User talk:Danton's Jacobin

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Danton's Jacobin! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Teahouse Help Desk Reference Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

On a final note, you may want to consider joining a WikiProject of interest to you. WikiProjects gather editors interested in certain topic areas, providing them with information, tools and a place to discuss the topic in question.I think you may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland For a list of all WikiProjects, see here. Joining a WikiProject makes the Wikipedia experience much richer! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Apology

Thanks, no hard feelings. The anon's comment was not signed (I fixed that), so it was not easy to spot the difference unless you are experienced in parsing wiki discussion. There are lot of comments like that, and people who make them - I do enjoy educating them by improving the articles :) Hope you'll try your hand at that, too - it's fun to fight the ignorance! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re: Tadeusz Kościuszko revert war

You can request a semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for protection. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kościuszko

Hey Danton's Jacobin, it's me who had modified the Early Life section of Kościuszko, before the protection was applied (again).

First of all, the changes made by Belarusian users are based on Belarusian & Russian sources, which the Polish ones do not necessarily confirm, hence I think there is a need to highlight same by "according to Belarusian sources". Now, that bit on "ethnically Belarusian Ruthenian nobility" is false, as there had been no Belarusian language & identity before 19th century (Ruthenian or White Ruthenian would be accurate). Equally false is saying that "Litvin is the term used for Belarusians before the word 'Belarusian' appeared", because heritage of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania can be claimed by both present-day Lithuania, Belarus and Poland. The identity of "Litvins" had evolved along the course of history, whereby the likes of Kościuszko, Domeyko, Mickiewicz, Piłsudski or Miłosz are considered Poles. BTW, that bit on "Litvin" does not fit into the Early Life section. Thirdly, two of the references in that text are invalid. And last but not least, after those changes made by Belarusian users, the style of this section is very poor and far from encyclopedic style, which should be the case for Wikipedia.

I don't understand why some Belarusian users are so stubborn in keeping inaccurate information in that Wiki article on Kościuszko, however it won't be tolerated, for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.76.37 (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thank you for your message. First of all, I don't think it has anything to do with Belarusian users being stubborn, I am actually half Polish.

Second, the term Litvin mostly applied to the Slavic residents of Lithuania. I remind you that the vast majority of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were slavic (Belarusian) and the offical language in the Duchy was actually Belarusian, so it's quite funny when you claim their was no such identity or language. They might have had a different term to identify themselves, but what language did they speak in that case? A good example is the book by Ivan Sakharov from 1836 about Belarusian customs which was originally called them Litvins, and only later Russian censorship changed it to Belarusians (in general the term Belarusians was actually forced on the Litvins by Russians to erase the Duchy identity).

Third, self identification in that case mostly has to do with nationality. Kościuszko was a Pole by nationality and self considiration, but ethnically he was Belarusian. The fact he was ethnically Belarusian (or Litvin, or Slavic Litvin, whatever term you like) doesnt make him less of a patriot of Poland.

By saying that Belarusians didn't exist yet (which I referred to earlier), and by bringing up Domeyko, Mickiewicz, Pilsudski and Milosz you show that you are still a bit confused about the topic (so was I for a while). Domeyko and Pilsudski were actually born into families which immigrated to Belarus from Poland, and even though I don't exlude the fact that they had Belarusian origins to (it's actually highly likely due to the fact many Belarusian families were polonized and didn't marry Belarusians), the only known origins of theirs we actually know about are those who came from Poland so they are actually ethnically Polish. Mickiewicz had few possible origins which have supporting and contrasting claims. From the other hand, Kościuszko came from a family which was known to be of Ruthenian/Belarussian/Litvin (whatever term you like) origin which was Polonized, so we are talking about different examples.

There is no point adding "Belarusian sources claim", just as their is no point to add "Polish sources claim". What is assesed is the quality of the sources, which in that case is various and reliable. The sources base their claims on his family history. That's the thing, those stuff were actually discussed many times. Danton's Jacobin (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference tools

http://reftag.appspot.com is very helpful, as it WP:REFLINKS. I also use a script for moving refs to the end, you can find it at User:Piotrus/vector.js labelled as delta script for ref fixing and moving. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! That will help me a lot :-) Danton's Jacobin (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

regarding my revert

I reverted based on the Lituanus ref, which is the only one I can verify. I assume that your use of word Belarusian is based on Belarusian sources, which is fair, but if so, we should not change the Lithuanian one. Rather, we should add a new sentence, something like: "modern Belorussian sources, however, interpret his Ruthenian or Lithuanian heritage as Belorussian". I find that clear elaboration on such issues prevents future conflicts, as each side gets their say. Translating the references is important here, as it helps to back the claims. (I know that one of the sources cited is a reliable Belarusian academic outlet, as they also publish in Polish, but I cannot translate it myself). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at the article later, but here's an idea: how about using links to Lithuanian nobility and (just wrote it yesterday) Ruthenian nobility? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I consider Belarusian nobility to be an awful article, mostly unreferenced, and using a problematic term. I am thinking about redirecting it to Ruthenian nobility, or straight AfDing it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi...

I'm trying to add some images to the infobox on the Ashkenazi Jews page, but I don't know how. Do you have a step-by-step set of instructions you could lay out here for me?

Thank youEvildoer187 (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

I guess I should have been clearer. What I really meant to ask was how to you format photos into the image box properly. I'm used to just copying and pasting URLs and doing it that way. Obviously, this doesn't work in the same way, so I'm not sure what to do.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Międzyborze, Belarus

Międzyborze is a Polish spelling on a village somewhere in Belarus, near Starokostiantyniv, where TK was stationed in fall of 1790. Could you find what is the proper English transliteration of this, and correct the entry in the article? Polish sources will almost always use Polonized names, and it's sometimes hard to figure out for me what to use in an English article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Castilian people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Castilia (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) 12:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Danton's Jacobin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason I request to be unblocked is simply because my blocknig doesnt make any sense, I didn’t do any sockpupetry and I didn’t get a fair trial at all! No one asked me anything, I just discover I was blocked this morning. Based on what? Danton's Jacobin (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)) 18:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am a checkuser as well and I have just double-checked Courcelles' results and can confirm that you did indeed abuse multiple accounts. Namely, Mensch with Shteig (talk · contribs) and, quite probably, also Fifth Element Works (talk · contribs). For that reason, I am declining your unblock request. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The block is a checkuser block, and the people that can do that have special tools that the rest of us admins don't. I take it that this links you to another account with which there are problems. Non-checkusers won't unblock this account. Peridon (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what tools they have, but they blocked me for something I didn't do. Someone must check this issue! Admins can't jsut block random people.Danton's Jacobin (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You really have only two choices here, other than doing nothing. You can either e-mail the blocking admin, who is Courcelles. or you can apply through your original account. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is my original account, I don't have a different account. I opened a thing called Danton's Jacobin today to write to the admin that blocked me but haven't used it. I don't have their email! Danton's Jacobin (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have just blocked User:79.99.144.141, who admitted to being this editor; see the edit summary on this diff. Danton Jacobin, you are blocked. I don't knwo why Courcelles believes you're sockpuppeting, but while you are blocked you may not edit. You may not create a new account, you may not edit as an IP. All you may do is request an unblock. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have this account, at least one IP account, and the accounts stipulated by the checkuser who declined your last unblock request. While I do not have checkuser ability I trust those who do.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]