in Russian means resin, not tar.[edit]

I reverted your changes on Smolensk. If in doubt use --Gene s 11:49, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You know, you have a valid point. Smolensk was the center of an industry where tar was made out of resin. Both words are smola in Russian. But still we both are probably wrong because smola may not be the real source of the city name, but rather the name of the river Smolnya. That name comes from smol - black soil in old Slavic. At least that's one of the theories. --Gene s 14:46, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)