User talk:Dr. Dan/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

History of Lithuania (1219-1295)

Hello, could you help copy-editing this article? I hope to bring it to WP:FAC soon... Thanks! Renata 12:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sad observation

Hello Dr. Dan,

We had a 'grave side' chat at talk Jan Dzierzon and participants expressed, how unfortunate. As the following [1], Talk:Nikolaus von Renys MikoÅaj of RyÅsk and other articles show, 'grave robbery' is still going on in 2007. Labbas 7 January 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.31.82 (talk • contribs)

I personally witnessed the vandalization of German graves in Silesia after WWII, and it was very abhorrent to me. Dr. Dan 23:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy new year, Dan

It's also the season for removing the "holiday tree" and for archiving long talk pages, and I guess yours qualifies: This page is 180 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page for guidance. -- Matthead ^discuÃ! O 11:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A good idea, thanks. And Happy New Year, back. Dr. Dan 14:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Request

Dear Dan. I know you are capable of copyediting - greatly improving the prose of articles; something many of us who are not native English speakers (and quite a few who are) are unable to do. May I strongly suggest you devote more time to helping the Wikipedia project with those skills? I am sure you are trying to be helpful on talk, but let me assure you that it is not working as the discussion you start usually end up in flames and do little but to waste time and stress everyone involved. Please, pretty please, consider my words and help Wikipedia with your copyediting skills instead.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take your request to heart (and not because of the "pretty" please, either). I am also going to request that you do likewise, and to also use your administrative powers to curb the provacative flaming, that arises out of your camp, as well. Good luck, and let's give it a go. Dr. Dan 19:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to report such flaming, when started by my camp (sic!), on my talk page, anytime.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

History of Lithuania (1219â1295)

Sorry, I don't agree with your edit. The section is a preview of what is going to happen next so of course it is a little outside its strict scope (1219-1295). But history is not cut into unrelated periods that could be taken apart. Therefore I reverted. Renata 12:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. Dr. Dan 16:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block

You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours for persistent violations of WP:CIVIL. I discuss the block at the WP:RFI thread here.[2] Due to your busy schedule this is unlikely to interfere very much with your participation at Wikipedia. When you return please continue topical contributions and discussions without the behavior that prompted the complaint and its response. Durova^Charge! 21:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Contributors raised questions about this event here. M.K. 23:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Revisiting: that block was controversial. Dan, if you'd like me to review it please post what you want me to consider. If I change my mind it would still be in your block log, but I could strikethrough the above notice and post a retraction that you may cite in future discussions as needed. Durova^Charge! 19:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jogaila again

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jogaila, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
You're not listed, but you can add yourself if you like. Hope the "investigation" thing didn't get you down. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Dan. I don't mean to be picky, but you didn't "sign" at the bottom of the Jogaila mediation. Please read the small print carefully before signing! Full terms and conditions available on request. The value of your investment may go down as well as up. Your mileage may vary. Thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Dan, I'm pleased to see you in the mediation! When you get a chance, please "sign" the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jogaila with the word "Agree"? Thanks, and I look forward to the debate! :) --El on ka 20:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the Jogaila reunion (personally, i prefer W2J reunion). Sadly, I wasn't invited, but I think I'll show up anyway. :-) Appleseed (Talk) 20:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

I appreciated your comments in the WP:RFI discussion regarding "censorship, witch hunts, inquisitions, and the like." This is what I have been facing. No administrator seems to be willing to do anything that is effective in controlling this problem. The article in question is Free Republic. I thought you might like to take a look. Dino 16:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Origin?

Are you of Polish/Lithuanian origin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kowalmistrz (talk • contribs) -- Matthead ^discuÃ! O 03:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noting

I did simply choose to ignore idiots and all other breed of trolls, for the sake not to spoil my mood. You know, I'm busy as a journalist in my everyday life, and I think I do have more than enough material for a good article in a magazine, with perfect categorization of various kind of patriots and simple victims of state propaganda and patriotic belles lettres. Now i know, that Vilnius was occupied by Lithuania in 1942, annexed by the same Lithuania in 1991 (sic!), that Latvia was a part of Poland, and another spectacular things, like choosing books to reference something, you are supposed to know before editing, using google search. In my opinion it's google generation of mostly ignorant people, who did self-appoint themselves to be experts. Maybe that's why they do hate your provocative questions destroying their self-image as "an expert". And the main problem is that they do not know a single thing without google search. I don't want to evaluate where this will lead humankind, although it scares me a lot and leads to misanthropy.

You may visit one of forced out to leave Wikipedia editors User:Encyclopaedia Editing Dude user page. It's quite refreshing view on the subject:)--Lokyz 21:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Be civil please.

Dan, can I ask you again to consider refraining from making "useful" contributions like this one. Is anyone paying you for disrupting wikipedia ? --Lysy^talk 08:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Lysy, please do not try to sneak in another attempt to "censor" me under the guise of my being uncivil. Please re-read the entire talk at Vilnius University concerning the comparison between the fates of the University of Breslau and Stefan Batory University (which I believe is not only relevant, but hardly off topic), since November, and apply your concerns to all participants equally. BTW are you also of the opinion that Lithuania occupied Vilnius in 1991? Dr. Dan 14:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Dan, you promised to be civil. Please stick to that promise.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, and you promissed to stick to the issues rather than invoke the policies and |complain at various places endlessly all the time.

I suggested many times that we should all concentrate on the content disputes themselves and avoid using civility issues as a weapon against the content opponents. Unless something that is said is horrifically offensive, one should just ignore it and move on.

Deflecting the content discussions into the discussion of the civility issues is even less productive for what we are doing here (writing content) than the occasional outbursts caused by one's frustration. Whether WP:CIV is used as a weapon to intimidate Ghirla, Dr Dan, Lysy or Hali, I say this is all equally unproductive. Save WP:CIV warnings for dealing with real full-time trolls. The list above certainly does not include any. --Irpen 02:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jogaila.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Dr. Dan, as you probably know the mediation was rejected because you didn't sign. A number of users reminded you to do so, so it couldn't have been unintentional. I have to say I'm disappointed with this maneuver. Appleseed (Talk) 16:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What? Dan did sign here. M.K. 17:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's just the list of involved parties. As several users pointed out here, you also have to sign Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jogaila#Parties' agreement to mediate. Appleseed (Talk) 18:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't completely understand your remark, I do understand your disapointment with the long time "maneuvering" concerning the Jogaila article, as well as on a "plethora" of other articles. Regarding these "maneuvers", I also share your disappointment. Dr. Dan 16:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Which part don't you understand? Appleseed (Talk) 17:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As you probably know and it couldn't have been unintentional. Did you understand my general dissapointment, BTW? Dr. Dan 18:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As you probably know: right above my first comment is a message from a bot stating that the mediation has been rejected. it couldn't have been unintentional because two editors reminded you to sign here. Hope that clears things up. Appleseed (Talk) 18:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Appleseed, please AGF. My own opinion is that Dr. Dan was busy with other matters, and it just escaped his notice. For example, he and I have been corresponding about a routine archiving question, and he hasn't had a chance to reply to that yet either. So I think that this was probably just an oversight. Dan, to be clear, you did agree to mediation, you just forgot to post the "agree" signature, right? In that case, let's just start another mediation, and make sure that we check all the boxes this time. :) Or, if Dan posts a personal message to User talk:Essjay and admits "Oops!" that might be enough to just re-open the existing one. --El on ka 18:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, I try very hard to AGF. I assumed Dr. Dan saw the reminders to sign the mediation because I checked to see that he made edits to WP after those reminders were posted on his talk page. I also assumed that he saw the bot message (the one with the giant letter "i") stating that mediation has been rejected; it was, after all, right above my message. But since Dr. Dan seems so surprised/confused by what I've said, I will allow that he may have somehow forgotten to sign. If that's the case, I apologise. Did you forget, Dr. Dan? Appleseed (Talk) 19:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Appleseed, my personal relations with you have been more respectful than not, so I am happy that Elonka's above comments, caused a "edit conflict", and prevented a rather terse reply to you from me. I also received an e-mail further explaining my error, and that I should ensure those interested that I was not filibustering. Now that the damage has been done, I prefer that whatever needs to be done again, be done again. In other words everyone can re-state their viewpoints (in case there have been changes of heart, or sock-puppeteers have decided to recuse themselves, or others might now want to join the mediation). Dr. Dan 19:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am happy that you thought better of your terse remark. I am satisfied with your denial of filibustering (the "maneuver" I was referring to), and I hope I've made it clear why I jumped to that conclusion. By the way, I don't see any known socks among those who signed up for mediation, so there's no need to worry. Appleseed (Talk) 19:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I said sockpuppeteers. Are you sure? Dr. Dan 19:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to Logologist, he is not on the list. And no, as a regular editor I can't be sure who the socks and their masters are. Appleseed (Talk) 19:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well keep an eye open, just in case. Dr. Dan 19:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Dan, can I please ask you to post an "agree" message on the mediation right away? If you can do that quickly, I'll go plead the case with Essjay and see if he'll re-open the existing mediation, rather than us having to start a new one. Simply go here and add the word "Agree" with your signature, thanks. --El on ka 21:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Request

Dr. Dan, when you have five minutes could you take a quick look at hyperglycemia and see if there are any glaring errors? (Not that it couldn't use more improvements). Am worried about a relative. Sincerely, Novickas 19:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Novickas, I recommend caution when using WP for medical advice. It's a good place to start your research, but I wouldn't trust it with my life. Try something like WebMD. Appleseed (Talk) 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, I'm not sure why my remark provoked such a hostile response from you, but it certainly showed your true colors. That's all I have to say on this matter. Appleseed (Talk) 01:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

True colors? A response to a serious medical question, eleven days later? On an inapropriate talk page to boot? Hostile? Dr. Dan 01:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. I'll take you at your word, That's all I have to say on this matter. Likewise.

It was just a friendly tip, not medical advice. And I don't see a "serious medical question", just a request to check an article for errors. As for being "eleven days late", you can't be serious that someone would fire up their browser and request a peer review of an article in a medical emergency, when every second counts? I think you need to loosen up a bit. Novickas, sorry for getting involved in this. I see I shouldn't have bothered. Appleseed (Talk) 02:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's all I have to say on this matter. Right. Please convey your "friendly tips" and apologies to Novickas on her talk page, or write her an e-mail. Dr. Dan 02:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry - she is seen by competent medical professionals on a monthly basis, and we have no intention of trying to usurp their role. She is, however, what the professionals call "noncompliant" with regard to taking medication, and I wanted to expand the article with some info about the consequences. Maybe someone will benefit from the knowledge - people who can't or won't see their doctors, and don't realize how serious the consequences of hyperglycemia are. The few things I've done to medical articles all involve info taken from the National Institutes of Health, the Mayo Clinic, and similar sources. Thanks for your concern, but please don't think that we would use WP for medical advice!!! (much as I like WP). (But Dr. Dan really is a doctor). Sincerely, Novickas 01:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And a friend. Dr. Dan 02:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. Also, your Goethe quote set me to thinking about the situation in poetic terms - e.g. Do not go gentle into that good night. Thanks for that. Novickas 00:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and let us all, Rage, rage, against the dying of the light! Dr. Dan 02:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting reading

Please take a look at Essjay, User talk:Essjay and User talk:Jimbo Wales. Since you are one of the Wikipedians who does not hesitate to proclaim his professional credentials (in your user name, no less, and in discussions with others, where you have even offered medical advice to people you encountered on Wikipedia), you might have something interesting to contribute to the current controversy. Balcer 19:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, unfortunately I have nothing interesting to contribute to the current controversy. I hope I didn't dissapoint you. Dr. Dan 20:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Dr. Dan did not dispense any medical advice to me, either on Wikipedia or in the email he sent me. I should have expanded my question to read "Because I have a relative with this disease, I am anxious to know whether its WP article is reasonably accurate". Novickas 13:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong to conclude that he did. My apologies to both of you. Balcer 21:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

What was the point of this? Yes, Å»ydokomuna is an ugly, pejorative concept, but trying to imply that Piotrus acted in any way incorrectly by creating an article about it, as your edit seems to suggest to people unfamiliar with Piotrus' work, is hitting below the belt. We have plenty of articles in Category:Pejorative terms for people. If you get a kick out of blackening people's names, why don't you go and practice your character assassination on people who created some of those? The poor guy who started the N-word article should be a particularly easy target. Balcer 02:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I do not oppose the existence of the Zydokomuna article. What I do oppose is that when those disgusting theories make it to other articles that are certainly watchlisted and actively edited further. Check this edit by some anon or this (note the edit and the summary) by a known troll. Why was not that removed either on the spot or for another year while our friends continue to edit the article? Is it because it was added by a troll who is known to generally be useful elsewhere?

I recently removed a whole bunch of antisemitic rants from the History of Jews in Poland article like the unspeakable nonsense about "Jewish complicity (!) in crimes against Poles (!!!) during the WW2" [3] or Zydokomuna conspiracy theories presented passingly as not even needing a reference[4]. Why was that stuff allowed to stay for over a year until my first edit? Should I have asked then? --Irpen

I am asking Dr. Dan about his recent edit. If you have something to say about it, go ahead, but please try not to sidetrack us from the issue here. Your concerns listed above belong on Talk:Å»ydokomuna, and possibly on Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board. Obviously, no Wikipedia editor is personally responsible for the content of any article, including the one he created. I will let Piotrus speak for himself, but to illustrate the point, quite often when I get disenchanted with an article, I simply stop working on it or reverting changes put in by idiots, which clearly does not imply I endorse them. Everyone here has a right to walk away.

I think it should be noted that Dr. Dan's edit count on Å»ydokomuna and Talk:Å»ydokomuna is precisely zero at this point, so whatever problem he has with that article, he has not taken any direct action to correct it. Balcer 03:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Thanks

I noticed you lent a hand to help correct the grammatical errors in the KrakÃ³w pogrom article. It was one of my suggestions that they get a native English speaker to add back in all the articles - it seems like the word 'the' had fled the article. lol Thanks for helping out - I am sure they will thank you, too, but I appreciate you helping them out. :) Cheers! Arcayne 22:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Their inability to appropriately use "articles" like the and so forth, are the biggest problem to correct. But remembering the speech patterns of Natasha Fatale and Boris Badenov helps. A bigger problem is when they think the copy-edit changes their "meaning" altogether (usually it does not), and I try to be respectful to the "essence" of the original editors whenever I can. Just the same, I'm impressed by the non-native English speaking contributors to the Encyclopedia. Thanks, back! Dr. Dan 23:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hope?

If you continue to write and create articles, like you just began with Jan PiÅsudski and Proclamation to the inhabitants of the former Grand-Duchy of Lithuania, you will do much to improve your reputation in the eyes of your critics. In the end, we are here to create content, not to quarrel about which variant of a city's name is the correct one.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What, and I suppose Louis J. Weichmann, and Henry Reed Rathbone, are chopped liver? Dr. Dan 22:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so you are writing 2 articles every odd year? I hope that's not it...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

For a brief moment, I thought, Hope?, was a conciliatory gesture on your part. But it's clear that your subsequent mocking of my efforts, is more representative of who and what you are about. But don't worry, I won't ask Durova to censor or block you. We all contribute in ways that we see fit (and there is a lot of copy-editing to do, concerning articles out of Eastern Europe, including your above note to me). Better to write "two" informative articles every odd year, than a daily plethora of propagandistic nonsense, constantly infused with a great dose of original research. Dr. Dan 02:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Where do I have the impression from that the original and the follow up posts in this thread are aimed at generating annoyance? At the first sight it seems like a word of encouragement but something ticks from the inside. At the second sight and with the context of the prior exchanges the post looks somewhat... uhm, "less than friendly". If the owner of the page also has this impression, may I suggest an advise of not allowing oneself to be baited? Because, you know, an obvious answer, however tempting, may prompt a "report" as it has been threatened just hours ago. So, I suggest not responding is as good an alternative. --Irpen 02:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply

... And I am wishing you the same on this very special day: Happy Easter! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Me too. And I owe you an e-mail. Musical L inguist 14:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Check your e-mail. :-) Musical L inguist 17:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Some Copy edit

Hello, knowing your skills of this area, could I ask you to make a summary of this part of article, summary should be placed in the spot which starts with words "The elderate of Å½irmÅ«nai embraces three historical suburbs". Currently it is a little bit small summary to article's history part. Thanks in advance. M.K. 11:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Lithuanian translation help please?

Hi there - I noticed you're a speaker of Lithuanian. I'm currently contributing articles on a few Lithuanian aircraft. These were built in the 1930s and were designated with the prefix ANBO, which Lithuanian wikipedia says is an acronym for "Antanas Nori BÅ«ti Ore". Could you please let me know what this means? Antanas was the aircrafts' designer.... --Rlandmann 13:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your speedy reply! --Rlandmann 13:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom/Piotrus

Case has been started, probably you will be interested: [5] M.K. 10:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Krakau

This discussion relates to the question concerning the naming of Operation Wilno and the proper historical names of cities.

I would be distinctly opposed to Krakau, except as a bargaining position. It is not, and as far as I know, never has been English usage, even historic English usage. I support Cracow, which is, I believe, Latin Cracovia, not Krakau; and if it is made an issue, I will !vote accordingly; but it won't be accepted, in all likelihood - so I'm not going to bother to raise it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

...but it won't be accepted, in all likeihood - so you are not going to bother to raise it (the question). Is this how things work on this project? Is that how you personally relate to these kinds of questions? Dr. Dan 18:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to raise it, I will support you. I believe, however, in getting as much effect as I can for my time. This includes picking my battles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd like to think of Wikipedia as a source of information, not a battleground, nor a place to play mind games. A place where concise and non-confusing information can be found. That's my spin on it. Not a place where someone can twist and turn information (sourced from totalitarian newspaper articles, and skewed statistics), to satisfy some fantastic fantasy, and then award barnstars to each other. Oh, and it's hopefully not a place where "one can or should bargain" a position either. Best Dr. Dan 16:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Small note, PMAnderson, am I understand you correctly do you suggest that Krakau is not historical name to the city? In my digital "archives" i had some nice images with Krakau and/or Cracovia. Sadly there are no volunteers to changes particular city name in articles such as this, because in this time frame city name KrakÃ³w was not invented yet. M.K. 10:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What I said was that it is not, and has never been, the English name for the city; the German wikipedia is not my problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Even the silly Google game shows that such name used in English sources [6], more then enough that some editors would start inserting them in articles, so it is more then German wikipedia, Cheers, M.K. 14:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone else can explain why Cracow the English version of the Polish city, KrakÃ³w, is not the one used in English Wikipedia. What is the uniqueness of this situation? We don't use MÃ¼nchen for Munich. We don't use Roma for Rome. Dr. Dan 13:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Any takers? Dr. Dan 18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Dr. Dan. If you intend to present evidence on the Piotrus RFAR, could you please do so soon? Thank you. Picaroon (Talk) 17:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Krakow Missouri

Check this out: [7] --Lysy^talk 17:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Krakow, KrakÃ³w, Cracow

Hi. Thanks for the message. I said it was my impression that Cracow was a dated version of the name, not so much that I had proof to that effect. I keep an eye out for mentions of Krakow, and generally I see that references are to "Krakow" in recent English-language materials, not "Cracow". Older stuff is almost always "Cracow". Digging a little further, in response to your note, I notice that my copies of the Globe and Mail Style Book and Canadian Press Stylebook both indicate that the preferred spelling is "Krakow" -- mind you, that only demonstrates media usage in Canada, which might explain the impression I had (being Canadian and all). A quick search of the New York Times website shows use of both Krakow and Cracow, although most recent articles seem to use Krakow, whereas most of the recent articles (but not all) that use Cracow tend to be referring to historical events (such as the Holocaust) or proper names such as the Cracow Klezmer Band. A search of BBC News provides 7 pages of hits for Krakow, but only 4 hits for Cracow. A search at Reuters.com demonstrates that they use Krakow exclusively, as I got no hits for Cracow. None of this is determinative, and it's largely anecdotal, but these random searches perhaps explain why I had the impression that I did. Skeezix1000 11:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Concentration camps

Dan, you know I respect you, but why do you support using Soviet propaganda terminology ? You know the difference between a POW and a concentration camp probably better than I do. You really puzzled me now. --Lysy^talk 16:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lysy I respect you too. And it seems that every once in a while we often "puzzle" each other. I'm still puzzled by the question you posed to me way back when, as to who was paying me to disrupt WP. Believe me if I didn't have a life beyond the project, I would contribute much more than I can at the present time. And when I disagree with someone, it is not my belief that I'm "disrupting" something. And more importantly, I do not belive in censorship of anyone, even when I vehemently disagree with someone or their agenda. Dr. Dan 18:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC) p.s. I'll get back to you on your question below, very soon.

I'm sorry if I made you feel bad, everyone has his sins, and I have my worse days too. Frankly, I don't remember why had I asked you about disrupting WP but we can look back into it, if you feel like that. Especially, if you feel I owe you an apology. Anyway, my intentions are good, usually. --Lysy^talk 19:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just took another look at it, as my impolite remark was brought by M.K as a piece of evidence against me in the Arbcom case (for which I am thankful). Indeed, my "Is anyone paying you for disrupting wikipedia ?" was rude and not necessary and I do apologize. But then I assumed you had a "thick skin", as we once agreed, so you should not mind as much. My bad, anyway. However I still stand that many of your comments are disruptive, and this particular one, that provoked my earlier reaction was one of them. It's not about censorship, I'm happy to learn your views and all but you could put some more effort in trying to avoid making comments which sole purpose is to antagonize editors or provoke your opponents in a dispute. The same advise could be applied to me of course but nevertheless please consider if it's not valid in your case as well. --Lysy^talk 20:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dan, it is a good idea to not pay attention to "puzzling" statements at the talk pages. Some blow them up and seek for blocks, particularly if it helps to "win" content disputes, others reciprocate in the same tone. Neither is the way to go. I must say that the most hurtful remark towards myself that I have ever seen at WP was not from the one of the more filthy-mouthed trolls but from no one else but our friend Lysy. I got over that and edited articles with him without grudges (and neither receiving nor asking for apologies.) Let's worry about what our real-life friends and family members say and think about us. In Wikipedia the only thing that matters are the articles. Snide remarks at talk pages get archived and disappear into eternity. Articles in mainspace make a difference. --Irpen 21:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The articles are the ultimate goal, but certain understanding among the editors is an important factor of collaboration, and contributing to the quality of the articles. It is not about a single editor writing a good article, but about many different people contributing their bits that makes the wikipedia advantage. Now, comments that have the sole purpose of disrupting the content dispute or provoking aggression are not useful and should be best avoided. Irpen, I'm sorry to hear that one of my remarks was hurtful for you. I may occasionally loose my temper but I'm usually trying to keep calm. I don't remember any rude comments from your side. --Lysy^talk 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the belated apology, Lysy. I accept. BTW, did you, or would you apologize at the ArbCom, too? It might start a move in the right direction. Dr. Dan 03:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Kaunas pogrom

Since you have taken an interest in writing about forgotten massacres and making them better known through Wikipedia, why not put some work into expanding the Kaunas pogrom article? For a major massacre with about 5,000 victims, carried out in a city that a short time before was for 20 years a European capital, our article is woefully short. This is especially unfortunate since that pogrom is listed on the rather prominent Template:The Holocaust. Since you have edited Kielce pogrom, Jedwabne pogrom, Pinsk massacre, Kraków pogrom, Wąsosz pogrom, and other articles about anti-Jewish violence, I thought you would be interested in the subject. Balcer 18:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

USHMM has a useful timeline here. It seems there are other events which deserve their own articles. Like for example Massacre at Lietukis Garage, which is described as:

June 27, 1941

While crowds of spectators and many German soldiers look on, Lithuanian partisans kill 60 Jews at the Lietukis garage in central Kovno, battering most of them to death with iron bars. German army photographers take pictures for use in German publications.

This entry definitely deserves to be featured on DYK, especially if we could locate some of the pictures that were taken during the event. What do you think? Balcer 19:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern (and not calling it the "Kowno Pogrom"), and I'm sure I'll get around to it. Right now I'm busy with the Pinsk massacre and the mass murder that took place there. Fortunately for the WP community at large, you have taken the proper position on the matter, and have helped to remove a large part of the effort to whitewash and soften the horrific nature of this crime, that preceeded and heralded the Holocaust. BTW, I hope you see the difference between the Kaunas pogrom and the Pinsk massacre. The first event was under the auspices of an occupier with an agenda to exterminate a people, which heretofore this kind of event had not occurred in Lithuania. I think it can be substantiated that Lithuania was considered to be one of the least anti-Semitic areas of the Pale by the Jewish community at large. The second event at Pinsk, was an independent action, as were the other crimes commited by the Polish Army against Jews at Lviv, Vilnius, and Kiev during the same time period in 1919. Hopefully you'll put some effort into these earlier crimes while you're waiting for me. Best! Dr. Dan 19:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that indeed the most shocking thing about the events at Kaunas was that it was a city which was generally very friendly and hospitable to its Jewish community up to that time, suddenly experiencing such horrific anti-Jewish violence, with a significant participation or approval by the local population. One more reason why this exceptional event deserves to be written about.

So, should I get going on these, or should I wait until you find the time to make a contribution yourself? Balcer 19:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm really flattered and pleased with your courtesy, considering all the hateful Dr. Dan bashing at P.P.'s ArbCom that even you participated in. That being said, don't wait for me, go ahead and make more meaningful and positive contributions to Lithuanian related subjects. You know, like you have done in the past with P.P. and Halibutt. I'll join you later, maybe I'll get to its talk page sooner. And I'm glad you agree that Lithuania was previously friendly and hospitable to its Jewish community, prior to its occupation by Nazi Germany. Too bad that changed. Hard to say what the scorecard would have been without Barbarossa and the occupation. Are you sure that you might not be better equipped to deal with Polish anti-Semitism with the help of your colleague, the author of Zydokomuna? Due to both of your better access to Polish sources and ability to read Polish, etc.? Dr. Dan 21:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And are you sure that you might not be better equipped to deal with Holocaust massacres of the Jews in Lithuania? Due to both your better access to Lithuanian sources and ability to read Lithuanian, etc.? I guess the argument goes both ways. Balcer 21:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

All arguments have two sides. Although I'm well equipped to deal with these issues, my greatest fear is due to the perception by some of the superiority of Poland over Lithuania, I may fall short of living up to some of your expectations. Dr. Dan 00:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Russian historiography

Dr. Dan, since you are a historian, I'm curious to learn your opinion on Soviet and modern Russian historiography, its reliability and suitability as a source for wikipedia contents. The question is of course immediately triggered by the recent discussions at Talk:Vilna offensive but the same applies to a much wider range of articles. How is the quality of this historiography perceived from the perspective of an American historian ? --Lysy^talk 16:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Lysy, obviously I can only speak for myself, but I feel very confident that I am capable of reading something with an objective scrutiny whether it's a work of History, a newspaper, or whatever. If a source strikes me as being biased, I deal with it as such. That includes objecting to it. Histories that emenated from totalitarian regimes have to be read carefully, but not arbitrarlily dismissed, so whether it was written in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union is not a reason for me to ignore it or dismiss it. I do the same when I'm reading Thomas Carlyle or Norman Davies as well. One thing that puzzled me regarding the framing of your question about Russian historiography, however, is what I perceive to be your problem with modern Russian histiography and its "suitability as a source for wikipedia contents". Why single out the Russians? Russia is a great nation, and the Russian people are a great people. I hope that helps answer your query somewhat. Dr. Dan 17:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC) P.S. Looking at the Józef Piłsudski article and all the nice pictures (especially the plethora of statues near the end), and so forth, gives that article a quality bordering on the Cult of Personality. Wouldn't you agree?

Thanks for these comments. I have no other option but to agree with most. About Russian historiography I meant more methodology and objectivity of historic research, not its nationality. Western historiography usually dismisses most of the research done with political agenda, regardless of if it's Polish, Russian, or American. About Piłsudski, I have not read the article, but if the cult of personality shows there, maybe it's a feature ? Indeed there is some sort of cult and if the article hints this, it may be not bad, imho. --Lysy^talk 04:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I find cults of personality rather ludicrous. I have a bigger problem with newsreels or pictures of people weeping uncontrolably or pulling out their hair after a "Great and Irreplaceble Leader" has passed away into eternity. Kim Il-Sung comes to mind, rather than J.P., but do scroll down his article and look at the pictures. It's especially hard to watch when the mourners are taken away in an ambulance, because of the "trauma" they are going through. To each his own, I guess. Dr. Dan 19:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Which image are you talking about? I can't seem to locate it. Balcer 03:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Just scroll through the Pilsudski article from top to bottom, and ask yourself if you don't get a feel for what I'm talking about. BTW, since you have joined Lysy and me in this discussion (forgive me but I thought you were not visiting my talk page any more, it must have been someone else), perhaps you can voice an opinion as to whether or not modern Russian historiography is suitable as a source on Wikipedia. Dr. Dan 04:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so it is a an overall impression thing. Forgive me, you were so concise in your description that I thought you had a specific picture in mind, and I spent some time looking for it in vain, even checking previous versions of the article to see if it might not be lurking there. As for your question, obviously I am in no position to judge all of modern Russian historiography one way or another (though I do have some general opinions about it, for what it's worth). But there are certainly some problematic works of problematic authors that I would not use as references in Wikipedia. For a recent discussion about one such case, see Talk:Mikhail Meltyukhov and feel free to contribute to the discussion there. Balcer 04:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I find cults of personality rather ludicrous, too. All I meant was that there indeed might be a sort of Piłsudski cult in Poland at times, and the images in the article only illustrate this fact well. I did not make any assertions as to whether the cult itself was a good or bad thing. --Lysy^talk 15:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the credibility of Russian historiography, I only asked your opinion, since you are a professional historian. From your response I gather that either you do not have an opinion or you consider the methodology it uses to be en par with the Western research. Which of them is your position ? --Lysy^talk 15:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes Lysy, I'm glad we agree that Cults of Personality are ludricrous. But I'm not afraid to make the assertion that they are not a good thing. Don't care to weasel out of that one. As for the other question, I'm sorry I wasn't clear about what my opinion on Russian historiography is. I do have an opinion about it. Put simply, I do not find any particular "historiography" superior to another. And again I think that I must have been mistaken that you would really object to using "Russian" sources on Wikipedia. That seemed to be the impression you were making. I hope I was wrong. Dr. Dan 20:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC) p.s. Always nice to hear from you, and I hope you are doing well.

You are right, I do not have the problem with the word "Russian" in "Russian sources". The problem that I have is that Russian history research continues to be doctrine driven, as it used to be in the Soviet times, only the doctrine changed a little. This is partly due to a certain censorship in modern Russia, of which I'm sure you are aware, since you have stressed your opposition to censorship a number of times. I would expect that you dismissed the doctrine-driven historiography, too, regardless of whether it's Russian, US, Polish or German. --Lysy^talk 06:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said at the beginning of our discussion, I tend to read most things with an open mind, but also critically. I still do not feel that "Russian" historiography is any more doctrine driven than lets say for the sake of argument, British interpretations of history. I still get the impression that you have a problem with Russian sources more than other kinds. In any case, your original question was whether they should be allowed on Wikipedia as sources or not. The short answer is yes. Dr. Dan 13:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Cracow

(You wrote)

Hello, and belated congratulations on the two awards you have received on your user page from the Prokonsul. I hope P.P. will award you the First Class distinction sometime soon. As I have not contacted you before on your talk page, let me say I appreciate many of your contributions on Wikipedia, and wish to compliment you for your contributions at this time. As a result of our recent interaction concerning the date of when Cracow was changed to Kraków in the English language, I was wondering if you would be adverse to referring to Kraków as Cracow in all English Wikipedia articles and references to the city prior to 1975? Would this be confusing or historically appropriate? Since you tend to be more level headed and less biased than some others in many of these these discussions, your input would be appreciated. Best! Dr. Dan 00:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all the nice things you said about my work, and if you mean it, there’s a page in this portal best suited to expressing your feelings and you don’t have to be an administrator to do it. [8] All I can say is that the failed FA nomination of my hometown (to which you contributed somehow) made me realize that I’ve been devoting way to much energy to this pastime. I happen to have a life to live also. You’re correct in your assumption, that I would rather be adverse to unnecessary confusion resulting from taking this matter any further, but thanks anyway. --Poeticbent talk 15:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In so far as complimenting your work, of course I meant it, but I don't really think that I was the straw that broke the camel's back concerning the FA nomination of Cracow either. Don't give up on it! Sooner or later I believe there will be an accomodation between the editors who frequent our "neck of the woods" on WP. I hope it will be sooner than later. I know Cracow very well, and love it too (lived there and learned Polish at U.J.). If the change to Kraków is the way to go and should be the preferred name in English on W.P., maybe you can tell me why the Polish editors like Halibutt and P.P., have a problem with using Vilnius (if you're not sure maybe you can ask them), in identical situations. Over and over they have reverted Vilnius to Wilno, to Vilna, (anything but Vilnius) and cloaked this game-playing with an argument that "historically" Vilnius has not been used in older "English" sources. "Historically", Cracow has been used as the English description for the city, but Kraków has been gaining ground in recent times. As has Vilnius. Yet I don't see a move to apply the same logic from the Polish camp concerning Vilnius. There would be an objection from them to using Kraków after 1975, and Cracow prior to 1975. And to a certain extent I can see how too much "historicity" ends up confusing the typical reader on an article about the cities. This should be of great concern, as consistency is of paramount importance in an encyclopedia. Does this make sense to you? Do you have a suggestion as to how to solve this issue? Dr. Dan 00:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In English the spellings of many foreign localities have evolved over time. Romania has for a long time been called Rumania, while Serbia was for a long time known as Servia (if we go by the 1911 edition of Britannica). Wikipedia does not require that the archaic spellings be used whenever those two countries are mentioned in the context of time before 1911. Balcer 01:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Try to stick with the issue, Balcer. And if you'd like I can e-mail Poeticbent for his opinion. Regardless, your opinion concerning the actual question is welcome here. Want to make a suggestion? Please do. Dr. Dan 01:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is simple: don't link the naming of Vilnius and Kraków in any way. Balcer 01:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good now, but you failed to tell that to P.P. at the WP:NCGN talk page (see Cracow and Cracow Again) when he tried to correlate the two. I think it was around the time that you told us that Krakow is a vibrant, living city and what Wikipedia must do as a consequence, and P.P. told us that the the City Council of Krakow officially changed the English name from Cracow to Krakow. I'm sure you remember as it was very recently discussed by us. At the time P.P. brought Vilnius into the fray, but I don't recall you objecting then. Dr. Dan 01:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If you agree that linking the two is counterproductive, please don't do it. Balcer 01:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not what I'm saying at all. I'm surprised that that is your deduction. Now I'd like Poeticbent to answer the original question that I posed. Dr. Dan 02:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You criticized me for failing to comment when Piotrus allegedly did it, so I concluded that you don't condone the practice. Otherwise, why would you fault me for failing to criticize something that you do condone? Balcer 02:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, your solution not to link the naming of Vilnius and Krakow is not my solution, and it is not logical IMHO. And I wouldn't exactly say calling your attention to your neglecting to object to P.P.'s "alledgely" dragging Vilnius into my sincere questions at WP:NCGN (talk) "criticism" but an example of a double standard that is so tedious to deal with sometimes. That's what I was saying. Sigh! Dr. Dan 02:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I said "alleged" because you have not provided a specific diff or link, so I can only guess what exactly you are objecting to. I think you should know that I do not make it a habit to follow all of the edits made by Piotrus, much less comment on them. So, if you see any statement by him, the absence of a comment by me does not imply an endorsement. In general, given the vastness of Wikipedia, I believe any criticism in the vein of "you have failed to comment on ..." is patently unfair, unless the matter has been specifically brought to the user's attention and a response was requested, and then not given. Balcer 03:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, now that you've cleared that all up to your own satisfaction, I will proceed with my argument concerning the double standard of certain editors not using Vilnius for "historical" reasons in English WP, but insisting that Krakow be used in describing that vibrant, living city in all contexts. But not tonight. Dr. Dan 03:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your vote to move Hala Ludowa

Thank you for supporting the requested move of Hala Ludowa. Since in the meantime I have changed the request to rename it to Centennial Hall, could you vote again ? I know that might seem overly bureaucratic but it's better to do it this way so that the voting is not invalidated later. --Lysy^talk 05:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Kraków and Vilnius

Let me start by quoting the revered Polish writer and Nobel laureate Czesław Miłosz, born at Šeteniai (Polish: Szetejnie), in modern day Lithuania. There would hardly be a better authority in this matter from the Polish-Lithuanian perspective. – His opinion (expressed in the English language, which is of the essence here) appeared as part of Stephen Schwartz’, The Lessons of Czeslaw Milosz, August 26, 2004, reprinted by frontpagemag.com:

In 1991, Milosz wrote with great emotion in The New York Times about Lithuania, then poised to recover its freedom after 50 years under the Soviet boot. “For me the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939, as a result of which Lithuania, a peaceful, neutral country, was incorporated in 1940 into the Soviet Union, is not an abstraction,” he wrote. “I was in Vilnius and saw the Soviet tanks roll in. Immeasurable suffering followed: mass terror and deportations of hundreds of thousands to gulags.” [9]

If Miłosz was among us and cared to contribute to Wikipedia (rather stressful endeavour from my most recent perspective) he would have done what he had preached with regards to the city name Vilnius. That said, Miłosz seemed to have grown into the present day naming conventions overtime, like the rest of us (including English encyclopedias). For example, in Richard Eder’s review of Milosz’s ABC'S by Czeslaw Milosz (translated by Madeline G. Levine. 313 pages. Farrar, Straus & Giroux) we read:

Many of the entries [in his book] are devoted to Poles he knew at school in Vilnius (he calls it Wilno, its name when he was growing up and it was part of Poland). [10]

Whenever writing about his own past in book form, Miłosz would invariably use the name with the sound most familiar to him, Wilno. However, when writing to The New York Times about Lithuania in 1991, he would use Vilnius with equal confidence referring to the same time period.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) states, in point one:

When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name… If… the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name [by decree of the government of that period I suppose], the widely accepted historical English name should be used [not Polish, nor Russian or Lithuanian, but English… here’s the tricky part, leaving room for further interpretations]. If neither of these apply [whatever that means], the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used.

The last sentence would indicate that under unique circumstances, local historical names are advisable too. Personally, all this is very confusing to me, a true Tower of Babel. Operation Wilno is not a name of the city, but a name of a Polish operation, like Operation Sonderaktion Krakau, is a name of a German operation with no English language equivalent. Those conventions should not be changed lightly, thus risking the loss of their true context. It is most appropriate to use the modern, widely accepted English name of the city in those articles. And so, the Operation Sonderaktion Krakau took place in Kraków, and Operation Wilno took place in Vilnius. I have no idea how Vilna got into this. The opening line of the article Vilna offensive reads: “The Polish army launched an offensive, on April 16, 1919, to take Vilna (known to Poles as Wilno, to Lithuanians as Vilnius) from the Red Army.” This is hardly acceptable from the encyclopedic standpoint. The opening line should read instead: “The Polish army launched an offensive, on April 16, 1919, to take Vilnius from the Red Army.”

I’m sorry if I can’t be of more help to you. In Wikipedia truth is determined by popular vote as Stephen Colbert once remarked. I can give you my vote for Vilnius, because that’s all I can do. My vote is of the equal value to that of a sock pupet. --Poeticbent talk 06:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to Miłosz, we cannot use any one person as an authority on this issue. We indeed have a conundrum here. If one searches Google Book Search for the terms, looking at books published after 1980 (to pick a reasonably recent date), one obtains the following numbers:

Vilnius - used in 1876 books [11]
Vilna - used in 1372 books [12]

So, clearly, quite recent publications use "Vilna" to refer to the city in the historical context, hence there is a good argument for Wikipedia to allow its use it in the same context as well.

The way I see it, the most important thing in these disputes is to stay rational, assume good faith, and not demand rigid consistency across the board. We can use Vilnius in one article and Vilna in another, and the sky will not fall. Balcer 06:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Poeticbent for a very lucid and rational explanation. Seems logical to boot. And Balcer, your point seems less so. I suppose to follow your explanation with the consistency one would expect in an encyclopedia, we would have to call Krakow, Cracow in any reference to the city prior to 1975. Dr. Dan 17:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Poeticbent, one of the chief obstacles in the debate concerning the "Operation Wilno" article, was the WP:OR concern, as the Polish Army had never called this event in 1919, by that name. The move to Vilna was absurd and even more confusing to the reader without familiarity of the history or geography of the period. But you'll have to take that up with PmAnderson. It is my hope that an adjustment can be made soon to correct that. It is precisely these kinds of matters that prevent this long sought cooperation and modus vivendi between all of the parties involved. Censorship is the worse way to approach it, and mutual challenges to different perspectives is not "disruptive editing" (especially when confined to the talk pages). Best Dr. Dan

Disruptive editing

Dr.Dan, this is an example of your disruptive editing that people were complaining about before. Your comment does not serve any purpose but to further antagonize the parties of the dispute. Could you consider doing the reverse ? --Lysy^talk 05:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, does it not occur to you that your comments above about the perpetually "doctrine-driven Russian history research" and "a certain censorship in modern Russia" do not serve any purpose but to further antagonize the parties of the dispute? They also reveal your minimal level of knowledge about modern Russia and its historiography. What's the point of transmitting dogmatic pronouncements on something of which you obviously have only a vague idea? --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is antagonizes the parties of any dispute as I did not address these questions to any of the Russian editors but specifically used Dr.Dan's talk page to discuss this with him. What dispute, by the way ? I will leave your remarks about my level of knowledge about modern Russia without a comment. --Lysy^talk 19:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No Lysy, I cannot do so in good conscience. What you believe to be "disruptive editing", I consider to be a statement of fact. I made it in the hope that P.P. would realize that inspite of his pontificating otherwise, that maybe he could see what other people are complaining about regarding his edits in the dispute. And really, do you think that his contributions to Lithuanian articles have been constructive? Dr. Dan 17:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What I saw was that Piotrus and Lokyz attempted to find some common grounds for more peaceful co-editing and your remark was targeted to make it impossible. This may seem subtle, but I believe you'll know what I mean. I thought that you might not know what the other editors mean when they complain about your disruptive comments and this is what prompted me to humbly present this example to you. All in good faith and in hope that you might consider it. No need to respond. --Lysy^talk 17:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As for Piotrus' contributions to Lithuanian articles, I cannot answer, because I'm probably biased. But my feeling is yes, they were often more constructive than of some of Lithuanian editors. I do not mind the name-warring in which you and Piotrus and others were involved of course. I find it disastrous for all involved and I wish we could find a solution to prevent name-warring in the future. It is frustrating to see otherwise productive and reasonable editors wasting their time and nerves over naming a person in one or another language. --Lysy^talk 17:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Whereas you and I get along (largely because you are reasonable) some editors have deliberately chosen to create animosity between the various parties in our little group. Halibutt was second only to Molobo in this regard. Piotrus on the other hand moved from being fair and approachable, to following in their footsteps. I never really understood that move completely. I somewhat thought he was doing it as a sign of solidarity or something else intangible to describe, in order to impress Halibutt. But enough of my analysis. Your statement, about P.P.'s Lithuanian related edits, ...my feeling is yes, they were often more constructive than some of the Lithuanian editors, is quite a weasely statement. The edits either were or they weren't constructive, regardless of other editors. Recently, I believe they were more often than not, very unconstructive and downright provocative and deliberately mean spirited. This too may seem subtle, but I believe you also know what I mean. It is the only reason that this current ArbCom was brought about. And whereas Piotrus' favorite tactic of trying to censor people he disagrees with, is something I would not like to be applied to him, he needs to try and open his eyes and really work for cooperation between the parties involved in the Polish-Lithuanian and other disputes, instead of feigning that he is the injured party only trying to make Wikipedia better by informing Wikipedians about the "true" nature of Vilnija, the true and correct name for Vilnius, i.e.,Wilno, and the nazi propaganda poster here, (along with a description of how "useful" it is) that he posted twice at Lithuanian related articles (including a synopsis of the History of Lithuania). People pretend to have such short memories when it is convenient to do so. Best Dr. Dan 00:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me that while you claim that you oppose any form of censorship, you prefer to stay mute about any negative aspects of Lithuanian history or politics, be it Lithuanian nationalism or historical support for the Nazis and anti-semitism. You prefer to leave it up to Polish editors do write about these, and this is another part of the problem. But what I wanted to ask you here is please, please try to avoid making comments targeted at antagonizing LT and PL editors. To quote the Troll (Internet) article: a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding. --Lysy^talk 04:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Lysy, if you are trying to bait me, please stop with absurd and troll-like provocations like ...Lithuanian "historical" support for the Nazis...? Now go ahead and reread the definition of what a troll is. The one you just posted. Dr. Dan 16:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I was not trying to bait you, yet it crossed my mind that you might get that impression. :-) --Lysy^talk 17:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I did. Dr. Dan 17:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, this only confirms that our perception is similar. Anyway, would you agree that Lithuanian editors never write about the dark side of Lithuanian history ? --Lysy^talk 17:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what is most revealing here, is your statement concerning "the dark side of Lithuanian history"....you prefer to leave it up to Polish editors do (sic) write about these..., Really now? Lysy, there is so much for everyone to do here on W.P., and so much to write about. All in good time. Should everyone therefore be thankful to the "Polish editors" for taking up their own valuable time to help the Lithuanian contributors, by adding the "dark side of Lithuanian history" to W.P., while telling everyone that they are trying to reach an understanding and a cooperative spirit between all of the parties?

I'm not sure you wanted to express your feelings about all of this so candidly, but I'm glad you did. Maybe Balcer can post the essence of the remarks you made here at P.P.'s ArbCom (like he so happily accomodated my request recently). If he he won't, maybe you will. I would certainly like someone to do so, because I think you have put it all together (the essence of the problem) in the most concise manner possible with your remarks in this thread. Dr. Dan 13:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Dan, "my most revealing statement" was a sarcastic one, don't take it for its face value. You also do not have to answer my question about your not contributing "the dark side of Lithuanian history", all I would ask is a moment of your reflection on this. And sorry for misspelling "do" for "to" but I'm sure you are well used to my typing errors by now. --Lysy^talk 14:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Lysy, many a truth has been said in jest, and many more in sarcasm. Your typo was the least of my problems with your remarks. Since the Polish editors have in fact taken it upon themselves to write about the "darker side" about Lithuanian history, the comments you made only spotlight this fact. However you wish to soft pedal your remarks now, I think you owe a very sincere apology to your Lithuanian colleagues for the assertion concerning Lithuanian "historical" support of the Nazis or some very substantial evidence to support that very strange belief of yours. Dr. Dan 14:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I should apologize because you have a different opinion than I do ? OK, we can discuss the WW2 Lithuanian - Nazi relationship if you insist. Are you aware of any active Lithuanian opposition to Nazis during the occupation ? Thousands of Lithuanian partisans died fighting against the Soviets in 1940s and 1950s. Did they fight against Nazis as well ? --Lysy^talk 17:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Lysy, when you have the temerity to say that there was "historical" Lithuanian support for the Nazis, I really don't have much more to say to you about the subject. And again, I do think you went overboard with that statement and owe the Lithuanian editors an apology. Personally I don't need one from you, because by now I'm very use to this kind of nonsense (I do have a thick skin), but it amazes me when your group tries to make it seem that the Lithuanian contributors are the bad guys, and all of you Polish editors are trying to reach a harmonious consensus with them for the betterment of Wikipedia. Your remarks are outrageous. Dr. Dan 22:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, Dr.Dan, your nervous reaction suffices for an answer to the question I asked about the spectrum of your contributions to the Lithuania-related articles. You simply avoid edits which would reveal any negative aspect of Lithuanian history. I don't know where this bias comes from, but it appears that you are ignoring any topics that would not suit your agenda of the only bright an noble history of Lithuania. This brings your claims of your detest of censorship in a new light. Remember the other discussion about the skeletons hidden in the cupboards ? Anyway, the major reason why I disturbed you in your talk page was to ask you to stop trolling, and this drifted away because of the observation I made about your bias. I'm sorry about that, the discussion was not necessary as I think we both knew this already before. --Lysy^talk 08:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Lysy, I'm not nervous. Maybe you should be more concerned about your own edits (and many of your Polish colleagues) regarding Lithuania instead of mine. As for who's trolling here, please reread all of your contributions under this heading "Disruptive Editing". As for "censorship", I was referring to continual attempts to block or otherwise remove participants from Wikipedia by some people because they disagree with their POV, not because they fail to contribute to the darker side of Lithuanian history. I also think we both knew this before. Your insulting generalization that Lithuanians "historically" supported the Nazis, remains unappologized for and is outrageous. That's too bad. Dr. Dan 17:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Lysy, I think you've crossed the line this time. Your declarations about Lithuanians historical support of Nazis and Lithuanian anti-semitism are simply outrageous. I do not intend to go through wealthy of facts denying your claims, I'll just remind you a few facts from "black sides of Lithuanian history". You know, that Lithuania did refuse accept Nazis proposal to attack Poland in 1939, for an instance. And if we begin talking about antisemitism, strangely enough the first ever recorded Pogrom in 20 years of Independent Lithuania history did happen in transfered to Lithuania Vilnius on November 11, 1939, and it was carried out by Poles (the fact somehow omited by most Polish historians).--Lokyz 17:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Check this out

your dear friend PP is having quite a fun time pushing POV with his maps on recovered territories. I find this one extremely funny (in a rather sad and pathetic way): both these maps are from the same year [13][14]

--Jadger 17:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus

The above case is closed. A general amnesty for editors involved in Eastern Europe-related articles is extended, with the expectation that further editing will adhere to Wikipedia's policies. Future behavior problems may be addressed by the Arbitration Committee on the motion of any Arbitrator or upon acceptance of a request for inquiry by any user who edits in this area. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 19:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Lysy

Sorry I couldn't get back to you earlier, but I was unable to do so due to circumstances beyond my control. I specifically mean getting back to you in regards to your outrageous, false, and unapologized for statement regarding Lithuanian "historical support" of the Nazis. This statement was made by you here on my talk page under the heading, "Disruptive Editing", circa June 22, 2007. Before getting to my point, I also want to say that my being briefly away from the WP project has given me a fresh and different perspective of why this problem of propagandizing on the Wikipedia project should stop. If you look at the recent entries concerning the article and talk on the "Current situation" of the Polish minority in Lithuania (and look at the usual participants in the recent row), you'll see what the problem is, in a microcosm. Now for the sweeping generalization you made concerning the Nazis and Lithuania, and Lithuanian so-called "historical support" of the Nazi's policies. When you speak of Lithuania in such a context, I'm sure it's safe to assume you are not speaking of a geophysical entity or its forests, rocks, and streams, but of it's people. So then who exactly do you mean, what people? The government of the Republic of Lithuania? No, that fled in 1940, and never supported the Nazis. The newly installed government of the LSSR? I don't think so. An old couple living on their farm who lived through the Tsarist regime and WWI, and were happy to find their country free and indepedent in 1918? A medical student who had their studies and dreams interrupted by the politics and war that began in 1939? Again no, no and no. The Lithuanian "support" of the Nazis is the figment of the imagination of propagandists from all sides of the issue, and evidently when you bring it up, you mean to perpetuate such nonsense. As for the term "historical" being used in this context, this is another bit of nonsense. As a government, Nazi Germany lasted a mere twelve years (half of that time at war) and occupied Lithuania for three years. The Nazis came uninvited and all of their activities were done under the cloud of a military occupation, and for all practical purposes, martial law. And whereas (like the French), the Lithuanian people did not engage in a futile excercise by staging some doomed "uprising", this does not constitute support of Nazi activities or policies. And please do not waste your time by giving me isolated individuals as examples supporting your position, because even though I could reply with plenty of Polish examples of collaboration with the Nazis, it would be equally ridiculous for me to claim the this proved Polish "historical" support for the Nazis. I will grant you however, that after a year of Stalinist excesses, deportations, executions and so on, there may have been a feeling of relief on the part of many that the first foreign incursion was being replaced by perhaps something less abhorrent, and the Nazis might even allow the re-establishment of an independent Lithuania, but this hope proved to be short lived. It was something like "jumping out of the frying pan into the fire". And you speak of "historical support". So sweeping and so "grand" of a concept, yet hardly "historical" as one understands the term in English. I think of historical as a concept that would span a greater time frame than three years, but just the same it is a "loaded" phrase as it's being used by you in this context. For example, if one wanted to debate the "historical" existence and significance of Polish anti-Semitism, since this subject almost spans a millenium, I would equally oppose that description as being inflammatory and counter productive. And unnecessary, btw. So enough with the "historical". Incidentally I found your suggestion that the Lithuanian partisans who operated in Lithuania after WWII, was somehow more "evidence" of Lithuanian historical support of the Nazis, particularly odious. When I called your remarks outrageous and asked for a retraction and/or apolology, you stated that you weren't about to apologize over a difference of opinion. This is not about a difference of opinion. And this type of activity on Wikipedia should stop. I think we should all choose our words more carefully. As always, best wishes. Dr. Dan 01:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC) p.s. Do consider that apology.

Dan, consider this a warning. If you do not stop igniting hatred and digging things up that are done and gone, I will block you. I am very serious. Please channel your energy into something useful instead, like writing or copyediting articles. That will be far more beneficial than driving everyone into "my nation is better" game. Renata 13:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Renata, it's a pity that you think making a statement like the Lithuanians "historically supported the Nazis" should go unanswered and unchallenged. Now that I expressed my opinion on the subject, consider my input on the matter finished. It had nothing to to with "my nation is better" or other any "games". Please be sure to apply your warnings and blocks equally and fairly in the future. And unless you feel the the Lithuanians "historically supported the Nazis", it would have been nice of you to issue the same warning when that inflammatory statement was made by Lysy. In so far as digging anything up, it was the last matter that was unresolved between me and Lysy before I took some time off from the project. Dr. Dan 15:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to see that you are taking the warning seriously. As for provocations, my answer is no, they shouldn't either be made or answered. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, productive that can come out of a provocation. Renata 16:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking the warning for what it is. And for clarification, I repeat that making a statement that the Lithuanians "historically supported the Nazis" should not go unanswered or unchallenged. Perhaps you agree with the premise. I do not. Dr. Dan 21:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad it's been resolved. Since we are back to being productive, would you mind taking a look at the articles linked at {{Prussian clans}}? I just finished the series of seven articles about Lithuanian cousins that do not have living representatives today. I know the language does not meet professional English requirements, and I know you can do wonders :) I would really appreciate it. Renata 03:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It has not been resolved. In the meantime, I will be happy to look at the Prussian clans. Dr. Dan 04:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Completely disagree with your position, Renata, regarding your "warnings". Or this is something new and we will see more such events, then they are really justifiable , like in theses case [15], [16], [17], [18]. Somehow you did not do nothing similar in these cases. And one inelegant person once said: The only thing necessary for triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Currently you suggesting to do nothing... M.K. 13:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently I suggest copyediting Prussian clans, or some other article. Renata 15:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Queen bee

A delightful article! Dr. Dan 17:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Small Statement

For the benefit of some of my friends and others not so friendly, I wish to say that after a serious illness keeping me away from Wikipedia editing for a month and a half, I am happy to see that "all is well" and very "little has changed" in certain quarters concerning certain agendas on WP. Same o, same o. But I also wish to remind certain individuals coming out of close minded societies, that free thinking people are very tired and concerned about this totalitarian like threat of censorship dangling over the heads of editors trying to resolve, unresolved matters. To those folks I suggest they read the once popular Yosemite Sam mudflaps, and take them to heart. Sam said "Back Off". Dr. Dan 04:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This was not baiting

These remarks were removed from P.P.'s talk page, by the prokonsul himself. They were made in response to remarks and personal insults made against me under the heading Narutowicz, September 5, 2007.

Other than your personal insults (calling me a troll, etc.), I found your little diatribe to be humorous and enlightening. Halibutt, I have always believed you to have an extremely anti-Lithuanian bias (not sure why), and one who enjoys poisoning realtions between Poles and Lithuanians on WP. Do find some time out of your busy schedule and visit Lithuania. Start with the Lithianian city of Vilnius (only a hop, skip, and a jump from Warszawa). Then you can add it to your little flag collection. You'll find the people in Lithuania very hospitable, and no flies in your soup. Sometimes people catch those flies in the cobwebs of their own minds. If you really leave, have a nice life. Dr. Dan 01:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetical order... sure.

It took me a while to really start laughing after I saw this. A smart joke notwithstanding, it was an act of vandalism nevertheless. I suppose we both know that. --Poeticbent talk 15:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad you got a laugh. Laughs are good. You'll never know how many laughs the "non-existent Cabal" has given me over time. However the issue remains that the English language is being adulterated by calling Cracow, on English WP, Krakoof (sic), and when Cracow and Krakow are added, alphabetizing them seems quite logical. Sorry that seems to be vandalization to you. I'm beginning to wonder why our Polish editors have a problem with the sound of Cra"COW", and perhaps their auditory perception of "COW" doesn't conjure up a peaceful, contented cud chewing animal, giving milk to all, but conjures up "KAŁ" (a Polish word for fecal matter, that happens to rhyme with cow). Could that be it? Dr. Dan 19:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope we do understand each other here, right? Naturally, alphabetizing was not the source of my laughter, but the messed up spelling was. Your Crakow versus Kracow. Would it be possible than, since you brough that up again as "logical", that the joke might have been unintentional? I find it hard to believe. Albeit, "COW" versus "KAŁ" sounds even funnier.

--Poeticbent talk 19:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh that. Although I once told Darwinek don't drink and edit, I probably had a setka or two of żubrówka that night, but I soon corrected the typo myself. Hey, now that I understand what you were driving at, I got a good laugh out of it too. Best. Dr. Dan 19:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

On Lameness

Maybe the edit war was lame but the description of it was inappropriate for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Your entry [19] looked like a discussion post with arguments for your own side and against the other. You even signed it. The page is not the place to continue an edit war or try to make others think that your side was more sensible. It's a place to show the war was lame, without taking sides. An example of lameness could be that Good Article review failed "Based on the edit warring and the constant bickering".[20] Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars has been nominated for deletion 7 times and would probably have been deleted long ago if people just used it to justify their side in edit wars. PrimeHunter 21:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

check it

you may like to notice that I have added a previously missing section in the denazification article, I thought it was sorely lacking and seemed to be devoid of this portion of Germany. [21] 216.110.236.235 06:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

History of Lithuania (1219-1295)

Sad observation

Happy new year, Dan

Request

History of Lithuania (1219â1295)

24 hour block

Jogaila again

Thanks for your comments

Origin?

Thanks for noting

Be civil please.

Request for Mediation

Archive

Request

Interesting reading

Question

Hey, Thanks

Hope?

Reply

Some Copy edit

Lithuanian translation help please?

ArbCom/Piotrus

Krakau

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus

Krakow Missouri

Krakow, KrakÃ³w, Cracow

Concentration camps

Kaunas pogrom

Russian historiography

Cracow

Your vote to move Hala Ludowa

Kraków and Vilnius

Disruptive editing

Check this out

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus

Response to Lysy

Queen bee

Small Statement

This was not baiting

Alphabetical order... sure.

On Lameness

check it

History of Lithuania (1219â1295)