User talk:Lysy/Archive 2005

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

Contents

Early comments[edit]

Lysy,

Being a newcomer to WP can be a bit disorienting. If you have done some orienteering, the following will sound familiar. Take a deep breath, find a single landmark in both the terrain and on your map, and proceed from there.

There is a Talk: page associated with every article and every user. So, there is a Talk:bombe page on which I have left some comments, and User Talk:ww is mine. Talk pages can be reached by clicking on 'discuss this page' link at the left of every page.

There is an article at list of cryptography topics which contains a link to 'recent changes in cryptography articles'. This page tracks all changes to articles listed on the 'list of ...' page. Ideally, all crypto articles will be included in the list on this page as they are created. In addition, there are books on cryptography, topics in cryptography, list of cryptographers, etc articles, all of them linked at the 'list of ...' page.

The decision to merge cryptology and cryptography was the result of discussion between User:Arvindn and User:ww, which discussion can be tracked on the Talk:cryptography and User talk:Arvindn/crypto pages, along with a running discussion about the spelling of 'cypher' or 'cipher'. I trust Polish doesn't have the same sort of problems with insane spelling as does English. User:Matt crypto came along when Arvindn and I were just about ready to start making changes, and he immediately made many of them. Somewhat to our surprise.

The page for the Wikiproject:Cryptography has pointers to most (all?) of this and discussion about plans for how to proceed in the crypto corner. There is a Talk page for that as well.

I hope this helps.

ww 14:01, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Please do not create articles with only an image. That's not even a stub. If it is worth starting an article, please write at least a sentence or so of text. -- Infrogmation 18:14, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Image:Ben nevis 2004.jpg[edit]

Nice photo of Ben Nevis. Where were you standing when you took it? Can you confirm that the ridge in the foreground is the Carn Mor Dearg Arête? Gdr 15:02, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Featured Picture[edit]

Hello Lysy,

I just wanted to let you know that I've nominated your picture for featured picture status.

thames 02:50, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Battle_of_Warsaw_Graves - masz może lepszą wersję? Halibutt 06:33, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

I like the picture but can you provide a higer res versoin? BrokenSegue 20:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have a higher res (1248x1008), but it's the poor compression that spoils it. Lysy 00:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wiki[edit]

Just realised you had no welcome message yet. Here it is: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Lysy/Archive 2005, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If 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. Again, welcome!  Keep up the good work!

Nie, to po prostu taki 'prezent' - kazdy powinien miec prawdziwego welcoma na stronach, a Ciebie jakos przeoczyli :) Mozesz potraktowac to jako taki 'mini-medal' :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No to i ja Cię powitam, a co sobie będę... :) Witaj na wikipedii, Lysyu! Jeśli będziesz miał jakieś pytania lub potrzebna Ci będzie pomoc w nauce formatowania tekstu na wiki - chętnie pomogę. :D Halibutt 12:05, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
Ach, dzięki, dzięki :-) Lysy 12:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

I have gotten confirmation that the vandal has a dynamic IP, meaning he changes IP constantly. This eliminates the problem posed by a range IP. I have blocked two of his IPs indefinitely. Undoubtly he will have more IPs, but we can block them the first time he uses them too. I have provided a link here to the block log to give you the opportunity that I had, to relish blocking him, if you so desire. Also, I don't think any one would blame you if you removed everything he posted from the talk page or at the least archived it to make the page more usable. -JCarriker

I would be happy to range block him, but unfortunately this is a technical nightmare See [1]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Szczerze powiedziawszy - nie mam pojęcia w czym problem. Może jestem niedouczony, ale wydaje mi się że zablokowanie całego zakresu powinno zadziałać... Halibutt 15:07, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Range blocks are a problem, as they can affect many users. Have you reported him on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress yet? Jayjg (talk) 15:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have unblocked three IP addresses. All three had between 1 and 5 edits to their name. The first one with most edits had done nothing but adding other language entries on Wilna into the article. There was nothing "vandalic" about him/her. The others had a single edit making it difficult to judge. None of those I unblocked had engaged in name calling etc. Subsequently you have no proof whatsoever that these are the same person. Further dynamic IP addresses are teh reult of being in some institution (where one uses different computers) or -more likely- being served by an ISP. The view that only AOL and the other big American ones should be protected against range blocks as one of the editors said is quite erroneous... Refdoc 08:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RE: Vilnius and Lithuania[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that I requested Diregla's presence through the wikipedia's embassy system. You may be interested in seeing what he/she posted on my talk page, I think it will be helpful in constructing how a Lithuanian versed in wikipedia actually views the article. Overall, I think you will be pleased with what Diregla has to say and I think unlike the vicous vandal prove to be someone that you can discuss the matter with. -JCarriker 23:02, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Wybacz, nie tyle olałem, co przeoczyłem. Już się za to zabieram. Halibutt 11:11, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Cześć. Thank You for your suggestion to contribute for User:Lysy/History_of_Vilnius . It's good idea. It's natural thing, that discussion should precede an edition. But... I remember I transgressed this norm once even in a personal page (in one about statistics of Vilnius region by Halibutt ). But it was rather case of starting wikipediholism than bad will. :-) Linas 17:43, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)


Somebody was signing like that in talk:Vilnius, and I didn't mention that these are not user:talk pages, but simple pages. Dirgela 03:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) "Tuteišas" is used for people in Vilnius region, who are having difficulties identifying themselves as Poles, Belorussians or Lithuanian. Literary it means "local" (not sure in what language). Usually used as derogative term. Dirgela 15:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Velike Hory[edit]

Prawdę mówiąc pierwsze słyszę. Ale cóż, człowiek się uczy całe życie... Halibutt 22:14, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Vilnius[edit]

What do you think? Time to unprotect or shall we wait longer? I knid of hope he would commit to good behaviour, but he seems to try and evade that request... Refdoc 19:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You may want to wait a while longer. I accidentally got into the middle of this in Talk:Lithuania and was promptly called a donkey three times in two sentences. FWIW I do agree with the seeming consensus that this is one person posting under multiple names; I'm drawing this conclusion based on verbal quirks. linas 04:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard word Vilnian before reading Vilnius article in wp. So, I don't think it is offensive.Dirgela 03:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Anyway, Lysy, I wanted to say 'czesc'; If you need anything translated from Lithuanian or other help along these lines, let me know. Although I'm sometimes slow to respond.

I was mildly amused by the fight over at Talk:Lithuania, in part because I've built this caricature in my head of this fellow. Its a funny character trait, arguing like that. I've seen it in a number of times; it always seems funny till its aimed at you. Seems to be Eastern-European (I've seen in in Bulgaria, Poland, as well as among the Lithuanian community I know). Had a pre-collapse Soviet bureaucrat do that to me once, over some infraction I wasn't aware I'd committed. I almost got kicked out of the country as a spy. linas 04:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dunnet Head image[edit]

Thanks for the nice picture on the Dunnet Head page. It's very well suited and adds to the page greatly. Looks much as it did last time I was there! — PMcM 23:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

template for Polish kings[edit]

The template is pointless, and it's silly to have this kind of template just for Polish officers. If ordinary succession boxes are good enough for everybody else, they're good enough for Polish statesmen, as well. (I've been removing them not just from Stephen Bathory, but from all of the later Polish kings - I haven't gotten around to the earlier ones, yet). john k 21:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jurgów[edit]

An article on Jurgów was recently created, I don't know if you if ever heard of it but I thought you may find it interesting nonetheless. -JCarriker 09:50, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Co sadzisz?[edit]

Talk:Allies#Poland i Wikipedia:Peer review/Polish September Campaign/archive1? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


Vfd vote[edit]

I invite your vote and comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Occupied territories of Baltic States. Balcer 18:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Zivinbudas[edit]

I've now officially requested an Arbitration against Zivinbudas. As one of the people who were involved in previous attempts at compromise with him, you might be interested in the case. Also, feel free to list yourself as one of the parties involved here. Halibutt 04:41, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Polish Wikipedians' notice board[edit]

zapraszam.--Witkacy 13:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zivinbudas has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zivinbudas/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 10:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discution and vote about the Polish and Lithuanian city names[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_conventions/Vote_on_city_naming , tell your opinion on the matter DeirYassin 22:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lithuania-geo-stub[edit]

Dear Lysy - we at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting have just discovered the Lithuania-geo-stub template and category you created. There is normally a debating and discussion process which goes on prior to the creation of new stub categories, which is carried out at WP:WSS/C prior to the creation of new stub categories. This process determines whether a new proposal cuts across existing categories, and how useful it will be to editors. The latter involves seeing whether a very large category will be cut down by a significant amount by the new category, and a limit of 60-80 stubs are usually needed before a new category is created. Your new category has four stubs, and all 15 of the other Lithuania geography stubs are already currently listed elsewhere. Sadly too, plans for a separate Baltic geo stub, to house stubs from Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, are likely to be shelved because of this Lithuania-geo-stub category. I've listed your new template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#Newly-discovered stub templates, and would welcome any comment from you about it there. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tagging articles for speedy deletion[edit]

A reminder: when you tag pages with {{delete}}, just type it at the top of the page without removing the rest of the existing text (even if it is only a redirect because a redirect will not function automatically when the tag is on the page). It will be easier for us admins. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 3 July 2005 14:56 (UTC)

Angielszczyzna[edit]

Nie, nie pomyliło mi się, obie formy są poprawne. Ale jeśli naprawdę wolisz którąś z nich, to nie będę oponował. Halibutt July 3, 2005 22:39 (UTC)

Tnx, plz vote again :)[edit]

Renominacja: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Poland (1945-1989). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 4 July 2005 11:32 (UTC)

Karaite Judaism[edit]

I have had a discussion by phone with Karaim Cultural Association representitive Karina Firkovičiūtė. She was very helpful and we get through the facts mentioned in Trakai article I wanted to check. Karina has confirmed, that historically their religion has roots in Judaism as their religion is based on Old Testament, but it has evolved over time and now they do not identify themselves with Judaism anymore. Do we need even more official statement?

This makes me wonder about the motive of some people (mostly Jewish, as I conclude on their edits) deliberatly rewriting on wikipedia otherwise many times. They even made me puzzled and unsure, that's why I decided to clear these points with Karaim Cultural Association. Anyway, I still cannot find any logical reasoning of their actions. DariusMazeika 5 July 2005 09:26 (UTC)

Refusal to return Jewish property[edit]

See Jewish Polish history during the 1900s#Post-war. Thanks for the inquiry, HKT 6 July 2005 05:16 (UTC)

The property wasn't seized by the state but by individuals during WWII. Hopefully, I'll bring you a source soon (the situation was well documented). HKT 6 July 2005 05:59 (UTC)
Are you saying that, under the communists, land was allowed to be kept by whomever seized it? For example, if one Russian (Vassily, let's say) would simply begin to inhabit a second Russian's (Yuri) home while Yuri was on vacation, Vassily could keep the house? HKT 6 July 2005 14:35 (UTC)
I can relate to this to some degree: My family narrowly escaped from Ukraine ~1920. I wasn't aware, however, that properties would change hands like that so typically in post-war Poland. Anyway, feel free to change that part of my edit (and I'd like to see a source for this, too). Thanks for the pointer, HKT 6 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)

Answer[edit]

Lithuanian temporary government did not agree with Germans to enter the country, but Germans ignored it. Having no army however, the temporary government did not resisted anyhow and at first Germans allowed it to operate, therefore making the temporary government to believe that the Lithuania will have some autonomy except for military at fiorst; maybe that was a propaganda attempt by Germans to make other eastern European nations also depose Soviet by themselves by thinking that then Germans would allow them to form governments; also maybe this was done to avoid Lithuanian Actiovist Front fighting Germans too this way creating cosiderable damage before Germans fortified themselves in Lithuania. Eventually however Germany started to interfere with more and more actions of temporary government and effectively took control of country's civil affairs too in some weeks/months and temporary government dissolved itself in fear that the existance of it might be used by Germans to justify their actions as supposedly done by Lithuanians. Later after LAF protested against occupation it was made illegal and it's leaders arrested. Have you got my e-mials by the way or did they ended up in spam lol?DeirYassin 8 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)

Wojsko Polskie[edit]

Termin "Wojsko Polskie" nie jest tożsamy z terminem "Wojska Lądowe". Jesteś w błędzie. Halibutt 20:19, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

HKT[edit]

Thanks for the translation, but I already understood it. The language wasn't offensive, but the comparison was. And now, there seems to have been an attempt to insert this comparison into wiki articles, which have been fixed. None of this bothers me personally, but I recognize a jibe when I see it. Anyway, I appreciate your involvement in trying to cool the waters. Thanks again, HKT 20:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Provoking how?[edit]

Provoking how? The article has been a complete mess of unsourced POV since it was created, and I've been complaining about that for weeks. I wish some of the editors there took that seriously; instead, the goal seems to be add even more unsourced POV, rather than sourcing the stuff that's in there already. Jayjg (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Your advice is good; I have little patience for Wiktacy's edits and Talk: comments, as they almost all seems to be policy violations of one sort or another. Jayjg (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

E-mail[edit]

Hi. Have you got my e-mail to your other address a week ago or so? DeirYassin 10:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Hitting the wrong button[edit]

I completely refactored an article yesterday (took me about an hour), and went to try to make some of the red links work...finally I gave up and decided to just leave them. Well, in the process of closing all the browser windows I'd opened, I closed the one with the unsaved refactored article in it. What made me feel even worse tho, was that I'd done all the refactoring in Notepad, and had closed that too (since I didn't "need" it anymore). Bleh. At least redoing what I'd undone only took about 10 minutes (I knew what I'd done, and where I'd gotten all my info from). Anyways... All that to say "you're not alone" when it comes to hitting the wrong button.  :-p Tomer TALK 23:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

"Protected" template[edit]

Can you not clutter the "protected" category with your sandbox unless there's a reason to? Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 05:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Huh, what ? --Lysy (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
User:Lysy/sandbox and User talk:Lysy/sandbox have {{protected}} in them. This template displays a message indicating that the page is protected and adds it to Category:Protected. Neither of these pages is protected. They are clutter in the category. Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 12:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
It's better to use the Wikipedia sandbox because it's automatically cleared and people will probably recognise it as a test even if they see it in the category. Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 03:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration case - final decision[edit]

A decision has been reached in the arbitration case relating to Zivinbudas. He has been banned from Wikipedia for one year. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zivinbudas#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Polacak[edit]

You have reverted my edits of Polatsk without any explanation. Are there any Polish language sources that use the "Polacak" spelling ? --Lysy (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, the Baltic spelling Daugava is out of question in an article on the ancient Slavic city, where the river has been known as the Western Dvina. Secondly, "Polacak" is a purely Belarusian spelling which has nothing to do with the Russian spelling "Polotsk". Being a Russian myself, I was shocked to discover this spelling preferred in the Wikipedia. I even tried to move the article to "Polotsk", but was reverted by Belarusian editors. I still think that "Polotsk" is preferable to "Polacak", for the town has been known in English as "Polotsk", and also because Russian is the official language of Belarus. --Ghirlandajo 08:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV and writing style[edit]

Look here, i'm just trying to make well writen, fair and balanced articles. I understand that you as a Pole have strong emotions about some aspects of WW2 GeneralPatton 15:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

"Most in the west felt he was justified to make such threats, as they interpreted this as a harmless bluff." Good work, but also mention the Polish have a completely different view. If you want to see some of my previous work, just look at David Irving article for whom I was accused of being "pro Zionist". BTW, Rommel was not in the Nazi party, same with Guderian. You can look at my Erich von Manstein article that has been selected as one of our featured articles, that one pretty well strikes the balance we’re seeking here. GeneralPatton 15:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Good work! GeneralPatton 15:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Niestety[edit]

Patton i jego koledzy staranie wycinają każdą wzmiankę o zbrodniach Niemieckiej Rzeszy.Zobacz na przykładzie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Division_%28motorised%29_Wiking

Molobo, please don't accuse me of something that isn't true, and yes i do know Polish, but please use English while communicating with other users as this is the English language wikipedia. GeneralPatton 14:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Note 1: Quite the opposite, I see GeneralPatton putting in the war crimes section [2]
Note 2: I think it's perfectly all right to use foreign languages in userspace (mine at least) although I believe it shows lack of respect to other users and prefer English [3]
--Lysy (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Break[edit]

I think I need a break from English Wikipedia, or at least the Polish-related issues. 
I feel uncomfortably trapped between Eastern European nationalisms and Western indifferentism 
and political correctness and I don't appreciate either. Let's see if it works out. --Lysy (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Nationalism ? Hmm...I don't know, it seemed strange that otherwise detailed articles about Nazi units, were sitting for months without any mention of their war crimes.--Molobo 12:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC) Heh, look on the history page of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=12th_SS_Panzer_Division_Hitlerjugend&action=history " Shauri (Sorry, Molobo, but you are the one trying to force changes, so YOU should be the one providing sources that allies did NOT commit any atrocity in order to make such changes." Nice isn't it.Nazi units remain without any notes about war crimes for months.But Allies are guilty of war crimes per definition ;)--Molobo 21:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Hitlerjugend Division[edit]

Hi Lysy,

This happened only after the German Federal Republic government demanded a halt to the execution of German war criminals as a precondition to rearmament and cooperation with the Allies during Cold War against the Soviet Union.

regarding the above passage on the 12SS HJ page, i am not argueing that this is the case, what i am argueing is that this sentence is inferring many things. Firstly, it infers that Meyer was not released due to the fact that his conviction was found to be false, but that it was a political move. The BRD did not have sway over the way that Canadian courts worked, and to insinuate this makes it seem very much like you have a particular POV to push regarding Meyers case. In my reading, it is quite clear that the evidence against Meyer was circumstantial. The facts are that Meyer was acquitted, to delve into the reasons for his acquittal and possible corruption in the Canadian judicial system is not what wikipedia is for. This arguement should really be on a forum, not in an encyclopaedia article. --Ansbachdragoner 06:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Image talk:Mariev.jpg[edit]

Sorry for the very late response, but I just saw this today. Yes, it is in the Public Domain, since it is an official goverment photo. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Marian Rejewski pic[edit]

Hi, I noticed that the Marian Rejewski photo was marked GFDL. That's great! Did you manage to secure permission from his daughter? — Matt Crypto 12:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Polish-Soviet War[edit]

The dispute about the claim of Polish victory is obvious even from the discussion about the wiki page. Basically, Poland failed to establish a Polish-dominated mega-state in Europe and was repelled from Kiev and most of the Ukraine and Byelorussia. However, it was able to garb parts of Ukraine, Lithuania and Byelorussia, as well as to preserve its own independence. Bolsheviks were able to withstand the Polish offensive and preserve their state (remember, the conflict coincided with a civil war and a massive multi-national assault on the Bolshevik regime) and to get control of most of the Ukraine and Byelorussia. By the end of the war both countries seemingly expanded their influence at the expense of the tird nations. Moreover, Polish losses, as mentioned on the page, by far exceeded those of the Bolsheviks, while, probably, not even including the losses of pro-Polish Ukrainians. The claims of moral victory (“little Poland stood up to big Russia”) are also questionable, because the Russia at the time was essentially a non-existent state, tied up in multiple conflicts, with an irregular army (parts of which shifted alliances in battles) led by amateur commanders, and with no regular industry or lines of supplies. It faced an army led by skilled professionals and assisted by major powers of the time. Not surprisingly, Russian communists always portrait the Polish conflict as a great success. Since of the two major warring parties both claimed the victory, the statement that Polish victory is commonly disputed sounds like a simple fact. PS You are welcome to move the discussion of my comments to my page. This would ensure that I read it in a timely manner.

Polish Soviet War[edit]

I am sorry I upset you with my revert. In any case, I think we are having a courteous and productive discussion at the article's talk that will help us resolve the differences and improve the article. Regards, --Irpen 21:39, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Lysy. I am sure it is an honest mistake, but please check whether the "minor edit" button is accidentally checked when your edit isn't minor (like the outcome of the war, number of the century, etc.) As for the rest on the topic itself, I will respond later at the article and the talk page. I am glad the difference don't get personal. I attribute them purely to the fact that different history books are used from place to place and different things get emphasized for obvious reasons. In what I am sure, is that the article really improves. Regards, --Irpen 19:16, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Tukhachevsky’s statements[edit]

Wojcyl, I post this directly to your discussion for the sake of avoiding repeated discussions on the PSW page. This is FYI only. Here is why I have doubts that Tukhachevsky was speaking about the loss of the whole war rather than the campaign to conquer Poland. His book is not a common staple in an American household and I do not have an access to it in any form or language. However, the Soviet Encyclopedia explicitly states that, despite the loss of a campaign, the war was not lost and the Soviets retained enough power to crush Poland if they ever wished for it. Of cause this is Soviet propaganda, but it is the opinion sanctioned by the communist government. In Tukhachevsky’s days in Stalin’s USSR a public statement that contradicts the official government interpretation was a certain death sentence. Bolshevik successes (failures), especially the ones that personally involved Stalin, were sacred. Tukhachevsky, however, continued a spectacular career for about a decade after his statements on the conflict. This is the reason why the interpretation of his statement mystifies me.--EugeneK 17:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It was quite an effort, but I found some original (Russian) quotes. For example, the one that you presented as "Poles started their offensive first and our defeat was decided" reads "Поляки перешли в наступление первые, и наше отступление стало неизбежным", which trasnlates as "Poles started their offensive first and our retreat became inevitable". Note the use of "отступление", which means "retreat", not "defeat". I will try to search for the other original quotes. I understand that you found your quotes in a Polish translation and you are not responcible for the inaccuracies.--EugeneK 19:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Польша и СССР во Второй Мировой[edit]

Почему ты пишешь, что СССР был союзником Германии? Разве ты не понимаешь, что не был? И с какой точки зрения ты так считаешь - с точки зрения международного права или фактического положения вещей? Энциклопедия должна отражать правовое положение, а не домыслы и субъективные мнения, которые могут быть пропагандой. Мы должны указать, что официально СССР не был союзником Германии, но в комментарии можно указать, что поляки считают, что фактически был, раз напал на Польшу.--Nixer 10:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Zerknij[edit]

Zerknij jeśli możesz też na Kulturkampf i Komisje Kolonizacyjną, pojawił się nowy nacjonalista niemiecki który wandalizuje te strony. --Molobo 16:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Treaty of Brest-Litovsk[edit]

If you could check the list under Treaty of Versailles to see if any of those areas mentioned were only German because of the Teaty of Brest-Litovsk this should be highlighted, because clearly they are not part of the territories of Germany before 1914 they were not part of Germany in 1919.

I have no specific set of words more than a tweek of the words I have proposed in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk section of the talk page. The word "facilitate" is very usefull in reducing POV in these cases.

I am assuming that if we can agree on a sentence(s) about theTreaty of Brest-Litovsk, then we can drop the "as well as returning territories taken by Prussia in Partitions of Poland to the recreated Polish state".

I look forward to seeing you thoughts on this tomorrow. Philip Baird Shearer 18:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Marian Rejewski pic[edit]

Yes, I have her permission 100%. She only asked it to be mentioned that the picture is from her private archive. I think it's a great photo, as so far the only pics available so far were from war time from France and England and there was none from the time when he actually has been workin on breaking the code. It has been never published so far, I think it's cool to have it first published on wiki. Sorry if I sound over-enthusiastic, but well, I am :-) --Lysy (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, that's pretty exciting: a Wikipedia crypto-history scoop; nice work! I think he looks quite a bit different from the later picture. — Matt Crypto 08:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


Forsters[edit]

They were both engaged in fact. Alx-pl D 19:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvement. Your version is more informative :-) Alx-pl D 13:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

asking for support[edit]

Hello, since you are interested in Lithuania I thought hat you might support our letter to Centre for Cartography, Vilnius University. We are asking to release their maps found at www.balticdata.info under GFDL licence so they could be used in articles about Lithuania. So far we got 14 people to "sign" it. The draft in very very rough English is available at user:Renata3/letter. If you decide to support it, I'll need just your first and last names together with your user name. You can leave it on my talk page or send it via email: just attact @gmail.com to my user name. Renata3 22:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

recent Gdansk/Vote edit wars[edit]

I have recently made an advisory statement to User:Schwartz und Weiss at Gdansk.2FVote to hopefully calm things down a bit. Olessi 17:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Your compromise on Georg Forster concerning Gdańsk/Danzig does not work for Space Cadet :-( Alx-pl D 19:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So is there any official Wiki policy regarding the votes of community to be bindign to the other users ? Also why wasn't the vote abolished in view of the fact that it was both faked and manipulated(ignoring of Polish voters and inserting material post voting).--Molobo 21:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Ribbentrop[edit]

Here might be a piece of evidence you have been looking for [4], Ribbentrop's message to the German Ambasador in Moscow dated 21 June 1941, it reads in part,

"The declarations made by the U.S.S.R. on conclusion of the treaties with Germany, regarding her intention to collaborate with Germany, thus stood revealed as deliberate misrepresentation and deceit and the conclusion of the treaties themselves as a tactical maneuver for obtaining arrangements favorable to Russia." nobs 00:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Vote Gdansk[edit]

Hi, and thanks for your thoughts on that issue. I think I can understand your views, although I do not agree with all of them. I should also mention here that I'm German, so I'm probably biased, even if I'm trying not to be. The problem is in my opinion that in English, many users still know many Polish cities under their German name. Listing only the polish name will not be recognized by many users, and not found by search engines. This applies especially to historic references. I think for example few people search for a free city of Gdańsk (notice the "ń", which is not found on an US keyboard either), but rather for free city of Danzig. Google search counts have similar results for many cities in Poland. Hence adding the alternative English name in brackets is very useful in my opinion and in the opinion of over 70% of the voters. This would be no problem, but a few polish editors react allergic to a German name. This resulted in many edit wars. The vote i started was not set to find the truth (which is not found by majority as you said), but only to stop edit wars until we find a better solution. If you have a better solution, I am all ears. Best regards and happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 07:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: About using votes for decisions: This is common practice, see for example Vote for Deletion, where a majority decides what stays and what goes. -- Chris 73 Talk 08:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that Chris tries to Germanise names of Polish cities, not give them English versions.For example see History of Szczecin, where he insists on using the name Gdingen in regards to Gdynia, although Gdynia is widely accepted name in English, while Gdingen is used almost only in Germany. Gdynia 2,370,000 hits on Google. Gdingen 66,500 hits on Gooogle. --Molobo 07:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

" The problem is in my opinion that in English, many users still know many Polish cities under their German name. " Gdansk Poland-2,020,000 hits on Google. Danzig Poland-281,000 hits on Google.

Therefore it seems that Gdansk is widely used now in English.Danzig isn't as much used.You were incorrect. --Molobo 08:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

In case of Gdynia-Gdingen, the difference is huge.It seems then that it Gdynia is used in English, while Gdingen only in scarce German sources. 14,700 for Gdingen Poland. 1,650,000 for Gdynia Poland.

Similar differences are in case of Torun Thorn, Warmia Ermland.German names aren't used as widely as Torun(instead of Toruń, Warmia). 319,000 for Thorn Poland. 2,790,000 for Torun Poland.

13,400 for Ermland Poland. 210,000 for Warmia Poland.

19,500 for Frauenburg Poland. 72,800 for Frombork Poland.

As to decision of the rather controversial vote was in regards to double naming to use English names not German ones, therefore the most widely used version is to be used.Since Warmia is used in English while Ermland almost only in Germany, we don't have to use Ermland.Warmia is understood and used in English language more then Ermland.Just as Torun, Frombork.It seems rather then sticking to the vote, Chris tries to germanise the names instead of using English accepted versions and names. --Molobo 09:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


Hi Lysy. I think the problem is that a few users completely ignore the wishes of more than 70% of the voters, which has recently led to blocks. Those users also have a history of highly controversial and uncooperative edits, resulting in conflicts with numerous other users. I think they will ignore any rule as long as they can.
About making an official policy: You know how much work that is? The Gdansk vote was an awful and stressfull lot of work, and you usually get yelled at a lot for whatever reason. Plus, you either have the option to make some generalizations (and get yelled at for doing so), or to make it as detailed as possible, so voters are scared away (and you get yelled at because you add too much detail). I personally do not want to repeat this anytime soon, especially for a Wikipedia Wide Policy. Plus, I am currently rather busy in my real life, and cannot offer the time comittment. You are very welcome to give it a try, and I wish you all the best for it (and I will definitely vote and give occasional comments). You should contact User:Piotrus, a Polish admin that I respect very much, he was trying a similar thing recently, but I think stopped it for lack of feedback/help.
My hope is that one day we have sort of a group of expert gremiums that have the last word on any content dispute for their area of expertise. But a thing like that would have to come from Jimbo, I guess. The Arb Comitte is a similar thing for disputes, where a smaller group of reasonable editors are judges over disputes. In any case, I honestly wish you good luck, and keep me updated -- Chris 73 Talk 09:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"I think the problem is that a few users completely ignore the wishes of more than 70% of the voters, which has recently led to blocks." The voters in Gdansk vote have been ignored.Besides, majority voting isn't the best option for achieving a result, since for example racists or antisemits can happen to become a majority. --Molobo 09:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Knyaz[edit]

Hello, I am Knyaz, I have been watching wikipedia for long time (almost a year) but registered only now. I wanted to thank you for your actions against the nationalist edits of User:Ghirlandajo. Please don't give up; most of his edits (ones about historical, political things I mean; ones about Russian people are usually ok) are in fact not applicable to wikipedia and very POV; what is the saddest is that he defends them by reverts and therefore disrupts wikipedia, as well does not disucuss in talk page, calls everyone nationalist and such. So, in case he starts reverting your edits, try to inform other good editors of Wikipedia out of whom there are many in Eastern Europe (including non-nationalist Russians). Something needs to be done about it, as I checked his edit history and it seems he is doing such POV edits frequently. If we will all cooperate however, we will defend Wikipedia from all the propaganda some users are pushing and will keep it a respectable encyclopedia... I am trying to inform the contributors whom I respect about this problem, you could try that too; and try to watch his contributions from time to time. Knyaz 09:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions[edit]

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions/Geographic_names#Suggested_modification_by_Irpen

I just want to thank you for quickly hammering out the brief and reasonable proposal that may indeed help to avert much bad blood and help WP's consistency. Did you read an article about Pilsudski that I linked? Cheers, --Irpen 01:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Copernicus spoof?[edit]

You recently edited the Copernicus article. Is today's Freestylefrappe edit a spoof? Copernicus seems to attract inordinate attention from idiots. logologist 04:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Naming[edit]

I think, we are pretty close to a good solution. Please check your email box. --Irpen 01:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Please chek Talk:Lviv_Oblast for a related but different issue. Thanks, --Irpen 22:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt[edit]

I think you may be interested in this nomination. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. WikiThanks.
I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Lusatian capitals[edit]

First, sorry for my bad english. You changed my edit about Lusatian capitals in the article Lusatia. But... Cottbus has never been capital of the region Upper Lusatia- also not today. Upper and Lower Lusatia today have not much in common (only that there live the minority of the Sorbs and the capital of the Sorbs is Bautzen (all important institutions)), they are even part of 2 different Bundesländer - thatswhy there is no real capital of Lusatia- perhaps there are capitals of Upper and Lower L.. Today Cottbus have the highest population, but this only since 100 years. The old capital of Upper Lusatia is Bautzen and historicaly it's also more the capital of Lusatia then Cottbus. Sources for you could be all the german article about Upper Lusatia = Oberlausitz. Nobody in Upper Lusatia would agree with the statement that Cottbus "may be regarded as the capital of the region" - It would be nice, if you could change it. - And sorry- it's all not really important, but I don't like even small mistakes. - (Frank)

While it's true that Cottbus has never been an administrative capital of Lower Silesia, it is my understanding that the city is the unofficial cultural capital of the region. Olessi 18:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work[edit]

For your NPOV contributions and attempts to resolve disputes, especially the preemptive strike here, I, Piotrus, present you with the The Barnstar.

Cartography[edit]

Nope, no luck. They have not replied. It would have been so good! But I am amazed you have remebered. Renata3 19:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Volyn Crop and Holodomor[edit]

First of all I do not think we came across each other before so I would like to introduce myself, the main point of this post is as in the title the Ukranian famine of 1933. Basically my wife is from Rovno and I lived there for five years. Rovno was then in Poland thus it did not come under the famine but as it was close to Ukraine proper, the climatic conditions must have been very similar. From what I was told by locals the winter of 1931-32 was very cold and long, the late thaw put off the crop by a whole month and a half, the year itself was very wet and colder than normal. So even though the crop yield was sufficient the quality of it left more to be desired. The winter of 1932-33 on the other hand was much warmer and the thaw was earlier than normal, but the summer itself was very dry and insufficient moisture from rainfall caused a very poor crop yield (lowest in a decade as one old woman told me). The crop of 1934 on the other hand was magnificent. I think that this is important to take note of, and maybe put that as one of the cotributing factors to the famine. All of what was said was told to me by locals, yet I am sure that records exist (probably in Warsaw) of grain harvest statistics and climatic conditions that will confirm these details or contradict, whichever the case will be. As I see that you are an authoritive figure on the Polish side of the portal, I was hoping that you might be able to at least point me in the direction where I can find more evidence for this. Thanks anyway. Kuban kazak 23:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, if I can only find the time to look it all up :(. Anyway the most important fact that I want to confirm is wether the scale of the famine's impact was influenced by the climatic conditions, and the only real comparison is the Volyn area. Galicia is out of the question because the terrain is quite different there from Ukraine proper (by Ukraine Proper I mean UkSSR in the pre-1939 borders). Thanks anyway. Kuban kazak 00:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Willingless to compromise[edit]

Regarding what you wrote at ArbCom, I think you are mistaken. As for the Willingless to compromise, I suggest you take a look at my statement where I documented AndriK's using the fraudulent methods to make sure his POV prevails, not a very compromising position.

As for the willingless of "Russian editors" to compromise, let me just say that personally, I've seen that Ghirlandajo agrees to compromise much easier than Halibutt, although the latter can keep his emotions down for a longer time (without compromising an inch though). This did not affect my view that Halibutt would be a capable admin and I supported that. However, my feeling is that you made your statement not being fully aware of all the info. This is not to ask you to change anything. You are free to write anything you want of course. I am just saying, I was surprized by your statement. Regards, --Irpen 18:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Holodomor[edit]

Sorry, for confusion, I wanted to second your statement, and address Andrew Alexander at the same time. I think that the edit-warring degraded the quality of the article - every side goes to NPOV and a couple of inches futher, so nobody can agree. –Gnomz007(?) 20:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK has been accepted. Please place evidence on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK/Proposed decision. Fred Bauder 02:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I find this comparison totally gross! One thing is to invent a technique and move dozens of articles, quite another thing is to follow on someone's footsteps, move one article and regret about it later. I don't want even to comment on this yet! Please reconsider your comment yourself. --Irpen 18:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Desinformation[edit]

Lysy, your nationalistic escapades are getting more and more disturbing with each passing day. If you persevere, I will have to switch my attention to Katyn Incident and the like falsified and mistitled "massacre" articles brimming with Russophobia. If your povocations aim at stirring up edit wars, you'll get plenty of it. Let me ask you a question - have you ever started a single new article here? Please stop rewriting history and do something positive at last. --Ghirlandajo 13:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this a threat? You should report it somewhere, you know. As for History of Belarus, if you are doing reverts, why only partially - i.e. why aren't you restoring the paragraph on kindappings? Do you think it is wrong?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm used to Ghirlandajo's threats and I'm not willing to react to it. He had threatened me with reverting some Lithuanian articles before.
As to the revert you're mentioning I think it was not User:Ghirlandajo but User:Kuban kazak whom you're addressing. --Lysy (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Lysy[edit]

May I point you to an interesting and useful study that I have no doubt will be beneficiant in discussions on Eastern European history ? Here it is : http://www.taraskuzio.net/academic/history.pdf Historiography and National Identity among the Eastern Slavs: Towards a New Framework1 TARAS KUZIO, York University, Toronto, Canada Abstract The article surveys Tsarist, Soviet and Western historiography of Russia and how this affected the national identities and inter-ethnic relations among the three eastern Slavs. Western historiography of Russia largely utilised an imperialist and statist historiographical framework created within the Tsarist empire during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Although this framework was imperialist it was gradually accepted as ‘objective’ by the Western scholarly community. Yet, this historiography was far from being ‘objective’. After 1934 Soviet historiography also reverted to the majority of the tenets found in Tsarist historiography. Within Tsarist, Western and Soviet historiographies of ‘Russia’ eastern Slavic history was nationalised on behalf of the Russian nation which served to either ignore or deny a separate history and identity for Ukrainians and Belarusians. In the post-Soviet era all 15 Soviet successor states are undertaking nation and state building projects which utilise history and myths to inculcate new national identities. The continued utilisation of the Tsarist, Western and Soviet imperial and statist historiographical schema is no longer tenable and serves to undermine civic nation building in the Russian Federation. This article argues in favour of a new, non-imperial framework for histories of ‘Russia’ territorially based upon the Russian Federation and inclusive of all of its citizens. --Molobo 16:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC) I recommend reading it.

  • Can you take a peek at the English Catherine I of Russia article, also take a look at the recent history and discussion and weigh in? You seem to have a good feel for these kind of arguments. Thanks

RfC[edit]

It is a generic message to inform you that there was a User Conduct Request for Comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo started recently. As you are one of the sides in the conflict and your name appears in the evidence of disputed behaviour section you might want to take a look at it. Halibutt 00:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

RfA[edit]

At Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK I noticed you are listed as a 'supporter of AndriyK'. But from reading your post I got the impression you wanted to be neutral? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Your general knowledge[edit]

You wrote: "From the general knowledge, kidnapping people was a common Russian practice throughout the history and in fact continued, in a modernized form, throughout much of the 20th century." With such a "general knowledge", you'd better be editing pl.wiki. I have an impression that your edits are delebirately intended to sow discord. --Ghirlandajo 10:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Polak and Rejewski[edit]

I was very interested to read your addition to Marian Rejewski about the communist investigation. I've often wondered about this. I can't find any reference to Polak's book on the Internet; is it recently published? Do you know where I might be able to get hold of it? Is it written in English? (Sorry for the bombardment of questions!) — Matt Crypto 20:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

West Belarus[edit]

You may want to interrelate the articles West Belarus and Kresy. mikka (t) 20:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Polish population abroad[edit]

Is estimated to be : http://www.poland.gov.pl/?document=48 Według szacunkowych danych poza granicami Polski mieszka od 14 do 17 mln Polaków, głównie w Stanach Zjednoczonych (6-10 mln osób), Niemczech (ok. 1,5 mln), Brazylii (ok. 1 mln), Francji (ok. 1 mln), Kanadzie (ok. 600 tys.), Białorusi (400 tys.-1 mln), Ukrainie (300-500 tys.), Litwie (250-300 tys.), Wielkiej Brytanii (ok. 150 tys.), Australii (130-180 tys.), Argentynie (100-170 tys.), Rosji (ok. 100 tys.), Czechach (70-100 tys.) i Kazachstanie (60-100 tys.). Tak duża liczba Polaków i osób deklarujących polskie pochodzenie, a mieszkających poza ojczyzną (dla porównania - 17 mln to ok. 40% liczby Polaków obecnie mieszkających w kraju),

Please take part in the improval of this article[edit]

Hello. I am talking about the article currently namedTerritorial claims of the Baltic States; I've seen your contributions to the article in past and it would be nice if you would add that article to your watchlist and continue helping to improve it until a decition will be reached about its future (there is currently a poll about it in the article's talk page). Don't let the presence of opposing views make you not to edit the article or voice your opinion at all; it will only be neutral if we all, people of all views, will contribute to it. Good luck! Kaiser 747 10:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions[edit]

Lysy, with regard to your comment –

Hi, your "poetic license" is very nice. Of course every real Pole (and I am one) would argue that Danzig was German for a few centuries only and then it returned back to Poland. But let's leave this aside. What surprised me is that you think that Germans should refer to modern Danzig as "Gdańsk". While it's still Danzig in German. Should English use München for Munich then ?

– The situations of Gdansk and München are not the same, because in the case of Gdansk, the city before 1945 was known officially as Danzig and was called Danzig by its inhabitants (except for a small Polish minority, about 3.5% of its population). München has never officially been Munich and has never been known as such by its inhabitants.

Hypothetically speaking: If in 1945 the Germans had been expelled from Bavaria by the conquering U.S. Army, and had been replaced over the next few years by American settlers who transformed München into an English-speaking city and changed the its name to Munich, then the two situations would be the same, and the Germans would be obliged to refer to the city as Munich.

All analogies break down somewhere, however. In this case, München has indeed long been known to the English- (and French-) speaking world as Munich. Presumably, this anglicization came about because the German Ü and CH sounds are too difficult for linguistically unskilled English speakers to pronounce (as, by the way, is much more the case with Szczecin, which is a virtual impossibility for non-Slavs). Consequently, it's not reasonable to demand that English speakers refer to München by its real name. But it is possible for English- (and German-) speakers to pronounce Gdansk, however imperfectly.

Again, the city that today is Gdansk was known everywhere outside the Slavic world, before the postwar changes, as Danzig. If you search for "Danzig" on the New York Times archival page, you will get hundreds if not thousands of hits on articles about the city's status in the interwar period and its history during the war and immediately thereafter. Hits on "Gdansk" start much later, of course, and are related mainly to Solidarnosc and Lech Walesa.

Now a question for you: Why would a "real Pole" have to claim the city as Polish even during centuries in which it was inhabited mainly by Germans (with a few Flemmings thrown in)? (Of course, all this has been argued at length before on Wiki.)

Sca 19:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your response on my page: I suspect that you, like many Poles, may be overstating the conduct of the Teutonic Knights. I do think that Poles generally are heavily influenced by a nationalistic, romanticized version of their country's early history – just as the Germans were similary influenced in the 19th and early 20th centuries by such people as Treitschke. You no doubt will disagree. But at least you probably can agree that pre-1308, Gdansk was a small settlement, and it was developed as a key city and port mainly during the following centuries and mainly (until 1945) by Germans.

Beyond that, i've already discussed the issue of old Danzig having been poltiically part of the Polish state in the late Middle Ages extensively with Halibutt. The fact that it was enfoeffed to the Polish Crown doesn't change the history of its ethnicity, which from an English-speaking point of view is the main issue historically.

If you read English books, I recommend Geoffrey Barraclough's "The Origins of Modern Germany." Or if you read German, Hermann Schreiber's "Die Deutschen und der Osten."

Sca 23:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hospitality Club article[edit]

The removal of text in Hospitality Club is quite unjustified. Please try to rewrite instead. Or give better reasons to remove factual information. Guaka 16:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Akcja Wisla[edit]

Wasyl co ty jakis ukrainski nacjonalista jestes, piszesz ze Wikipedia to nie papier a sam wypisyjesz pierdoly w hasłach, do siania propagandy banderowskiej masz strony w Kanadzie !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do czego maja sluzyć te wypociny o sytuacji ukrainców po 1956, to chyba nie dotyczy akcji wisla !!!

Redirecting Bernardines[edit]

Hi, are you sure it's the same thing? I got completely confused by all the religious orders that established monasteries in different parts of the world. But are you sure that Bernardines = Franciscan? For some reason it sounds wrong. I have complete no evidence about anything. Renata3 04:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

See, I encountered this issue when I was expanding Kretinga article. There is one huge and important "Bernardinu vienuolynas" and I was completely confused how to transalte it. Bernardines? Franciscan? Benedictines? Something else? [5] does not look like Bernardines are Franciscan. I am lost :(
I'll see what I can do about Pazaislis. Renata3 13:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the more usual use of Bernardines is for Cistercians. I'm unclear about your particular use of the term Bernardines for Franciscans as in Franciscan Order in modern times - see the talk there for details.--Robotforaday 16:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Croatia[edit]

Please stop editing the Central Europe page (your account of Croatia), I studied the Central and Eastern European history (beyond 20th century what you might have not done) for 23 years now and please just adjust to the changes I made, or write some kind of note that some still count the country as not Central European for such n such reasons! Croatia and Slovenia are both not "rarely" but often considered central European. Their only problem is tha they lay right in the cross of Central Eastern and Sothern Europe explaining why they might be full participants of each!

Partitions of Poland[edit]

Thank you very much for your invitation to take part in the discussion, Lysy. I'm sorry I have been unable to reach you in the last days, but I'll have a look at the discussion immediately and give my 2 cents to the debate. Nice to meet you, Alexbulg 22:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Notification[edit]

Hello. Firstly, thank you for contributing at the article Territorial claims of the Baltic States and its discussion. I would like to notify you that I will leave to Frankfurt soon where I will spend quite much time; thus I won't be on Wikipedia for long. Therefore, I would like to ask you and others to continue to contribute there and watch that a solution would be reached, factually accurate name would be chosen, and the article wouldn't just stay disputed forever as it used to be previously. Check the article from time to time and if you will see that no one discusses anything anymore nor edits the article for a long time (e.g. a week), try to act by implementing voting decition and such. Good luck! (you shouldn't reply to this by the way as most likely I won't be able to check Wikipedia anytime soon as I will leave quickly).Kaiser 747 09:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

SCA blocked[edit]

Lysy, do you have any idea why I have been blocked by an administrator named Marudubshinki?

Sca 14:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you very much for correcting my misprints in "Gas dispute". I wish you mary Christmas and happy New Year. Looking forward for further cooperation, --AndriyK 14:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Ukrainians[edit]

Lysy, please see TALK to understand the revert war that has been going on on this list. One user continuously reverts edits for the inclusion of a group of Poles who were born in Lvov. In the process he deletes and readds many names that have since been verified on the list. He is unwilling to compromise although I have attempted to compromise with him many times. I even set up the disputed names so he can add them in manually. Please help me end this edit war. Antidote 18:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Your recent edits were only on the disputed names. I didnt readd your edits because when its reverted back theres nothing to readd. Look for yourself. Antidote 19:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Your edits were only on the names that were deleted - so its not a blind revert -- I see you added something to Stowacki though - so I will readd that. Sorry about that one. Antidote 19:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

rephrase[edit]

Hello Lysy!

would you be so kind to rephrase also this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=prev&oldid=33229276 thank you, -- Bonaparte talk 10:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, this has to be done slowly, one at a time. Also I do not have access to most of the sources you're citing, so it's difficult for me to use them reliably as references. --Lysy (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
However they are NPOV as you can see. -- Bonaparte talk 11:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Rumia[edit]

According to Rumia, The village of Rumia was since 1772 a part of the Prussian province of West Prussia, since 1870 in Imperial Germany until the end of World War I, and was then located in the Pomeranian Voivodship of the newly restored Polish state. In any case, due to its historic context and in accordance with the gdansk vote, double naming is appropriate. It personally doesn't matter to me which name is mentioned first, but removing the then valid name altogether is IMHO removing valid and related information -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Gdynia was german until 1920. It was german again (occupied) in 1943, and hence the German name should be included. BTW; Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Geographic names also seems to define the title of articles, as the first point is "1: The title: The single widely accepted ..." -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Your latest edit [6]: Don't like it much, but can live with it. -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It is a difficult topic, I agree, and no matter what guidelines we have, there will always be disagreements. As for a one-sentence summary: In case of doubt, use both names, but that is my own opinion which, of course, will also be disputed by other editors. Happy editing -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Copernicus' nationality[edit]

Thanks for moving POV comments off Copernicus' nationality. I've requested short-term protection for article in the hope of persuading 66.74.232.44 and Space Cadet to use the talk page. --LesleyW 03:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Wikisanta.jpg. --Irpen

Request for comment[edit]

It may not be up your alley, but very few people have came through RfC I posted about History of the World, and there is a slow but pointless revert war there (see Talk:History_of_the_World#Graph_straw_poll), so I am now down to asking fellow Wikipedians to take a look if you have time and will.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)