User talk:Dr. Dan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, 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! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) will produce your name and the current date. You should always sign talk pages, but not articles. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Str1977 (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

Hi, Dr. Dan. I came here to welcome you, as I saw your name showing up in red (a sign of a new user) on a page which was on my watchlist. However, when I pressed "save" there were two welcome messages; Str1977 had beaten me to it, so I rolled back my own one. Welcome, anyway. With regard to your comment on English grammar, you're quite right about "at the end of the 1960s". However, I don't think that particular phrase originally came from Str1977. (I admit I've only had the briefest glance at the article, but when you revert a particular edit, because of what you see as inaccuracy or bias, it's not at all unusual to reintroduce someone else's typo inadvertently.)

However, with regard to "neither" and "nor", I must disagree with you there. It's true that we don't use double negatives in English, in the sense of "I didn't see nobody". However, Hart's Rules says (pages 29 to 30):

'Neither' should be followed by 'nor', and 'either' by 'or':
Neither one thing nor the other.
I can neither read nor write.
Either Peter or James.
Note that when the alternatives form the singular subject of a sentence the verb should be in the singular:
Neither Oxford nor Reading has been represented.

In keeping with the last point (about the verb being in the singular), I changed it to "neither his son nor his son's mother WAS molested", where it has said "WERE molested". (I changed "the son" to "his son" because I found "the son" a little awkward.) However, I left the "nor", because it's certainly correct in British English, and I would say probably in American English as well, although I don't claim any expertise there.

(I lecture undergraduates about grammar, punctuation, and essay-writing skills, by the way, and I find Hart's Rules one of the most useful books I've ever bought.)

Hope you have fun at Wikipedia. Welcome, again. AnnH (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Looking back over my message, I see I have far too many "howevers" in close succession. I'd never accept that from my students, but it it was written in haste. It's past bedtime where I am. Good night! AnnH (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your greetings. I am wishing you a Merry Christmas as well. And a Happy New Year too. Str1977 18:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy Christmas from Ann, as well. Hope you're enjoying Wikipedia. By the way, your user name is still red. What about editing your user page just to tell other users a little bit about yourself or your interests? (Or if you want to keep your privacy, you can just put something like, "Hi, I'm Dr. Dan") That way, when you sign on talk pages, your user name will appear in blue rather than in red, so you'll look more like an "established" Wikipedian! Cheers, AnnH (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page

Hello, Dr. Dan. As requested, I have uploaded your photo, and it is now on your user page. You can look at the coding and fiddle around with it to change the size, which is currently set at 300 px.

I made a pacifist user box at User:Dr. Dan/Pacifist. If you go to that page, and click on the "history" at the top, you can see different versions. If the one that's there at the moment isn't the one you like best, open an earlier one, click on "edit this page", and save that version. Then go back to your user page, and, if necessary refresh it to see the new box.

If you're confident, you could even try fiddling around to get some kind of combination.

I've also edited your user page to add you to the category of pacifist Wikipedians, as the original Template:User pacifist would have added you automatically. You'll see that at the bottom of the page you're listed as belonging to several categories — pro-life Wikipedians, native English-speaking Wikipedians, etc. By clicking on any of those categories, you can find other people who belong to the same group. It's a bit controversial at the moment, though, because some people have been contacting Wikipedians with whom they had had no prior contact, asking them to vote to keep or delete an article based on their views, and this has caused a lot of bad feeling. If you want to remove yourself from the pacifist category, just do so by editing the bottom of the page. You can't remove yourself from other categories without removing the user boxes, as they are built into the boxes.

Hope that helps. I'll be available again from the middle of January. AnnH (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Le Roy Lancelot

In one of your edits you make mention of Le Roy Lancelot or Wladislaus the White. Who was he, and when did he live? Thanks.

He was the last Cuyavian Piast, ruler of the tiny principality of Gniewkowo in the Kingdom of Poland. After the death of his wife, he sold the principality to his king, Casimir the Great, and became a Benedictine monk in the Saint-Bénigne monastery at Dijon. After the childless death of king Casimir, he unsuccessfully attempted to claim the Polish crown by force of arms. His life was apparently fascinating for his contemporaries. In the chansons de geste, he was nicknamed Le Roy Lancelot, as a reference to Sir Lancelot from the Arthurian legends. · Naive cynic · 07:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interim reply

Dear Doctor, I will reply to you soon on Elser and believe it's not POV pushing, though some things as they stand now are inaccurate. As for your second question: Yes, it was possible to a member of one and not of the other. I don't know details about the Communis, but you must consider that the KPD was not a mass party as we know it today but a cadre party on the Leninist model. So weren't joining the KPD because you liked them but because you wanted to fight the political fight. It was much easier too be talked into joining the Rotfrontkämpferbund, as Elser was, as they needed more men. But regarding the NS organisation: there were numbers of different groups you could join independently and the Nazis developed a sort of Cursus honorum (in their view) that you will first join this and than that and finally the party (included in a famous Hitler speech on education of the youth). In 1933, after the Nazis had gained power, many people suddenly wanted to join the party and the NSDAP even closed itself to new memberships for a while. Those who made in were ridiculed as "Märzgefallene" (casualties of March, a pun on killed protestors of 1848), those you didn't make it joined other groups. In Carstens' case, the SA membership was obviously nominal or can you, if you know him, imagine Carstens the street-fighter. I can't. As I said, I will get back to you on Elser. Str1977 23:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I remember Carstens, I'm sure he's dead by now. I can't imagine him as a street fighter either. But I can imagine him in a "tracht" club though.Dr. Dan 03:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your support on Władysław Jagiełło. Can you think of any way of restoring fairness to the discussion. The discussion was posted on the Polish wikipedian notice board by Piotrus, and users invited to "comment", which hasn't helped balance the debate. Would you know any way of attracting more objective users to the page? Should I really just give up? I seems sad to abandon the page to a semi-fanaticism. - Calgacus 16:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. It's appreciated. :) As a side-effect of this debate, the naming of Polish rulers is being reviewed. See, for instance, Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs, esp. Aftermath and Proposal. It seems the funny observations you just posted are well-informed. - Calgacus 16:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want more laughs, check out Adolf Lindenbaum, or just do a wiki search on Wilno. Shall you fix it, or shall I? - Calgacus 21:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a friendly note to what Calgacus wrote above: the fact that you don't agree with others does not mean that they are any less objective than you, at least not by definition. Here in wikipedia we should seek compromise, not the hailed and sole truth of [put the name here]. Halibutt 16:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Humor

For your witty comments on Talk:Raphael Kalinowski, I , Calgacus, hereby award you Barnstar of Good Humor. Congratulations! (KC)
For your witty comments on Talk:Raphael Kalinowski, I , Calgacus, hereby award you Barnstar of Good Humor. Congratulations! (KC)


Keep it up! :) - Calgacus 22:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Molobo's advice

I advise not to follow this encouragment and stop personal attacks and comments towards Polish editors. Please act in civilized and polite manner. --Molobo 23:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you Dr. Dan is not engaging in personal attacks. You'll need to disguish between when you perceive you're being attacked, and when you actually are. Don't be paranoid, give people the benefit of the doubt. - Calgacus 23:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid he already engages in personal comments focusing on nationality of other users, while ignoring the content of the articles he posts his remarks: For example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Raphael_Kalinowski When I did, why did the "objective" SylwiaS And another example of personal remarks irrelevant to article: I'll bet most of these contributors grew up under the communist government of Poland. And another example of personal remarks irrelevant to article: Go re-read some of the "histories" out of the Soviet Union, about Poland and you will understand why I want to give objectivity it's fair shake, visa vis your neighbors. What purpouse does this comment serve ? And another case of personal attack: Just don't make your contributions make yourselves look ridiculous. And try to keep the inuendo to a minimum, it does'nt look good when you later whine that you're being attacked Such behaviour is destructive for Wikipedia and must be avoided. Should I state a comment that contributors coming from USA should re-read their books as it is generally known USA has poor education system ? Such comment would simply a xenophobic attack based on nationality of the user. And this is what is happening here. Such xenophobic attacks against Polish contributors from D.Dan aren't welcomed and I hope they will stop. --Molobo 23:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Polnische banditen

Your comments addresing Polish users as a "Gang" are highly unwelcomed.Please beheave in civilized manner. --Molobo 23:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Gang doesn't mean a group of bandits; it can be negative in connotation, but I can assure you it isn't in the context you're talking about. The connotations are ones which in this context amount to affection, if slightly ironic. - Calgacus 23:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully Dr.Dan will therefore stop from addresing Polish users in manner that could be taken as calling them criminals. I have to tell Dr. Dan that it was often done as part of anti-polish propagand during German occcupation and as such it would be advisable for the good spirit of cooperation to avoid such naming in discussions with Polish users.And of course with discussions with all users as well, as ironic or humourous statements aren't purpouse of the Wiki. I also hope this was Dr.Dan's simple lack of knowledge that led to this incident. --Molobo 23:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you Molobo

Thank you Molobo for your advice. I'm flattered that you should be summoned or sic'd on "little ole me". You say I'm addressing Polish users in a manner that could be taken as calling them criminals. Are you joking, or writing a resumé to send to Dr. Goebbels for a job in the Propaganda Ministry. He's dead, and the Ministry is kaputt, so don't bother.

It was not "my simple lack of knowledge that led to this incident", but your obviously simple lack of knowledge of the English language that led you to your very erroneous conclusions. I have a very high regard for Poland and the Poles. The fact that I object to errors in articles that can be made more objective, is no reason to assume an anti-Polish bias on my part. Personally, I think that the educational system in Poland is in fact, superior to the educational system in the United States (and so do you, but you need the glands that produce testosterone to admit it), and am happy to tell you that the Jagiellonian University is one of my Alma Maters. Interestingly enough, you don't want to engage in the substance of the arguments presented. And for that matter, neither do the participants of the arguments want to either. Wonder why? I shall not use Gang anymore, even though Calgacus correctly ascertained that it was meant in an affectionate and playful context. Although I will continue to address the PROKONSUL by his title, I will not call the others your Highnesses or your Excellencies or homies( that's Ghetto slang, so you don't accuse me of a homophobic slur later). Lastly, if I may say so, the TALK page (discussion page), is where reasonable people should argue and debate the article. And good if it gets heated and emotional. If it's not vulgar or personal, I say go for it! So SylwiaS, why the rv of Vilnius in the Raphael Kalinowski article back to Wilno? Dr. Dan 02:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Wow

Yeah, it got me involved in that too. I have already seen the article you're talking about, as I too amuse myself by checking their contributions. There are now a whole series of disputed tags which follow them about. I suggest you add Wikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board to your watch list, as that's where all the fun happens. At the top, there is a box with some articles labelled "Vandalized articles or needing attention", which in practice means that someone is objecting to the POV pushing of User:Molobo (contributions). You can see for yourself that on the three articles currently listed, i.e. Anti-Polonism, Kulturkampf and Germanization, Molobo's ultra-nationalistic editing practices have resulted in dispute tags. User:Sciurinæ (talk) has been trying to keep them neutral, but Molobo simply cares more. Wehrmacht and War crimes of the Wehrmacht may fall victim to him too, as he has also taken an interest in these articles. - Calgacus 10:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Their rants don't usually "disappear", although I've noticed at least that they do edit each other's text (for spelling errors, etc). What page was it on, and did you check the history? I don't know if it's possible for an admin to remove edit history, by instinct it seems unlikely that it would be used, as these rants are common enough. BTW, User:Sciurinæ (talk) wanted to get in touch with you via email, but your email wasn't enabled. He's experiencing similar problems with the hard-core couple, and wants to communicate with you privately. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) Image:UW Logo-secondary.gif 17:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:German_Wikipedians%27_notice_board Ksenon 00:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grunwlad

Okay, I didn't read enough of the article. Thanks for correcting that then. Rshu 19:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you look at my contributions list, I am not exactly new, but, thanks for telling me that. As you probably already know, it was good-intentioned, however, it was wrong. Rshu 19:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some Wikipedians just act like robots. I always put why I edited something, or at the very least saying "this is a minor edit". It seems that we both are historians, so if I ever need help with history, or vise versa, it would be nice to be "allies". As you could see on my edits page, I basically do only history articles, besides a few actors and video games that I am familar with. Rshu 20:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grunwald 2

You are friendly enough. Give me some time to reply to you. So far I changed the name back, so you do not feel offended. I hope you understand, that modern encyclopedias are neither chronicles, nor a historical sources. I will collect some more "historical" information and present it to you. The only thing, I am afraid you can not read the language which was official in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Because it was the old version of Belarusian Max Kanowski 03:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply on my talk-page. Yes, it makes sense to argue like this. But from my point of view, the case of Vitovt is a little bit different. Look at how Vitovt was named in other documents written by European royal houses at that time. Vitovt, Vitold, Witowt. I think that the current Lithuanian transcription of his name brings him too far from the real history. In this case, both you, the Lithuanians, and we, the Belarusians, are at risk to undermine this important part of our history.
Additionally, what a mess will be to call Vytautas in English, and Витовт in Russian - this will be a direct result of your logic.
After all, what would have said poor Vitovt when he learned that he is called Vytautas today. Before the spread of Christianity ancestors of the Belarusians used same pagan names. And now, by using only the Lithuanian version, it makes an impression that we have nothing to do with this part of history. Give me a break, my family comes from Slonim (close to Navagrudak - the first capital of GDL), which is a much more the original Litva (Lithuania) than Kaunas today.Max Kanowski 18:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Geographic names

I've noticed you've been changing "Wilno" into "Vilnius" in a couple of articles recently. While I'm not opposing any of your specific changes, I'd like to ask that you do it carefully, as the present state of the names is often well thought through, and a result of a fragile consensus. I'm sure you're aware that naming in Central/Eastern Europe is often a sensitive issue. I'd like to encourage you to take a look at the latest proposal at Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Geographic names. Hopefully you'll be able to improve it, or at least it might inspire you with your future name changes. Sincere thanks in advance. --Lysytalk 21:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article

It seems to me like you're doing a good job here in wikipedia. Did you start any article so far? Halibutt 02:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to reply so late but it wasn't until now that I discovered your reply in my archives (User:Halibutt/Archive12). In the future you might want to reply to my comments in my main talk space in order to let me notice your replies much sooner. I don't monitor my archives too often, you know? Anyway, the reason I asked was that I considered your influence valuable but was not sure what Barnstar would fit you the best. Since you have no articles started so far I think that the following would be a decent choice. Halibutt 21:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I, Halibutt, hereby bestow upon you this cute, blueish Exceptional Newcommer Award butterfly for your valuable input to various history-related articles. Keep the good job up!
I, Halibutt, hereby bestow upon you this cute, blueish Exceptional Newcommer Award butterfly for your valuable input to various history-related articles. Keep the good job up!

[edit] Polish-Lithuanian War

I've reverted some of your recent edits of Polish-Lithuanian War as I felt they were based more on your personal views than the facts. I'm happy to discuss the edits one by one in the article's talk page if you feel strongly about them. However, since it's you who are changing the existing version, it's up to you to support any controversial edits with sources, or at least explain some of them. --Lysytalk 02:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I know it influences your normal level of friendliness when someone reverts your edits, therefore I appreciate the humorous attitude you presented instead of killing me :-) --Lysytalk 07:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 20-th century history of PL

Saw your question at Talk:Cieszyn. I think you might find this article that was originally published in Nie interesting in this respect. The author expects those who read modern Polish history books to wonder: "po jaka cholere ci idioci, marszalek Rydz-Smigly i minister Józef Beck, zdecydowali sie na wojne z Hitlerem?". Regards, --Irpen 04:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The article was interesting to say the least. And easy enough to read and understand without needing a dictionary or help from some translation program. Thank you. The Marshal and Colonel were amateurs next to their mentor, Pilsudski. If I'm not mistaken, I believe Beck was actually Hitler's guest at Berchtesgaden for New Years, 1939. The facts concerning their blunders need to be brought forth accurately and without bias. That it will be vociferously challenged, is to be expected. One should be prepared. It seems this group of editors enjoys entrapping people into reverting wars, and they then try to have them blocked, or removed from participation in the Wikipedia project. Hopefully, the powers that be, will begin to see what's going on here. Dr. Dan 06:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • The article was published in NIE-a newspaper published by Jerzy Urban-in 2005 Polish court finally decided that Jerzy Urban is comperable in his style of propaganda as Goebbels.

--Molobo 00:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:History_of_Poland_(1939–1945)#Urban_has_been_claimed_by_polish_court_as_comperable_to_Goebbels

One of the pages where this is currently "brought forth" is Talk:History_of_Poland_(1939–1945)#.22Yalta_and_the_Soviet_Occupation.22_section. Bemused by post-44 years in history of Poland being called there "Years of occupation" I recetly added the picture of "occupation" to "illustrate" the text which I left intact for now. I am looking forward for the "group of editors" to do something about that. --Irpen 06:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

See? Yhe "group of editors" got to the article. It got even more of the Russophobic propaganda than it used to be. Sigh. --Irpen 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ekhem ? We are writing about Soviets.Isn't it claimed Russia isn't Soviet Union ? If you have concerns write them. --Molobo 00:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

see History of Poland (1939–1945) and its talk. This article could really use some outside view. Especially from yet an uninvolded editor who is a historian. So far it is just me there and the Poles and Molobo alone is worth the army. If you have time and interest, Zapraszam. --Irpen 04:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Not just him and Poles. A Jew is also there :) Anyway, take a look at Talk:Polish-Lithuanian War Halibutt 18:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Labas

I saw that you might be interested in some topics related to Lithuania and wanted to say welcome also. I hope you will like it here, I know it gets heated sometimes, and you will stick around. If you neeed some help, please do not hesitate to drop me a line. I might not be readily available, but I will answer. Also, please don't be shy to participate in Wikipedia:Baltic States notice board. It's now sort of in "development stages" so your input is highly appreciated. Renata 03:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Vitovt Wars"

Dan, don't get mad at me. You claim to be a historian and a pacifist. Put yourself into my shoes. I, a Belarusian, open a page about Grunwald. There I read: "I am nothing, my history is nothing, my kin is nothing, my family is nothing, my language is nothing, my home town's history (Slonim, if you are an expert in GDL - you know where it is) is nothing.... etc." - of course I explode. What did you expect? And then you ask why I am so nervous...

Have you seen those two lines dedicated to the Belarusian participation in the previous version of Grunwald? Smth like "In Belarus the battle is claimed to be a Polish-Lithuanian-Belarusian victory against the evil Germans" .. and that's it. It is like to speak about the American Revolution and never to mention the Americans.

But even then I never said anything personal either about you, or Lysy, or Renata, or Lithy, etc. Ok, I was wrong to say that it was better to extinguish Lithuanians. Sorry for that - overreacted.

So here is the summary of what I wanted to tell you (you may not reply if you do not want to):

- When I said that no one cares about Samogitia I meant the spelling, not the land, or the people.
- My name is Kanowski, not Kalinowski
- Do not humiliate me through my knowledge of English - I believe I speak English better than you speak Russian. Better correct mistakes of Lithy.
- Do not publicly humiliate me by assumptions/hints about my work in NY that does not require good English. Yes, the majority of clients are Russian-speaking businessmen. We can better compare our income statements in USD: you and me.
- Sorry that I called you a Lithuanian. I guess I mixed your page with someone else's. But still, my guess is that you have some Baltic roots as you are so knowledgeable about Balts and do not want to hear anything about Slavs (btw, Belarusians are half-Slavs, and some scientists claim that they are much more Balts than Slavs).
- Once again - do not get mad at me. Better try to read smth about Belarus and who knows, maybe the Eastern European pages in Wikipedia will become even better.

Good luck in fights with other Belarusians who will get insulted by those pages in Wikipedia! Max Kanowski 04:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

I would suggest stopping removing Polish names from Lithuanian cities & towns. I know at least one person that got into huuuuge trouble over that and I would hate to see the same happening to you. It was discussed furiously before without reaching consensus. So if you want to reopen the discussions... I would better suggest jumping from a bridge :) Renata 14:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question About Suggestion

I'm not planning to jump off a bridge soon. My question is simple. I'm surfing Wikipedia and come across Kernavė, an ancient medieval Capital of Lithuania. Halibutt feels it's necessary to inform the English speaking readers of Wikipedia, as to what the Polish name of the town is. So, I go to Gniezno, also an ancient medieval Capital of Poland. Wanting to inform the English speaking readers as to what the Lithuanian name of the town is, I add the Lithuanian name. Lo and behold, Molobo, reverts the addition as "irrelevant". Next, I take a look at Kaunas, this again has the Polish name added by Halibutt. I look at Lublin, a famous town, with significant historical associations to Lithuania. In fact, the city in which Lithuania, became an "equal" partner with Poland by virtue of the Union of Lublin and created the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. So I add the Lithuanian name, and Balcer has a problem with this, and it too is reverted. Maybe this scenario needs to be reviewed again, and explained as to what is going on. Oh yes, my question, why is what's good for the goose not good for the gander? Dr. Dan 14:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I favour the inclusion of equivalent names for places, if only as the recording of facts. Recently, I needed to track down the Polish and Lithuanian names for various places including Panevėžys, so it is useful. I realise that this may be tricky given national histories, but any problems or rivalries can be explained (briefly) in the articles. For me the most problematic names are the German equivalents, but these are of historical interest. Please, Dr Dan, replace the Polish names wherever you have removed them, then you are in a stronger position to argue your case elsewhere. And I would support you wherever the names have a historical basis. Folks at 137 18:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all, Dr. Dan, if you have a problem with my reverts, please voice your concerns on my talk page or the article talk page. I do not regularly monitor your talk page, and today looked at it by chance, certainly not expecting to find any discussion about me. Now, the basic reason I reverted the inclusion of the Lithuanian name for Lublin is because that name is never used in the English language to describe the city. If you do a Google search of English language pages for the Lithuanian name, you get 4 hits, and even these are not actually English pages :). The only valid reason to include a name of the city in a different language in the lead is if there is a high chance that an English speaker will come across that form of the name in an English publication. Thus, there is a very good reason to include the German name Danzig for Gdansk, because in many books about history, as well as books published in the past, that name will be used.
As for including Polish names for Lithuanian cities, I do not particularly care about the issue, which in my opinion should anyway be left to Lithuanian editors as the most interested party. Still, Polish names for those cities can be found in at least some English language publications, and the Polish language was after all at one time in wide use in Lithuania (even today 7% of its population is ethnically Polish). So I can see some grounds for an argument that including a Polish name is valid. Still, if some Lithuanians have an averse reaction to such practice, who am I to go against their feelings?Balcer 00:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, if some Lithuanians (some of the population, according to you, the 93% which is not Polish), think the historical significance of Lublin in the history of both countries warrants an inclusion of Lublin's Lithuanian name, do you "have an adverse reaction to such a practice"? I realize that you probably will not read this, " since I (you) do not regularly monitor your (my) talk page", but if you do, perhaps you will comment on this matter. And if just by some coincidence, you should have contact with Molobo, you might ask him if the ancient Lithuanian capital of Kernavė's Polish name has relevance in the English version of Wikipedia, while the Lithuanian name for Gniezno is "irrelevant". Salutations. Dr. Dan 01:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, now that I have actually written something here, I have put your talk page on my list of watched pages, at least for a while. I do not have adverse reactions to any languages, I just want Wikipedia to keep certain standards and avoid becoming a mess. Can you try to imagine for a moment what would happen if each Wikipedia article about a city would attempt to list its names in the languages of all countries which could claim some kind of historical connection? Just one quick example: Munich is obviously of great importance to the Czechs, given the Munich agreement of 1938 which led to the demise of prewar Czechoslovakia. Do you think it would be reasonable to add the Czech name cs:Mnichov in the lead of the Munich article? Go ahead, give it a try, and see what kind of reaction you will get. On second thought, maybe that's not such a good idea: you would get reverted within minutes without any discussion and gain a quick reputation as a nationalist troll.
I am sad to report that I have no influence over Molobo. Please discuss your grievances with him directly, and don't drag anybody else into it. As I already said, I have no interest in the naming of cities in Lithuania and I will make no more comments on the issue. Balcer 03:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and one more thing. Please read carefully the guideline page: Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I think your recent edits may fall into that category. Balcer 03:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

And if just by some coincidence, you should have contact with Molobo, you might ask him if the ancient Lithuanian capital of Kernavė's Polish name has relevance in the English version of Wikipedia I suggest you stop your misleading accusations against me-I never edited the article Kernave, so your suggestion to Balcer is completely out of place. Like most of Polish editors I hardly care about Polish names for Lithuanian cities, an indiffrence that unfortunetely doesn't manifest itself often in edits of other Central European contributors. --Molobo 09:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, if you are going to quote me, please include the entire sentence instead of the part that suits your purposes. This way others can have a better idea of how your thought processes work. Dr. Dan 00:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My bad Neudeck

Sorry, I was just going through random articles to check for revision. Thanks for the heads-up. Who/what/where is Neudeck? (pardon my ignorance) GrapeSteinbeck 03:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove the stub Siraf 00:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simple request

Dr. Dan, it would be very helpful if you could make up your mind. Do you want to:

  • 1. Remove Polish names from articles about Lithuanian cities.

or

  • 2. Keep them and for balance add Lithuanian names to Polish cities.

Pick one of these options and argue for it consistently. Then we can have a serious discussion, hopefully. Balcer 00:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I say that removing the Polish names from Lithuanian cities would be easier and make more sense, than solution #2. As I have argued all along, if someone needs to know that Rzym is the Polish equivalent of Rome or Roma, they can go to the English or Italian article, and then go to the Polish link and find out what it is. In short, it is not necessary for the article on Bogota Colombia, to have its Icelandic name included in its heading. If we can agree on solution #1, I will begin a fair and consistent editting of these cities and towns. If we can not agree on solution #1, for "historical" reasons pertaining to the extinct Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, then some sort of balance needs to be employed for the same "historical" reasons toward Polish cities and towns. Does this seem consistent and serious enough? Dr. Dan 00:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
On the whole, I agree with you. Indeed, including the Polish name in the lead of articles about even the tiniest cities in Lithuania is of no use to the general Wikipedia reader, and positively harmful in that it encourages bickering and edit wars. If a name in a different language has a historical significance, it can be mentioned in the history section of the article, upon proper justification. The only exception to this rule I would allow would be for cases where widespread use of the name in English works can be shown, or if other standard references refer to it. For example, the fact that Encyclopedia Britannica gives the Polish and former Russian names for Vilnius seems to suggest that those names should be included in the Wikipedia article as well. Also, if a city has a significant minority using a given language, the name in that languge can be given (examples: Sejny, Puńsk).
Anyway, if you have opted for #1, please make no more edits favouring #2. This would seem to me to be a form of trolling and against Wikipedia guidelines.
So, you can go ahead and start removing Polish names as far as I am concerned. To be fair though, you might consider removing Lithuanian names from articles about cities in Poland as well. There are not that many cases of this of course, but fair is fair (you can start with Suwałki,Augustów,Białystok,Gołdap) Balcer 01:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I don't want you and I, to be the final arbiters or decision makers of this point at hand. Furthermore, to be clearer, I realize that there are cases where it is historically appropriate to list a foreign name to a geographical location. I am not against this. Vilnius is a good example where the Polish and other names shouldn't be removed. Kaunas and Panevezys are two examples where they should be. I am willing to go slow and discuss objections to specific cities and towns on a case by case basis. Fair enough? Dr. Dan 03:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right! Polish name is listed for Lviv nut not for Kiev which was a subject of a considerable debate. --Irpen 03:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
No, the difference is that Kiev was not named "Kijów" throughout its history. Again, the place to look for an answer is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) - go and contribute there if you don't like the proposed policy. This reminds me of "Irpen's rule" (I think it was yours) which I'm trying to apply myself: "do not add or remove alternative names of the location without your other productive contribution to the article itself". This is of course voluntary, but I would like to ask you, Dr. Dan, to consider this as well. Peace. --Lysytalk 10:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 17th German Infantry Division

Hi. I am not knowledgeable about the details of the 17th German Infantry Division. However, Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. You should check the talk page if this topic has been discussed before. If yes, join the discussion. If no, either ask if it is OK to change, or change it in the article. If someone objects then you still can discuss it on the talk page. Happy editing -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections

Apparently we're similar in that both of us tend to "correct" the right version by making it wrong ([1]) :) . That's why very seldom do I correct my tests or home works. Where did you learn Polish, BTW? Halibutt 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

UJ Dr. Dan 23:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Victories and defeats

Hello again, Dan. As to correct assessment whether a battle was a victory or a defeat, it might indeed be problematic to say the least. Check my long discussion with Irpen at battle of Wołodarka, for instance. For me the only way to decide what was the result of a battle is in most cases the assessment of aims of both sides. If the goals of one side were achieved - in most cases it means that the side was victorious. That's why:

  • battle of Krojanty, while one of my favourites, was by no means a victory of either side as there could be no victory when noone planned to achieve anything. It could be called a Polish victory in that the main aim of the Polish side was to delay the German action (which was indeed achieved), but one could also claim that, since the battle meant no territorial gains for either side, it could not be conclusive. As Irpen noticed once, for him any battle that does not end with a complete defeat of the opposing army is not concluded. I don't agree with that, but in the case of Krojanty it's at least an acceptable solution.
  • In case of the battle of Krasnobród, it was a complete Polish victory. The German aims were to hold the town and prevent the Poles from crossing the area. The Polish aims were to capture the town and by-pass the region. After the battle not only did the town stay in Polish hands, but also managed to capture the enemy staff and rout the enemy force. If that's not a victory - then what is?
  • As to the Polish-Lithuanian conflict over Suwałki - the case is similar. The Polish aims were to hold the area against the Lithuanians, while the Lithuanian aims were to seize the area for themselves. In the effect of the conflict the Lithuanians were pushed back to what Poland considered its border, while the Lithuanians did not manage to gain a single inch of land. If the result of that conflict was inconclusive, then what is it that it was lacking?

Halibutt 21:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dr Dan, it may be very difficult to have the Wikipedia batllebox of any article involving any Poland war to be different from "Polish victory", not because Poland won most battles in its hisotry, but because of peculiarities of Wikipedia. Until my involvement, even the ill-conceived Kiev Offensive was deemed "inconclusive" and it took me lots of arguing to change the result even for such an obvious case. Battle of Volodarka was another nightmare fight I had and reading it's talk is instructive. If you want to change the outcome in Wikipedia of any battle involving Poland at any historic period, I wish you lots of luck. If you read the Talk:Battle of Wołodarka you will perhaps understand my sarcasm better. I once summarized it for others at User_talk:Ezhiki/2005#Nationalism (in case the original discussion would seem too long to read). --Irpen 21:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, what confuses me most, is how in the Twentieth Century, a skirmish, comprising of circa 1100-1200 men becomes a battle, and holding the Germans back for twenty-four hours become a victory. But I'm learning fast. Dr. Dan 23:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This is very similar to a Battle of Volodarka, where Soviets failed to break Polish defences, only to be able to do that a week later. This is enough for the article to call it a "Polish victory" and even my smal "disputed" note at the outcome was zealously and persistently removed. Go read talk for more. --Irpen 23:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Irpen, you forgot to mention that we're still waiting for sources to back up your, somewhat controversial, views on Volodarka. You should rephrase your comment to If you want to change the outcome in Wikipedia of any battle involving Poland at any historic period, be sure to check with the sources and not your own common sense'.
As to the size of the battle it does not really matter. The Battle of the Little Bighorn was in fact a skirmish without much notability and, despite being a decisive Indian victory, did not affect their fate. Which however does not change the fact that it was a victory of the Indians - and is described as such by every single source I know. Same for most battles of the Russian Civil War, American Civil War, Boer War, Crimean War, and so on. Perhaps a distinction between battles and skirmishes should be made in wikipedia based on the number of troops on both sides, but this would border original research as no such distinction is commonly made in historiography.
Every battle has got a logic of its own as each side has got its own aims to achieve during every battle. If the aims are indeed achieved - it's a victory of one of the sides. If neither of the sides manages to achieve what it wants - or both sides achieve their goals, then the result is inconclusive. I'd oppose combining all battles of any war into one article just to make a single conclusion that all were lost or wan, basing on the result of the entire campaign. Sure, the Soviets lost at the borders, but then won the war. Does it mean that they won all the battles of WWII? Similarly, the Poles won at Volodarka, but lost the following week north of Kiev. Does it mean that the Bolsheviks won all battles of the campaign? Nope. Should we reword the article on Battle of Balaclava to say that it was a British-French victory because in the end they managed to break the Russian defences? Nope.
The Kiev offensive is a decent example here, I believe. The Poles tried to secure a significant part of Ukraine and prepare for a possible thrust towards Kiev. At the same time, at the tactical level, the Poles hoped to outflank the Bolshevist forces there and destroy them in a single battle, in order to lessen the pressure in the north, in Belarus. However, while Poles managed to capture even more land than they were hoping for (including the city of Kiev itself), the Russians simply withdrew, so the Polish offensive was only partially a success. After the Russian counter-attack, their aims were similar. They hoped to get the Ukraine back and outflank the two Polish armies there in order to destroy the Polish southern flank thus forcing them to withdraw on the northern front as well. And again, the Bolsheviks were able to retake much of the previously lost territory, but did not destroy a single Polish division. So, all in all, both sides achieved half of their objectives. The result, from a purely military perspective, was as if the offensive and counter-offensive never happened. Of course, the campaign had also political implications and politically it was a complete defeat for the Poles. However, the battles are about warfare and not politics.
And, contrary to what Irpen suggests, this has nothing to do with anyone's nationality, such logic works for every single battle or military operation in the history of mankind. Make a list of goals, sum them up, check against sources - and you're there. Halibutt 02:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, don't start this again. This is not about sources. This is about your taking liberty to interprete them as you see fit. --Irpen 02:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Which doesn't change the fact that you've been asked to provide some backup to your claims - yet you failed. Anyway...
On a final note: there is a crucial distinction onto strategic and tactical levels. On a strategic scale, the whole wars and campaigns consist of battles. Each of the battles could be won or lost by either side. However, there's no direct link here as a zillion of battles won could sum up in a lost campaign. Take a note of the November Uprising, for instance. It is often overlooked that the Poles won most of the battles - yet lost the entire war. That's why when deciding the result of every battle one should focus on the battle itself, on the tactical level and not on the grand strategy. Halibutt 03:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. --Irpen 03:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tauragė

I have no emotional attachment to the German & Polish names for Tauragė; remove them if a consensus has been reached regarding similar articles. What convention has been followed elsewhere?--Theodore Kloba 22:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I too lack an emotional attachment to these names included in the lead of an article about a Lithuanian city. Looking for a more balanced and logical consistency, instead. Dr. Dan 23:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Pls see the response to your question in my talk page. --Lysytalk 18:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I see that for the moment at least the Polish name is no longer in the lead, so I suppose the issue is resolved. Balcer 22:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the issue is not resolved, I removed all of the foreign names. They were then re-added again. Now, only one is removed. I should think it would be resolved, after the other one is removed too. Actually, I'll be expecting it. Dr. Dan 22:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, take a look at [2]. I think we all agreed that if a major English language encyclopedia, in this case Columbia Encyclopedia, prominently mentions the city name in a given language, then there is a good case for Wikipedia mentioning it also.Balcer 22:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Very well, we are always going to find someone or somewhere to agree with our side in these debates. It's like the Bible, you can almost find anything to prove your side on any issue. I'm against this, as the basis ( if it's in the Columbia Encyclopedia, or XYZ Encyclopedia, the discussion stops), for resolving an issue, in principle. Besides, you nor I can edit the Columbia Encyclopedia and give the reader a different perspective of the story. The last thing that I want, is for Polish Wikipedians, to believe I have a anti-Polish bias, because I seek a more balanced approach on issues concerning Poland's neighbors. I have no doubt that we will be discussing these matters further. It's late, I'm exhausted, and my family has put me through the wringer today. More later. Dr. Dan 04:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC) p.s. the operative part of the sentence, is, then there is a good case for Wikipedia mentioning it also. A good case, but not necessarily the final judgement of how it should be handled.

Obviously all sources have their issues and biases, and no encyclopedia is holy writ (if it were, what would we need Wikipedia for). At the same time, in case of disputes, it can be useful to see what other major references say on the subject, especially an important English-language encyclopedia like Columbia.
As I said before, I really don't have any particular interest in this debate, given that I know very little about the history of Lithuania and its cities. The main reason I got dragged into this was your edit on the Lublin page. Now that we have that settled (fingers crossed), allow me to drop out of this discussion.
A bit of personal advice: looking at your edits, I see a certain pattern of getting involved in long discussions with other editors over controversial issues. While that is definitely a part of the Wikipedia experience, another very enjoyable part is actually creating new content. I personally find that is usually more fun, and gives one a feeling of creating something useful (though of course some disputes are almost too tempting to pass by). At the end of the day, if you really want to advance the cause of Lithuania (or humanity, or anything), help write great articles, and do not fight over the presence/absence of this or that word, in the name of consistency. I admit that I myself often get caught up in these ridiculous fights, but every once in a while I try to take a deep breath, rethink what I am doing, and try to squeeze in a constructive edit somewhere. Balcer 05:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That makes good sense. God forbid one should get involved in long discussions with other editors over the mundane, boring, or uninteresting matters. I've seen these take place too. I think your advice is good and worthwhile. I'm sure it's directed to all parties. Wszystkiego dobrego. Dr. Dan 13:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yakovlev

Frankly speaking I'd like to know myself. Most of my books on the war of 1919-1920 mention his role in it, but I have yet to see a mention of his later life. Perhaps you could ask Mikkalai, he might know more. Halibutt 03:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very Unhappy Dr Dan

I truly liked your response, and had a very very long, sourced, and developed reply to you, regarding battles, Custer, the Polish-Lithuanian War and a few other "oeuvres" that I think you would have enjoyed. After editing the preview, making corrections and re-editing, I saved the page only to be told that an "editing conflict" has lost these Gems to posterity. As in the song, "McArthur's Park is melting and I may not have that recipe again". I'll try to re-do it, but the spark is gone tonight! Dr. Dan 03:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Bah, happens to the best of us from time to time. Next time remember to simply hit the "back" button in your browser, copy your text, edit the page again and paste it at the bottom. Until you close the window all is preserved in browser's cache. I suppose now it's too late to do it though... Halibutt 04:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Halibutt, about a month ago we were discussing "Victories and Defeats," on my talk page (see above). I'm going over some notes and want to "recreate" a thought I had for you, and lost because of an editing conflict. I had really gotten into it, and had put together some ideas I wanted to share with you. Here are some fragments:

Lots of good points, Halibutt, I wish you could teach some of your co-contributors your manners and methodology, in how you present and argue your remarks. I especially liked the Little Big Horn analogy, but let me tell you it was not exactly called that, in my younger days, let alone the "Battle of the Greasy Grass". As to the battles of the American Civil War, they were massive and resulted in some 600,000 deaths. IMO, wars of ideology, usually produce more casualties and atrocities.

Getting back to the Polish-Lithuanian War, you paraphrased it as something that happened at the end of an unpaved road somewhere in Poland. There was also an implication by you, that the matter had significance only in Lithuania, perhaps forgetting that in a similar vein, the Polish victory at the Battle of Krojanty, might only have significance to Poles living in Poland. There can be no question that in despairing moments in a country's history, events like these take on a different quality in the "National Consciousness," of a Nation. My initial problem with the article was not who won or lost the war. I feel, Pilsudski, and those who wanted to reestablish the Commonwealth or "Between the Seas", actually suffered a defeat by their "victory". At least as far as Lithuania was concerned. My problem with the article, primarily dealt with the inclusion that this was part of the Polish-Bolshevik War. The article and talk pages further insinuate that the Lithuanian Government somehow was in an alliance with the Soviet Government, in order to thwart the aims of Poland, in the greater Polish-Boshevik War. I do not see this, in any stretch of the imagination, let alone in anything other than biased nationalistic propaganda. It's like saying the U.S.A. empathised with Stalin, and this is the reason that they fought a common foe, in Hitler. As I said before, the two events the PBW, and the PLW, have some overlap, but are not one and the same. I hope you can agree enough to help me, and give me the support necessary to make the change in the article. Dr. Dan 02:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The question of how to interpret the Russo-Lithuanian treaty of July 12 is quite complicated (not that you didn't expect just that). The Poles considered the Foch line, proposed by the Conference of Ambassadors and the Entente, as the basis of the future border that was yet to be delimited. On the other hand the Lithuanian government did much to assure Poland that the only territorial dispute is about the Vilnius area, while the Suwałki part was not disputed. However, when the situation allowed them, they signed the pact with the Soviets, at that time engaged in a war against Poland, and joined sides with them. Although it is probable that, from the Lithuanian perspective, the treaty of July 12 is probably little more than Russian acceptance of legitimate Lithuanian claims, from the Polish perspective it is simply some sort of an alliance. In exchange for parts of the Polish territory, the Lithuanians agreed to help the Bolsheviks in their war against Poland by allowing their troops a free passage through their territory. Thus I believe (though in fact I'm not sure if that is the case) that Lithuanians treat the conflict as if it started with the Polish recapture of the areas they had previously seized or received from the Bolsheviks, while for the Polish side it started with the Russo-Lithuanian seizure of those areas a month before. Consistently, for Poles the operations against Russian and Lithuanian forces are rarely referred to as a separate war. Instead, most people refer to it as Polish-Lithuanian conflict or Polish-Lithuanian fights, and generally think of it as an offspring of the - much more important at that time - Russo-Polish war.
Anyway, feel free to ask me specific questions and I'm sure we could find some solution. //Halibutt 12:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not stalking

I just wanted to explain that I'm not stalking you. Just many articles that you're editing seem to be on my watchlist. :-) --Lysytalk 19:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't even dream of it. Our tired old names always coincide with one another sooner or later. Besides you are one of the few gentlemen that participates fairly, or at least when challenged, respond intelligently and rationally. Dr. Dan 19:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC) p.s. That being said, where in the hell did you get the statistic that 80% of Taurage was destroyed on June 22, 1941?

What is it, a day of compliments ? ;-) I've respondend on my talk page if you'd care for a gentle chat there ?
As for 80% of Taurage being destroyed by the Nazis, I've not claimed it's been on June 22, but that the town was captured on that day. But then why would the Nazis destroy it later ? Doesn't make sense, and I've also not found any second source to confirm the 80% damage (the first source was some web site anyway - not very reliable IMO). I don't insist on this as I'd have removed it myself now, on the second thought. --Lysytalk 20:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Jerries applied all kinds of destruction to various places during the war. Some places were destroyed as part of the warfare, others were destroyed as part of anti-partisan actions (hundreds of villages), as reprisal (Oradour sur Glane comes to mind), for no serious reason at all (Warsaw)... So the town could've been destroyed in several stages. This is but an assumption though this site also mentions 80%. Halibutt 00:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

To be sincere I have no idea if there are any wiki rules regulating that. Of course there is the good ol' wikiquette and netiquette that suggest to post new comments below others and so on. However, I'm not sure if any of the cases you mentioned is mentioned anywhere. You might want to ask User:Piotrus, who is sort of our wiki rule Cicerone here. Halibutt 00:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Dan. Deletion of talk comments is close to vandalism - unless it is removal of troll graffitti like this. Sometimes it happens due to edit conflict, if the accidental deleter doesn't spot his mistake, he always apologizes later. Removal of comments by registered, estabilished users citing 'vandalism' and 'personal attack' is something I'd never do, but I have seen it happen. You may want to look at Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Talk pages.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Grunwald

Your edit of Battle of Grunwald really confused me. Was it supposed to be a WP:POINT example ? I've reverted it in good faith and hope I did not misunderstand you. --Lysytalk 07:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jogaila

Sounds good. Thanks for letting me know. Appleseed (Talk) 01:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edyta Stein

She lived in Wrocław until her early twenties, so that was good enough for me at the time. I confess I didn't really look closely into the matter. Do you object to that categorization because she was Jewish, or because she emigrated from Poland? Appleseed (Talk) 02:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

My dear Appleseed, first, I have no objections calling Edith Stein, a Polish Saint, other than seeking historical accuracy. Otto Klemperer, is not considered a Polish conductor, even though like Stein, he was Jewish, and born in the same city, around the same time. Dr. Dan 02:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I had her biography somewhere, but I can't find it now. If it turns out that she didn't consider herself Polish or didn't speak Polish or something to that effect, I will remove the category. Appleseed (Talk) 02:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polglish

Dan, don't get me wrong, but your attempt at using Polish-English mixture at my talk page was... well, I didn't get a thing of it. Very seldom do I have any problems with understanding English or Polish, but both at the same time seem a tad too much for my brain to cope with... So, "English please" seems like a decent solution... or Polish, or Czech, or Spanish, or any other language I speak. But please, no Polglish.

As to what you wrote in English, some time in the past I took part in one of the disputes about the German WWII divisions. The main point there was whether Molobo should be reverted on sight or not, which seemed like a bad idea to me. However, I'm not knowledgeable enough to take part in any serious content dispute related to German WWII units and their part in war crimes not related to the Warsaw Rising. Most of my knowledge on the matter comes from Polish sources (mostly biographies of Polish generals or monographs on Allied units), which is IMO not enough to say whether this particular primary source is credible or not. I believe so, but my beliefs would add little to the dispute. //Halibutt 20:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Dan, there is a clear difference between an article's talk page in English Wikipedia, where all Wikipedians meet and, at least in theory, should be able to understand everyone, and someone's personal talk page. As I said numerous times, I don't mind if anyone contacts me personally in any language I know. Any language at my talk page please :)
In fact during my failed RfA I was advised by certain Ghirlandajo not to use Polish anywhere and I initially obeyed, chatting on my own talk page with Polish or Spanish folks in English for some time. However, I found that quite impractical. After all people can always ask me for a translation. //Halibutt 05:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Pan Halibutt, please understand that the use of English in English Wikipedia is not so impractical as you might think. You and Molobo are the only pans who prefer to converse in Polish here. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Not really. As a matter of fact most of our small Polish club here (including Dr Dan :) ) use Polish from time to time. And I see no problem with that. If you do - just ask for translation. There's plenty of Polish speakers to translate someone's personal chatter to you. If you want me to, I could even translate my own words to Russian, that wouldn't be too much of a problem.
Dan, as to your latest comment at my talk page, I'm really glad that there are still people to use the honorificative forms (forgive me my latin) in Polish. People often forget what they mean, which BTW is a result of 50 years of communism. I even met people who used the pan form in a Russian way, that is as a rather derogatory description. Sad but true... //Halibutt 16:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pan, Pani

I wouldn't call it a movement, rather a trend or a notion among the youngsters. The words themselves are unaffected, but their usage is. What changes is the level of proximity required to stop using the pan or pani forms. My memory is tragic and, for the sake of simplicity, I call everyone I'm not sure I know with the proper honorary forms. However, there is a notion among the youngsters to consider being called that way a grave offence. This is especially true to my beloved forms of panna and panienka, which to some young ladies seem especially offensive (as if I called them prostitutes, or something along those lines). Same goes for some of the men aged 15-30 who, when approached and asked in a polite form, sometimes respond with an outraged I'm no pan or Don't pan me, will you as if it was offensive. This reminds me of the Russian Polish pan slogan, in which the word is closer to master and definitely offensive. As a sidenote, I've met a guy here in English wiki who called me a Polish pan once, clearly in the Soviet sense. Check my user page :)

Anyway, another trend that has recently been classified by the Polish Language Council is the usage of honorary forms in letters, be them formal or informal. The good ol' Szanowna Pani!, Szanowny Panie! or Szanowni Państwo is being more and more replaced with quite informal Witam, especially in internet letters. While the number of people who'd consider it an offence gets smaller with every year, it is still a tad rude to refer to an old professor with witam. Not to mention that people (as a whole) already forgot of most of the forms (Uszanowanie, Łączę wyrazy szacunku and so on) and these are barely (if ever) used nowadays. //Halibutt 17:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


It isn't considered offensive Halibutt, it is just considered silly and akward. You use it only in formal discussion at university or in bussiness. Any usage besides that makes the talk formal more then needed. Perhaps it does reflect the passing out of noble's culture in Poland though as everybody wants to be equal and close to everybody in social strata. --Molobo 17:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually both. I admit my language is outdated to some degree and it's definitely a bit 19th-centurish, but still. I've met a plethora of people who seemed clearly offended by the fact that I didn't thee'd (any better word for Polish tykać or Spanish tutear?) them. They preferred to be called just by the you form. //Halibutt 17:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

So it's ty or wy? Dr. Dan 17:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ty (hence the verb tykać). //Halibutt

[edit] A WITCH HUNT AND MY SUBSIQUENT HANGING,OVER A BELOVED PRESIDENT, IS OVER.

I have had several views of an old photograph that would clear it up, but some others use my screen name cathitreks or cathy treks or cathytreks , they are NOT me yet why does everybody have it out for me here for trying to show the truth as I believe it to be!?

I only sought the acceptance of my proofs ..........and have miserably failed. I am leaving your cleec (sp)...now sadly for me, yet maybe happily for many here after the latest attacks and smears for me, for what I genuinely believe in., and now some comments about my credentials that do not dignify a reply,

Fine...im leaving the Lincoln page you decide upon, and the narrow mindedness forever, here in what seems to be a ROSE COLOURED Lincoln Candyland only!...But folks, let us never leave the man in our hearts!

A PERSONAL HERO TO.... ME THAT I LOVE!

            ABRAHAM LINCOLN!


Lincoln in 1847
Enlarge
Lincoln in 1847

I'm sadly leaving this place filled with much misunderstanding from many of the wiki "comunity" and withdraw from all of you, those who dont understand my sincere motives over a issue that seems hopeless to show or debate even amounst most of you, im sorry.,... I'm really very sorry, goodbye everybody..... I only sought truth.

I am heartsick over some of your attacks upon a sincere belief regardng the evidence I tried to present, my cousin in N.Z. did post under my name with my blessings as she believed too and tried to help show we were right, sorry you dont agree.

I really wonder what Lincoln would say over it all if he could?....

Somehow I believe he'd be sorry for we who sought the truth as some of the few here did, unlike the sheep who followed the wolves

shalom

....."a couple of misunderstood jewish girl's from both the old and new worlds bow from the stage here forever on this debate."

So...see ya round the galaxy! (Cathytreks 00:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC))


[edit] Danis Cocktail

Hi, regarding the Danis article, it is a candidate to be copied to Wikibooks because it is a drink recipe. Recipes don't belong on wikipedia, per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information point 8. However, recipes do belong on wikibooks. Once copied/transwikied to wikibooks, the recipe content will need to be removed from the wikipedia article, which will leave an empty article. At this point, the article could be improved, if someone can find some more text to add to the article, or it could be deleted or made a redirect to something else. If you want, you could certainly add more text to the article now, if there is anything else to say about the Danis cocktail other than the recipe for it. --Xyzzyplugh 01:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norkus

Do you have a source for the claim that Norkus' father had definitely converted to National Socialism during the boy's life? I thought there was uncertainity on the subject. Best, Tfine80 16:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do not trust the Nazi interpretation and there are several different views on this. I think it's a bad idea to simplify things just because you feel thet are indeterminate. Complexity is not the same as 'poorly written.' Tfine80 21:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lysy to Earth

I'm only busy until early April and desperately trying not to get lured into en.wiki until then. I'll address the outstanding issues in April, can it wait ? :-) --Lysytalk 06:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As usuall

You tried to delete the information about the mass murder comitted by German soldiers from 17th Infantry Division. It shall be restored. As will all information about Nazi atrocities, despite repeated attempts to erase such information. --Molobo 14:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed your undocumented and scarcely believable propaganda called a "quote". Please do not contact me on my talk page any longer, as your insulting and ungentlemanly behavior is very trying. We can have whatever contact is necessary on discussion pages of articles. Thank you, Dr. Dan 00:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morsztyn

Will do some more work on his bio. I don't like his works and I'm not a fan of baroque poetry in general, with some notable exceptions perhaps. However, I must say that I'm a great fan of Morsztyn as a person. Did you know that he was most probably a Polish spy? My history teacher once turned my attention to the fact that he was a frequent traveller, a thing uncommon in those days. What's even more strange is that he always travelled alone, without a huge court and servants, which is even more strange given the fortune he inherited. Finally, another interesting fact is that, during one of such trips to Sweden, his ship sunk in the middle of the Baltic Sea and Morsztyn made it to the Swedish shore - alone, as one of the very few survivors. His name was Morsztyn. Jan Andrzej Morsztyn :) I wonder what was his favourite drink. //Halibutt 22:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raudonė

Hi Lysy, I saw today that you had added info, concerning a monument to the Red Army, in the Raudone, article about a month ago. Are you sure? Seems dubious. Dr. Dan 02:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been to Raudonė in June 2005 and have seen the monument erected in spring 2005 there. I don't have any formal information to confirm this, neither any knowledge of whether there was any previous monument in this place before. Nevertheless, I appreciated the monument being there in spite of the difficult Soviet past of Lithuania. --Lysytalk 08:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a surprise, and I appreciate your time and trouble to investigate it. Dr. Dan 11:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the one in planty in Kraków, but there's a soviet monument "with tanks" in central Berlin. There's a Red Army monument (but without tanks) in Warsaw as well. It seems the people were not that hysteric to remove/destroy them all.

Wesołych Świąt!

--Lysytalk 06:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

At one point in time, when the Russians started yet another part of their "Poles disregard our brave soldiers campaign", the people to clean the Warsaw monument personally were Lech Wałęsa, Jacek Kuroń and all the leaders of the Solidarity. And most of the monuments and Soviet cemeteries in Poland (lots of them) were recently refurbished. Sure, it was in exchange for the Russian agreement to Katyn memorial opening, but still
Wesołego jaja!

//Halibutt 09:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Hello there! I've spent the best part of last three days expanding the article on Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp. Since my grandpa spent there the entire war (except for a brief period in Auschwitz), I have pretty much everything ever published on the history of the camp at home. It took me ages to dig up some non-Polish sources as well, but I think that now the article is decently-sourced (Google was never my true friend until the invention of Google Books). I thought that you might perhaps want to take a look at it and check for possible dubious statements, omissions or errors. Feel free to use as many {{fact}} tags as you please :) //Halibutt 02:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dziękuję

Naści Pisankę za dobre słowo :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Enlarge
Naści Pisankę za dobre słowo :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Happy Easter to you too. Balcer 21:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Riga

It would be useful if you'd provide specific links to the edit. In my last edit I just pasted some info from PSW article, not written by me. The entire PoRiga article is in need of a major copyedit - too little info about the negotiations compared to aftermath.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can use the Wikipedia:Page history tool, you are literate enough to give specific links to them, like this: [3]. Especially since time zones play havoc with any specific time references, making them mostly useless.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A relative? :D

User:Dan. Perhaps you should introduce yourself :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No relation. An interesting user to say the least. His small fixation on Korzybski, makes me wonder if he may not be a Rodak of yours. Dr. Dan 12:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edith Stein

Unfortunately, no. Feel free to remove the category, and I will come back to the matter when I find some sources. Appleseed (Talk) 13:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Easter greetings

Voistinu voskrese! (which means "Truly He is risen!" in Old Church Slavonic). --Ghirla -трёп- 14:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Enlarge
Voistinu voskrese! (which means "Truly He is risen!" in Old Church Slavonic). --Ghirla -трёп- 14:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Easter greetings and piano template

Hi Dr. Dan. Thanks for your Easter greetings. I send mine to you as well — a bit late, I know, but it's officially Easter until Pentecost. Sorry for ignoring you for so long. I meant to reply to you when you sent a message to me about Elser, but a lot of things came up. And I was out of the country for a whole week just after Easter. With regard to the piano template, no I had nothing to do with that. If you look at the history of the template, you'll see that it was changed on 13 April, and changed back on 17 April. If you'd prefer to have it on your own user page with the piano image, let me know. But you may prefer the pno-3 as matching the other boxes more closely. Will e-mail you some time. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 21:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elżbieta Rakuszanka

Oh dear, I dread to be visiting you here again after all this time. But check out the vote on Talk:Elżbieta Rakuszanka. The world's gone crazy! - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] W/V... city

Please take a look at talk:Wilno Uprising and comment if you are interested. --Irpen 06:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khatyn massacre

You contributed to this article recently; please take another look at it. I'm bothered by the fact that certain editors keep removing the paragraph about the choice of Khatyn as a memorial site (to confuse the issue of Katyn); no matter what is said on the talk page, it is quickly deleted. Another questionable issue is the reliance on the website of the memorial for its figures, as it is hardly a neutral, academic source. Regards, ProhibitOnions (T) 10:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Laba diena!

O ne Jūsų kalbos žinios labai geros, bet jei reikia galime naudoti EN. Kaip ir minėjau pabandysime išplėtoti informacija apie Lietuvą. O dėl priešų tai jau spėjau susidurti, ir perskaityti tas „įdomias“ nuomones, atrodo pavyko kažkiek apraminti. P.S. Kiek pastebėjau turite gerą jumoro jausmą ! Puiku! M.K. 08:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Prašau padėti rašant Sophia of Halshany. Norėčiau parašyti taip, kad nebūtų POV atvejis. Juraune 07:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Finally you got my point in the workings! Yay! :) Renata 06:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

I sent you an email - not sure which form of communication will be quicker. I am off to eat something :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Here you go:--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This user opposes the Iraq War and advocates immediate troop withdrawal.

Thank you Piotrus and Ann H., for your help in restoring my Template on the Iraq War. Dr. Dan 13:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you share your opinion, and give your vote, at Talk:Sigismund III of Poland Marrtel 11:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bells

Thanks, Dan, for providing me with another bell-related proverb. However, it does not actually say the same (not that it needed too) and since I only want to display quotations that make a statement I move it to my talk page. PS. If you know a better wording for "my" bell proverb, feel free to enlighten me. Str1977 (smile back) 20:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jagiello

Would you care to visit at Talk:Wladyslaw_II_Jagiellon_of_Poland#Survey. The simple "Jagiello" - for that there is now a formal listing going on to sign support or opposition. ObRoy 21:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Jagiello

I think you may have been right the first time. It is a lot of work to fight the cabal, and perhaps not really worth it. The Zygmunts seem to be getting fixed, owing to an increased amount of attention. Increasing the attention given to the Jogaila page is the only way to have it fixed. The name "Wladislaus II of Poland" would be better than the current one, ultimately though I'd want Jogaila. I am curious that Bohemian rulers with the same name are called "Ladislaus" on wiki; this is the same name AFAIK, and thus has the unfortunate side-effect of making the Polish rulers by these names more western slavic than the Bohemian rulers. Such differences reflect the influences of modern historians and the nationalisms of wiki contriubutors, but is very misleading. My second problem is the numbering; he is not the second ruler of Poland to bare the name Wladyslaw, and although this seems the dominant number on wiki, it does not seem to be so in the historical literature; why not give him his actual regnal numeral? My third problem is that this ruler was not even Polish, and his Lithuanian kingdom was much more powerful than the comparatively small Polish kingdom he tried to absorb into the High Kingdom of Lithuania; to me it is a Polish nationalist masturbation to give preference to his tenure as King of Poland; it's a bit like titling Frederick Barbarossa Federico I of Italy. But I recognize the latter point is unfightable; it would take a rigorous and tiresome reciting of arguments and evidence to get this point across, and the only people who'd take any notice would be the Polish nationalists, who'd just ignore it anyway. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 04:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Polish medieval monarchs naming

Hi. I have proposed to move the following monarchs from their current, generally Polish-spelled names (with diacriticals) to the systematical English name, citing my general ground that English should be used, not Polish. Would you share your opinion at Talk:Bolesław I the Brave , Talk:Bolesław II the Bold, Talk:Mieszko II Lambert, Talk:Władysław III Spindleshanks, Talk:Jan I Olbracht and Talk:Kazimierz III the Great. Marrtel 19:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piłsudski

Piłsudski an anti-Semite? Rubbish... To make long thing short, if Piłsudski was an anti-S, then all people on earth are (which of course is highly likely, judging by the comments of some of the more close-minded members of the Jewish community, and especially so those living in the US...). But, to the best of my knowledge, he was one of the people one could hardly associate with A-S at all...

As a politician he was a pro-state leader who didn't really care much for the ethnicities, unlike his famed opponent Dmowski. Also, as a socialist (in a 19th-centurish style) he did not care much for religions either. There are some direct mentions of the "Jewish cause" in his late 19th century writings (read collected works recently), but these are focused on the social and political aspect. For instance he criticized the Sionists and Jewish socialists for not being radical enough and for trying to find some modo vivendi with the Tsardom. Which, however, didn't have anything to do with Jews as a nation/religion/ethnicity, as he equally criticized the most pro-Russian nationalists of Dmowski and radical socialists of SDKPiL.

Anyway, this is rather Piłsudski's pre-history. As to his later political career, I can't really think of a single situation where his actions could be interpreted that way. In fact Piłsudski was supported by the conservative and leftist Jews of Poland alike from the beginning of his influence on Polish politics. The Jewish MPs supported "his" candidate for the first president of Poland (Narutowicz), chief rabbi issued his own petitions to the Jewish community asking them to support Poland in the war of 1918-1920 and so on. (There was a famous memo from the Jewish MPs issued on July 13, 1920, at the height of Bolshevik offensive. It was published in the press between a similar memo from the primate and a memo from the Ukrainian MPs and started with "Jews, your Polish motherland is in danger". ). Anyway, perhaps some of them saw him as a lesser evil, I don't know... The fact is that until his death he was strongly supported by Jewish parties (both Bund, but also Poalej-Syjon; the earlier was initially some sort of a "Jewish section" of Piłsudski's Polish Socialist Party). And I would yet have to see some mention of Piłsudski as an anti-Semite. //Halibutt 07:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As to his wife being Jewish - I have no idea. Never heard of Aleksandra or Maria Piłsudska being of some Jewish ancestry, though it is somehow probable. After all (and to the utter surprise of our nationalists) it is really hard to find a Pole who would not have some Jewish ancestry :) Aleksandra's father was a bourgeois from Suwałki had a fairly peasant surname of Paweł. It might be indeed a peasant surname, but it could as well be Jewish, Armenian or any other. Maria on the other hand was most surely of szlachta origin as her father was of Abdank Coat of Arms. But this in itself does not prove anything... //Halibutt 06:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

I went ahead and added the code for the userbox that you wanted. How does it look? Personally, I think the colors clash a bit, but if you like it, that's all that matters! If you'd like me to modify the color of one of them though, I can do that. Just point me at a color somewhere that you'd like instead, and I'll change the code accordingly. --Elonka 13:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queen Mother

hi, Dr Dan, you are right, your edit was valid and I was too fixed on Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother (1900–2002) — the widow of George VI and mother of Queen Elizabeth II. However, in my opinion the current version lets less likely stumble someone over it, like I did, but feel free to reedit, I won't touch it again. --Gf1961 13:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Move

Check out the page Sanktuarium Matki Bożej Bolesnej Królowej Polski, Licheń. Yes, it is on English wikipedia. Recently it was moved by Halibutt from Sanctuary of Our Lady of Licheń. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Not so recently, it was almost a year ago. And indeed, I overreacted after I was explained that, while all churches in Wikipedia should be named in English, the German churches are to be called in German. There was a heated debate at Dresden Frauenkirche BTW. Anyway, the problem is now solved, so I don't see where's the fire. //Halibutt 09:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPA

I think I'm beginning to understand and agree with your efforts concerning the IPA tag. Would you be so kind as to place one on the article about Kraków, for me. Some of my computer skills need tutoring. Dr. Dan 02:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I am slightly confused by your request. As far as I can tell the pronounciation information already there, ['krakuf], is accurate IPA. We should probably make that clearer, I was looking for a good way of presenting IPA when we also have a sound file, I saw this somewhere, but I cannot find it now. Stefán Ingi 12:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You placed the tag on the Algirdas article. Maybe I don't understand the purpose of the tag, or perhaps your understanding of when where it should be applied. Can you elucidate? Dr. Dan 12:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The article on Algirdas currently has the pronounciation information: approximate English transcription [ˈaːl(ə).gır.dʌs], simplified Lithuanian transcription [āl'girdas]. The approximate English transcription is probably correct IPA but not useful because it seems to be more or less explaining how a "general English speaker" (whatever that means) might pronounce the word with no knowledge of Lithuanian. What we should be giving is a transcription of how a Lithuanian speaker pronounces it. This is the purpose of the simplified Lithuanian transcription given but in my opinion, this simplified Lithuanian transcription should be replaced by IPA because it is more likely that readers will know IPA than some different transcription system which is only used on six pages or so. Stefán Ingi 14:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Would such a tag be appropriate on the article about Kemal Attaturk?
I looked at the article and some of the interwikilinks but then other things came up, sorry. The thing is, however, that we don't seem to have any pronounciation infromation on Kemal Atatürk anywhere, but the cleanup-ipa tag is for articles where do have some information but not in the most appropriate form. Thus, on the Lithuanian articles I tagged, I would possibly be able to make the switch to IPA myself, but it would take some time and in the meantime I put the tag on in the hope that somebody who would be able to do it more quickly would do it. Finally, returning to Atatürk, I will put up a request at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language for somebody to put up an IPA for it but I cannot do anything more as I know nothing about Turkish. Stefán Ingi 20:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
What is your level of knowledge in Lithuanian? Dr. Dan 20:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
None at all, but if this simplified Lithuanian transcription system is any good, then with that, and the IPA phonology table at Lithuanian language it should be possible to switch to IPA. In any case, I don't have time to do that now. Stefán Ingi 20:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Now I'm really confused. You know nothing about Lithuanian, yet you put up the IPA tags in several articles. You say you know nothing about the Turkish language, and this is why you can't put up the same tag on Attaturk. So what gives, or what's the difference? Dr. Dan 20:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The tag I put up on the Lithuanian articles is a cleanup tag. Even with (close to) no knowledge of Lithuanian it is possible that I can clean up the pronounciation information that is already there on the Lithuanian articles. But I cannot find any pronounciation information at all in any form on Atatürk so without knowledge of how Turkish spelling corresponds to Turkish pronounciation I cannot do anything. Stefán Ingi 21:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
In any case, the request bore fruit. [4] Stefán Ingi 21:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Good. Knowledge is power! Dr. Dan 22:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

Hi Dan. I did not check sockpuppets personally since I do not have the acess rights to do so. I only copied the sockpuppet info to variouy (numerous) talk pages. The check was done by User:Mackensen. If you need a sockpuppet verififcation, try Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. Also, I only copied the info, but did not adjust the vote results. Best wishes and happy editing! -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pact of Vilnius and Radom

Dan, I think I need to cool off, as I feel my wikistress level is rising dangerously. I start to suspect that you're pretending you do not understand what I'm writing as it seems so obvious to me. Also, I think the discussion is not worth the time, maybe come back to it later, when we have some real sources to support the "Pact of Vilnius and Radom" version. Anyway, thanks for your patience. --Lysytalk 22:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested link

I think this is the one that you're looking for: Mediation cabal. If you have any questions, let me know! --Elonka 23:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Władysław II Jagiełło

must have missed that. I put it on Talk:Wladyslaw Jagiello of Poland/Archive 2, but not on Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło/Archive 5. Just added it. -- Chris 73 | Talk 16:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dan...

Don't get me wrong, but please be gone from my talk page. I'm a tad tired lately and I easily get offended by remarks such as yours. Also, I've had a hard time recently and my tolerance towards people behaving as childishly as you has reached incredibly low level. You don't have to think highly of me, you don't even have to think of me at all. Neither do you have to read my comments you believe you reply to, that's not obligatory either. But when talking to other people do not make them think I said something whereas what I actually said was exactly the opposite. It's both unfair and, in this context, slanderous.

Finally, the best place to settle issues with Balcer is his talk page, not mine. If you want to continue offending me - feel free to. Go on with your comments on any page you like, feel free to put things in my mouth and call my comments (you apparently don't read) with fancy offensive terms, go on with your patronizing tone and hey, I have no idea what's it all about but I'll call you a moron just in case remarks - but in any way please get lost from my talk page with such remarks. Capisci? Thanks in advance. //Halibutt 21:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Alternatively you might want to point me to a place where I suggested that the names were invented in 1918.

[edit] Halibutt...

Since, you want me to be gone from your talk pages, I'll give you the courtesy of a short, but to the point reply, on my own. Having lived considerably longer than you, and after reading the history of your imput in Wikipedia (particularly on the talk pages), from a long way back, I feel I may have a better idea of where you're coming from, than you do. Perhaps, if you re-read some of the comments written by the opposition to your being voted an administrator, it might remind you of many other people's perspective about you, other than your own. Your command of English is good, so I'm not sure if it's your very big Ego, or some inability to understand certain nuances in the English language, that has upset the equilibrium of your feelings, and delicate psyche, and caused you to become upset. If you can't "take it", don't "dish it out", to others. And boy, have you dished it out, and often! I wish you would have written a similar statement earlier, like the one above, to your compadre, Pan Molobo; if you had, it might have saved him from his vacation. In regards to your invitation, not to visit your talk page anymore, this will not be difficult, as I do not like to go where I'm not welcome. You may, however, feel free to visit mine, if you so choose. But, should you choose not to, I will not cry or lose sleep, if in the words of the immortal Groucho Marx, you do not "darken my towels again". Capisci tambien? Dr. Dan 22:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not mean a complete divorce, but a step back and a minute or two of hesitation before you post yet another such comment on my talk page would most definitely do you good.
WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL bind all of us, even as intelligent, excellent, infallible editors as yourself. Mentioning my ego, suggesting my arguments (and me personally in consequence) are pseudo-intellectual, summarizing the whole argument of those you disagree with as gibberish and so on and so forth - all of these are perfect examples of how not to behave. Having lived considerably longer than me you should know that by now and I must admit that I'm kind of disapointed to see this is not that obvious. Also, putting things in my mouth and then bashing me for your own inventions is unfair, a tad similar to the famous when did you stop beating your wife argument. This very case is even more disrupting, as I'm trying hard to find some modo vivendi with two of our newly-arrived Lithuanian editors (much like with many others before), an effort you're certainly not helping by strengthening antagonisms with your lies.
I doubt you'd be happy if I adopted the same tactics you use - against you. First I'd start to look down on you, then add a suggestion of extremism or nationalism here and there (boy, would be hell of a fun), then would call you names and in the end ask other editors (but not you personally) why do you think Hitler should've murdered all Frenchmen as well. It wouldn't bother me at all whether that's what you stated anywhere; slander is a fun in itself. Get the point now? I'm trying to behave properly - and I expect reciprocity if abiding by the rules of Wikipedia is too complicated. If that's too much to ask for then I'm sorry to bother you. //Halibutt 00:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, it was I, that adopted your tactics in the first place, rather than the other way around. In any case, I have read and re-read these above comments (your response, not your original kind words of civility), and I can honestly understand only about 10% of what you're writing. Maybe you do need to rest a little. I also want to say in closing, that most of my "slanderous", as you call them, remarks have been in response to the snotty double entendres, and the edits of a pompous blowhard, who resents being challenged or corrected. Again, I will not mince words with you, and allow myself to be maligned and insulted by you. For each dart you throw, you'll get an ICBM in return. Please do not bother to respond, because your original suggestion above, not to have contact for now, would be in both of our best interests. I hope you'll feel better knowing that, on that point I agree with you, and tell you that you are right. Regarding the newly arrived Lithuanian editors, that you are trying hard to find some modo vivendi with, I think that's what triggered my hostility, in the first place. That, and the user:Logologist sock puppet issue, really made me stand back and see things in a different light. But that is going to be something the newbies will have to work out for themselves. Maybe you need to ask them, if they think your attitude, tactics, and approach to them has been, what you think it is. Dr. Dan 01:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continuation from Talk:Republic of Central Lithuania

...

I think I misunderstood the purpose of your comment, Dr. Dan. --Lysytalk 17:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

And it's not the first time in these discussions. I truly resent your continual attempts to missrepresent my comments, and your "sticking your nose" in my debates with others, before the other party has a chance to respond. Am I being too sensitive, or are are you continually trying to fan the embers of animosity between people? Dr. Dan 21:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

(I have copied the above lines from Talk:Republic of Central Lithuania and I'll respond here, in order not to spam the article's talk page with our private chats.)
Dan, there's nothing like "your debate with others", wikipedia is a collaborative project. Your above comment is aggressive, ad personam and unnecessarily inflamatory. I do not want to sound aggressive (as I'm not) but some of your recent comments seem like you've mistaken wikipedia for a chat-line. If you have problems with my particular edits, please discuss them specifically, but try not to attack me as an editor. If you really have problems with me, feel free to use my talk page. I appreciate your comment about your perception of my attempts to antagonise people. I think you are wrong but I will be considering this as nobody is fully conscious of his behaviour. I'd also like to use this opportunity to state that I was not aware of that you're having a problem with me as an editor and that I do not feel any hostility towards you even if I may be unnecessarily excited or sometimes upset with some of your remarks. --Lysytalk 10:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, you seem to have a very selective memory this morning (even in these three edits of yours, that you have put together in the last half hour, added, re-added, and deleted, SEE: the above history talk, user:Dr.Dan). It's precicisely your ad personam, and unnecessarily inflamatory remarks, that you still haven't explained, that started this "new" issue. It is nice however, that you moved this out of Talk:Republic of Central Lithuania, so as not to spam the article's talk page. I would hope you do that with a lot more of your "chats", as you call them, with some other editors. Unfortunately, if you do, it will keep you rather busy. Dr. Dan 13:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to, frankly. I'm usually trying not to use ad personam arguments in discussion on wiki articles. Apparently I'm missing something. Could I (very kindly) ask you to point to a specific edit of mine that you have in mind. Or maybe it is that you find handling friendly criticism difficult and therefore react with personal attack on me ? --Lysytalk 16:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, re-read our "discussion" regarding islands of Lithuanian, Kashubian, and German speakers in Poland, so you can regain a sense of what I'm referring to. Then you can tell me what you thought I think I misunderstood the purpose of your comments, the purpose of my comments were? Dr. Dan 16:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Dan, a paragraph above you've accused me of making ad personam remarks and I have asked you to provide a reference edit for that. Do you still stand that I attacked you personally in the dispute, or were you mistaken ? --Lysytalk 17:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding my not undestanding the purpose of your earlier comment, here is what you wrote: "An interesting observation. I too, met people from these "small islands" of Lithuanian language, while in Poland (which in the modern world of mass communications, began to erode}. I saw the same phenomenon in the Kashubian areas. Dr. Dan 14:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)" Now, what was the reason for you to put that comment there ? And why did you consider this to be "an interesting observation". What's so unusual about this and why did you decide to mention that ? --Lysytalk 17:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My remark was to Juraune regarding her observation about islands of Lithuanian speakers in Belarus. Now will you answer my question? What did YOU misunderstand my comment to mean? Dr. Dan 17:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that it was regarding her observation about islands of Lithuanian speakers in Belarus as it immediately followed her statement. What I did not understand was your purpose in making this comment (let me quote it again): I too, met people from these "small islands" of Lithuanian language, while in Poland (which in the modern world of mass communications, began to erode}. I saw the same phenomenon in the Kashubian areas. --Lysytalk 19:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I have also noticed that you've again missed my request to provide references for my edits that led you to claim that I've been personally attacking you. Here it comes once more, then: ... you've accused me of making ad personam remarks and I have asked you to provide a reference edit for that. Do you still stand that I attacked you personally in the dispute, or were you mistaken ? --Lysytalk 19:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Like a roulette ball, round and round it goes, where it'll stop nobody knows! Without making this too complicated Lysy, maybe if you answered my question, you'd have the answer to your own question. Juraune made a point, I responded to it. No ulterior motives. No agenda. A simple comment to her, with reference to a couple of personal experiences. In fact, I find your remark (or question), Do you find anything wrong with it? (the Lithuanian, Kashubian or German speakers in Poland), to be exceptionally ridiculous. Since you'll probably find this remark undoubtedly to be an ad hominem attack, you need to tell me for the last time, just what were you driving at. Just what, did you read into my comments to Juraune. You know, the comments to her that you needed to respond to so badly that she didn't even have time to respond back. And on another point of yours, Wikepedia is a collaborative project, of course it is. But if I ask Piotrus or someone else a question, or they ask me one, it's a simple courtesy to let them respond. Don't you agree? Or should one be like a child who can't hold it, and goes in their pants? So what was your intent, with your unrelated and hostilely formulated remarks? Could the answer to the riddle be in your still unforthcoming answer? Dr. Dan 22:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Dan, why is it that you cannot give an answer to a simple question other that with another question ? It's not a lesson in rhetorics that I'm expecting from you. A simple question can be addressed with a simple answer. So, let me put it in another way (for the fourth time now): Can you please provide a diff of (a link to) my particular edit where you think I have attacked you personally instead of referring to your comments in a dispute ? --Lysytalk 06:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. //Halibutt
Obviously this has stalemated to neither party getting a satisfactory answer to their question. Or should I say, the answer they want to hear. I have told you several times now, that the answer to your question, lies in your answer to my question. Since I believe your interjection caused the altercation in the first place (and was interpreted by me, as very hostile), I have asked you to correct my perception. An interesting observation of mine (I know how you like those), is that in these disputes, many questions often go unanswered. How about this, you are right and I am wrong. Case closed. Dr. Dan 14:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, if you felt attacked, I apologize. It was not intended or I was not aware of (what you have obviously perceived as) my evil intentions. I am sorry that you felt bad about this. No evil intentions again here, but I think you are very sensitive. --Lysytalk 17:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
And my apologies to you. And please Lysy, I do not consider you evil, nor your intentions to be evil either. You're kidding aren't you? What I really and truly would like to know, however, is what you thought the intention of my remarks to Juraune were? What was "strange" or "thought was wrong" regarding islands of minorities in Poland speaking in their native tongues? Dr. Dan 17:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
No secret here. The islands of ethnic minorities in Poland seemed so obvious to me that your mentioning it as an "interesting observation" seemed strange, especially that you are more familiar with Poland than an average American. I did not know what was the purpose of the comment, therefore I asked you. Probably could have done it in a more polite way, but I didn't expect you'd interpret a simple question as a personal attack. I'm still surprised, esp. after you claimed you had a thick skin. Dan, can I ask you a personal question now ? --Lysytalk 18:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I do claim to have a thick skin, and I also have claimed when darts are thrown at it (especially when I think there is an agenda, and ulterior motive behind it, God forbid you should think I mean you), I will respond with an ICBM. Forgive me for keeping the pressure on you , but I think you are using weasel words, to lessen the sarcasm of your questions and remarks.
Juraune made a point. I agreed with it. I added a comment that my observations and experiences, in meeting these people, confirmed her statement. The Kashubian encounter, is particularly humorous, and to this day appreciated by me in a personal and heartfelt way. They helped me Big Time. You then stated that my remarks seemed "strange". Then you asked what's wrong with these minorities speaking in their own native tongues? As if I said something was wrong, with that. I don't think it has anything to do with "politeness". Can you honestly think the issue is, that you could have asked this more politely? I took it as a provocation. Plainly and simply! And nothing you have said, lessens my perception to that effect. I accepted your couched apology, and gave one to you. The matter is over in my mind, because you will not admit to what you were doing.
Your buddy (the one that I'm taking a short break from, see: Above remarks concerning Halibutt), likes to accuse people of putting words in his mouth. Your question, Drogi Lysy, What's wrong with that?, is doing precisely that. Why, because I never said or implied that there was anything wrong with that. If it's not clear now, I don't think it's possible to make it any clearer. At least not in English! Regarding your asking me a personal question, I'm not sure. Maybe "No Original Research", should be followed up with "No Personal Questions". But since we're becoming old friends by now, why don't you send me an email, and that will keep the question and answer truly personal. Or is this the kind of personal question that needs to be thrown out into the colloseum, or some other arena? Dr. Dan 20:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Dan, your comment about Kashubian minority in Poland was completely irrelevant to the thread where Jaurane discussed the ethnic grounds of Lithuanian claims to Vilnius. Your observation of the obvious yet irrelevant fact was so peculiar in this context, that I've asked:
There are areas where people speak Lithuanian, Kashubian or German in Poland, but is this something strange ? Do you find anything wrong with it ?
A fairly innocent question that could be answered with a simple statement like: "Yes, this is strange because I thought Kashubians lived in Lithuania" or "No, nothing's wrong about this, I just thought that was the right moment to impress everyone with my knowledge of ethnic minorities in Poland". Instead you've chosen first to accuse me of using ad personam arguments and when I asked you to show where you saw ad personam argument in my question, you resorted to claiming that it was my provocation. This now is particularly absurd as it was your irrelevant comment that triggered my question in the first place. Again then, why did you make this observation about Kashubians in the discussion about Lithuanian claims to Vilnius ? Did you think that would shed some more light on the discussed topic ? Or did you just think "Hm, boy, that reminds me of Kashubians, I'd better type something", or was it a failed provocation of yours ? Was this what made you angry ? --Lysytalk 20:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
No. Dr. Dan 20:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
For the nth time: what was your purpose in mentioning it then ? --Lysytalk 21:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
LYSY:There are areas where people speak Lithuanian, Kashubian, or German in Poland, but is this something strange? Do you find anything wrong with it?
Dr. DAN: No, and no. Dr. Dan 22:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
p.s. As for the Kashubians, why did I mention them? Probably for the same reason you added the Germans. You see, sometimes subjects expand to include different, but related topics. Your instinctive reaction to add Germans to minority speakers in Poland, was the same and only reason I added the Kashubians (I might not have been so attuned to them, if they hadn't helped me personally, when my car broke down near a Kashubian village). So then, for the first time: Can you explain your purpose in mentioning the Germans in your above question, and their relation to the the "thread where Juraune discussed the ethnic grounds of Lithuanian claims to Vilnius"? Your "honest" answer would once again answer the question that you have yourself posed, (and although you have asked me a lot of questions, the Kashubian one is new, I couldn't read your mind).
p.p.s. I enjoyed your "hypothetical answers", that I should have given you, to your innocent question very innocent question ..."Yes this is strange because I thought Kashubians lived in Lithuania" or the even better, "No, nothing's wrong about this" (sic), I just thought that was the right moment to impress everyone with my knowledge of ethnic minorities in Poland"... Now, now, Lysy calm down.
I am calm but thanks for reminding. Let me try to summarise, then:
Dr. Dan made a purposeless irrelevant comment in a discussion about Lithuanian claims to Vilnius. The comment puzzled Lysy, who asked what's wrong or strange with Poland having minorities. Dr. Dan interpreted the question as ad hominem argument against his statement. Eventually they both engaged in a time wasting dispute.
Would you agree with this summary ? --Lysytalk 06:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I would, but with three important amendments. The puzzled Lysy's comment, or question rather, then puzzled Dr. Dan, who never said that there was anything wrong with Poland having minorities. The puzzled Dr. Dan thought this comment (question), was even more purposeless and irrelevant than his own comment. Dr. Dan's mention of Kashubians had nothing to do with "the thread" of the discussion, while Lysy's mention of Germans did. How's that? Dr. Dan 13:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, everything that followed was irrelevant, including mentioning Germans. That is why we've decided to continue this entertaining discussion in your userspace that you've kindly provided for hosting it, instead of the article's talk. --Lysytalk 18:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not only entertaining, but very revealing, as you change tack from edit to edit. Incidentally, since the personal question that you wanted to ask me, never came by way of email, can I assume the question was to be a "public" personal question, rather than a "private" personal question, so as to continue the good will and desire to reach a consensus between us, that you've been demonstrating? Or is Lysy puzzled by this question too?. Dr. Dan 18:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it was not intended to be a public question, neither a very private one. I was just curious of something but since you did not express enthusiasm, I will not bother you with this and my curiosity will have to live with it. Nothing important, really. --Lysytalk 20:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A unusual choice of words since you did not express enthusiasm, considering in the final analysis that this "pissing match", is wasting both of our time, and getting on both of our nerves. What's there to be enthusiastic about, a "personal" question that you would prefer to ask publically? Let's quit entertaining the "peanut gallery", and resume our more useful and collaborative work to make Wikipedia better. No white flag from either of us, just an olive branch from both of us, to each other, and my hopes that we drink a setka of Starka together, when we meet. Dr. Dan 23:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"Let us begin anew-remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof"...
-John Fitzgerald Kennedy

[edit] Cleanup Templates

I noticed that you recently applied an improperly formatted cleanup template. I have fixed the template, but felt I should tell you that it needed to be replaced. You can find a list of properly formatted cleanup templates here. Please note that it is never appropriate to substitute a cleanup tag.

Thank you very much for your contributions to Wikipedia. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Alphachimp talk 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Józef Piłsudski

Could you help adress the concerns you raised during FAC process? Unfortuanately I am not sure what I can improve in the article that would make you change your vote, could you help us balance it further?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Jogaila

Hi there. Despite a whopping victory for the name Jogaila on the previous vote, the Polish users have got upset and called yet another vote. They want to get it moved back to the old unpopular name Władysław II Jagiełło. If you are interested in stopping this, you'll need to cast your vote again. Sorry for all this tediousness. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh well! I thought there was an agreement to wait a month. Or is the urgency to move it an immediate crisis? Dr. Dan 04:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, Piotrus and Elonka couldn't wait a month with the new name. The funny thing is, because the result went against them, they wanna do it again; but it was Elonka who did the poll in the first place, and it is her again who is doing the new one, which has exactly the same format as the one they don't like. What can I say?! Well, I bet you my bottom dollar you won't here old Pete complain is it goes his way. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 10:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
If the support for Jogaila is as overwhelming as you claim, then the name will easily win a proper RM vote. The vocal opposition to holding such a vote can only serve as proof that no concensus support for such a move exists. Can you at least be honest and admit that you oppose the RM vote because you know you will not receive concensus majority support?Balcer 16:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, there was a poll. It was a ten option poll set up by Elonka (an opponent of the outcome) which was endorsed by everyone until the result came up unfavorably. Jogaila won with a 60% margin over the diacritic name, and was one vote from a majority in what was, after all, a ten option poll. There is clearly no other name as popular as Jogaila. If you wanna propose a vote away from Jogaila then it's up to you and others who support you to find a name which could be popular enough to gain the consensus you say you're so interested in to get a vote to that name from Jogaila. Simple as that my friend. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Dan, a quick question about your Iraq analogy, which I find puzzling. When did the US last overturn the results of an Iraqi election, because they were unacceptable? Since I cannot recall any such instance (at least not on national level), what did you mean exactly when you wrote the discussion was "like the "democratic" elections being held in Iraq". The discussion is confusing enough, and there is no need to inject false analogies. Please explain what you meant, or change your comments appropriately. Balcer 16:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
First of all did I ever say on a "national" level. If I had used Palestine and the Hamas electoral victory instead, would that have been a better analogy? Could I get your permission to use that analogy instead? Btw, are you suggesting with your question, that your purpose is to overturn the results of this poll, because they were unacceptable?The fact remains that there has been plenty of disapproval from Washington when the "preferred" candidates lost in Iraq's and Afghanistan's local elections. Perhaps like there might have been in Warsaw, if Zeligowski's "election" in Litwa Srodkowa had backfired. Dr. Dan 16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(response to talkpage comment) Thanks for the kind words, Dr. Dan. You are most welcome. :) --Elonka 05:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for advice

Hello, could you please check my message at the bottom of User:Dmcdevit's page, as well as links provided to WP:RCU, WP:AN, WP:ANI. Some guy is stalking me from Warsaw - Molobo? Logologist? Bonaparte? AndriyK? Actually, I don't know who he is but I don't like it. Given your experience in the Polish segment of this project, I hope you will be able to discern who the pesky anon might be. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concern

Dr. Dan, hiya, I wanted to express a concern about some of your recent talkpage comments, like, "You Lithuanians are way overboard," "You should be ashamed of yourselves. What next? If you get your way, you'll probably want to steal these Polish architects from the list," "I'm more concerned with informing those who are unfamiliar with the facts, than to convince hopeless, biased cases," etc. Though I fully agree with you that some others in the discussion are occasionally uncivil (okay, sometimes more than occasionally <grin>), there are better ways to deal with them than responding in kind. And indeed, if some of your own comments are perceived as violations of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, then it makes it that much more difficult for us to address the real problem users later, because to a third-party observer, it becomes difficult to tell who started it. :/ As such, could I kindly ask you to be a bit more careful with your words, and try to concentrate more on attacking the ideas, instead of the people? That will be a more effective way of getting your point across, and will also have benefits in the long run, if in the future we need to proceed to a higher level of dispute resolution to get a real problem user taken care of. :) Thanks, Elonka 18:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right, as usual. Your tact, embarrasses me. Perhaps my overuse of sarcasm needs to be put into check. I have learned this by emmulating some poor previous examples on WK, and will take your suggestion to heart. It's not easy. BTW, the Lithuanians never complained because they knew I was joking. Without being specific, there are unfortunately some biased and hopeless cases extant all over the place in life, not just Wikipedia. When they perceive that they are "winning" the argument, all is good and well, no matter what brutality and tactics are used by them. When they are losing the argument, they whine and put in complaints of being abused. What's really funny is whether they are named or not, for some reason or another, they paranoidedly (sic) feel that it's they who are being attacked, even when the point was more generally implied. Guilty consciences maybe? I will take your advice to heart, and thank you. You are truly delightful to interact with. Dr. Dan 20:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kościuszko była kobietą

Just so you know, that is a cult movie line from Sexmission, one of the greatest science-fiction comedies of all time. Still, it definitely did not add anything to the discussion, so it should have been removed. The moron comment might be seen as a bit harsh though. Balcer 15:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know about Sexmission. Thought it was a vandal, and I consider all vandals to be morons. No harshness about it. In any case it wasn't true, made no sense, and survived too long. For our non-Polish speakers, the line means Kościuszko was a woman. And that he was not! Dr. Dan 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Correction, it's not the exact quote of the line, but the idea is the same. For more, see Polish Wikiquote page. Balcer 23:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Balcer drogi, don't leave the impression that my translation of the line is incorrect, just that you are approximating or paraphrasing the movie line. O.K.? Dr. Dan 23:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Just joking! Dr. Dan 23:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Dan, but this chatter is a waste of time. I asked you why do you insist on labelling the prosecutors' office as Communist. You responded with a zillion of fancy stories, yet not a single concrete argument. So, it seems to me that your line of reasoning was more or less like this: I don't like the idea or do not believe it happened, but it seems I'm pretty alone in that and won't find sources to back my stance up. So I'll just label those who oppose my views as Commies, in order to make their stance less credible. Am I wrong?

As to personal remarks, beware of such accusations in the future, people here are extremely touchy when it comes to accusing their relatives of collaboration - and especially so in the families of people who have spent some time as political prisoners and where there was not a single party member.

The rest of your story could be used as a pretty good example on why do I question your tactics of mixing ideology with facts for some obscure reasons. You are of course a Ku-Klux-Klanist American historian, right? If we chose some ideology of some of the locals - out of the blue - and apply it to the entire people, then why not this particularly interesting part of American history? So, let's go forward and paraphrase your comment. You are a KKK historian (or McCarthyist, or Imperialist, or... pick any adjective you like). You, dear Dan, were born after that criminality was on the ropes and the writing of that inevitable fact was on the wall. Your perspective is somewhat tainted by the fact that you probably had many relatives that held prominent positions in the Ku-Klux-Klan (McCarthy's commission, whatever; please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that I am). (...) Don't kid yourself listening to some nostagia from the revisionists, of what it was.

Tit for tat?

I was born early enough to know all what you describe, which however does not explain why do you believe that everything here in Poland (even a foreign tourist with bucks in his pocket such as yourself) was communist. So, you shared the fate of the rest of the people and ate frankfurters or black pudding instead of schabowy. Does it explain why do you believe the black pudding was communist? Nope. I enjoyed reading your fancy stories, but it seems it's an art for itself - and a waste of time. //Halibutt 06:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Colosimo

I saw an editor apparently randomly changing dates; don't really know any more about this other than what Britannica says. Gimmetrow 03:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dievas

I've rewritten Dievas (Lithuanian god) completely, but it needs a good copyediting. Your help is always welcomed in this. Thanks. Linas Lituanus 13:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish-Lithuanian Union

I believe you already know it, but your Lublin corrections suggest you used to believe that Lithuanian was the officail languge of Lithuania. It wasn't, it was Ruthenian, ie. pre-Byelorussian language, sometimes called Lithuanian. Xx236 08:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write to me. I generally do not respond to anonymous contributors. Perhaps we can discuss this sometime in the future when I know who you are, Xx236. Dr. Dan 02:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Dan, Xx236 is a registered user, and his first edit was 10 days before yours. He is no more anonymous than you are :-) --Lysytalk 12:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm writing about historical facts, which you seem to not know when you were writing your older contributions, not about me.
  • You can read my contributions, if you want to know, who I am. I don't think that my age or color of eyes make me more or less reliable.

Xx236 10:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Xx236, Sorry for jumping the gun about your anonymity. Lysy, thank you for sticking your nose into this matter to "clear it up" for me. Although his user name is in red, and he or she has told us nothing about who he or she is, and what he or she is about, where he or she is from, or anything else about themselves on their user page, I guess we're both equally no more anonymous than any other contributor on Wikipedia. You would be correct to say that such information is not required to contribute on WK. Where I come, from and Wikipedia was created, free thought and expression are something that we are very proud of. I've lived in societies where this was not possible. Xx236, you are making no sense to me at all. What did I write about Lublin that refers to anything about the Ruthenian language vs. the Lithuanian language? Add the historical facts that you mentioned and you write about so proudly, if you bother to do so. While you are at it btw, what does your age and eye color have to do with Rome or the Crimea? And if you have some difficulty answering my questions, maybe Lysy can "help you out", a little. Dr. Dan 03:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your contribution was:

Lublin is situated hundreds kilometers from ethnic Lithuania. Rather its Ukrainian name should be included. Xx236 13:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

??? What in the world are you talking about??? Dr. Dan 13:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your contribution was:

Explain me the logic of your contribution rather than expressing your emotions. Xx236 11:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you confused? I've clicked on the same two links that you claim I made a contribution to, twice. I do not recall making a contribution there, nor does the history of the aricle show that I ever did. I've read a lot of your contributions, and at first thought your weak ability to communicate in English, was responsible for a lot of the nonsense that you have written. I'm now beginning to doubt, that that's the problem. My emotions, however are in check. Once again, and for the last time, where did you come up with the Lithuanian language, Lublin, and the connection to Ruthenian language, as it concerns my contributions regarding them. Otherwise don't waste my time. And thanks for letting me know the proximity of Ukraine to Lublin, as opposed to Lithuania's proximity to Lublin. Especially since it probably, in your mind, has some relevancy to a contribution that I never made. Why don't you get involved in editing the articles about Rome and the Crimea, like in "Gdzie Rzym, gdzie Krym!". Dr. Dan 12:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xx236

Several days have passed and I have heard nothing from Xx236, concerning his "potshots" at me. If you are going to make nonsensical statements on my talk page as you did above, please have the courtesy to respond to my question about what you are referring to. What did my "Lublin corrections" have to do with the Ruthenian language? If you won't or can't respond, please do not darken my towels again as Groucho once said, by making such remarks regardless of what your age is, or what the color of your eyes are. It would be your your inability to do so, that would make you less reliable, bubba! Nothing else. Dr. Dan 06:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

There is a vote going on at Talk:Cináed I of Scotland to move loads of early Scottish kings to anachronistic English names which are going out of favour in English language publications. People supporting the move have no knowledge or contribution history in the area, yet the wiki pop voting will nevertheless result in a victory unless they are opposed. Regards. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discretion blocks by admins

Hi Dan,

in a followup, so to speak, to my earlier post at WP:AN that you commended I would like to draw your attention to this Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Discretion blocks by admins.

Since you were interested in the subject, I thought you might want to take a look. Feel free to write an outside opinion on the matter and/or cosign others' statements. Regards, --Irpen 23:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] N* Heaven

I'm not familiar with the word, and it doesn't seem closely related to "peanut gallery," except as another word that was sometimes used for the same or a similar thing (therefore why do more than just mention it?). I don't care that much about it either. I'm thinking a good way to handle it is to leave the "citation needed" tag in there, and let nature take its course. Probably somebody will find a citation, or somebody will delete the mention of N* Heaven.

BTW, I was interested to see all the meanings of "peanut gallery." Prior to seeing the article, I knew of it only in the Howdy Doody sense. Lou Sander 03:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Druskininkai

Dear Dr. Dan. This edit of yours troubles me. Look, if you are annoyed by names in languages other than Lithuanian in the lead of the article, move them down somewhere, maybe to the history section. But don't just obliterate them. If names in other languages can be given for say, Białystok, Sejny, Suwałki, Augustów, then why not for Druskininkai. Balcer 22:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Szanowny Balcer, Shall I assume that you have changed your earlier position, and that the Lithuanian names of Polish cities should be incorporated into the leads of their articles? I hope not. My position remains very simple, these emotionally charged attempts to aggravate peoples sensibilites are not necessary. They are insignificant and need not be included in the leads. They usually have links in the other languages. Perfect example, Rome. If someone needs to know the Polish name of Rome, all they have to do is click on the Polish link to Rome and presto, they have Rzym. As a more objective editor than some, doesn't that seem logical to you? Please understand that under the present circumstances, this remains the better option for all sides. Do we need the Japanese name for Lublin in the lead of it's article? Should our little group become the laughing stocks of this project? I think not. Don't allow yourself to be duped that the basis for these inclusions, is historical importance and notability. Anyksciai? Come on. Dr. Dan 01:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with not incorporating names from other languages into leads. Clearly, this seems to be very annoying to many editors and I can understand that. Still, I think it is something else altogether to simply obliterate names in other languages that are clearly relevant. Do you really see no way of incorporating the Polish name for Druskininkai somewhere in the text? Maybe in the section which mentions that the town was part of Poland between the wars?
Just as an exercise, check out Polish Wikipedia sometime. You might be surprised to find that articles about every single Polish city that ever used to be part of Germany prominently feature the German name in the lead (of course I can't check them all, but spot checks show this consistently). Now, if nasty, fanatical, nationalistic Poles can manage to be that enlightened about the multilingual history of their cities, why can't other people? (Not meaning this literally, of course). Balcer 02:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marija Gimbutas

Dan, since you appreciate little provocations, I thought you'd enjoy this one. Do you think Marija Gimbutas was born in Wilno of Vilnius ? --Lysytalk 14:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I always enjoy little provocations from you, Lysy. By then the Zeligowski-Pilsudski manoeuver had taken place. So yes. However, let me say that I consider Gimbutas, lucky to have been born later than Laurynas Gucevicius and Antanas Baranauskas, otherwise I'd be hearing the argument that she was a Pole, too. Dr. Dan 15:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Jagna Marczułajtis

History of this page shows it was not edited on 17th September and never edited by you or Halibutt...?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 01:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So if Balcer fixed it, what's the problem? Edit conflicts happen every so often, unless you suggest the removal of your edit was intentional?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recognition

Hey, I thought you should finally be recognized for some of your hard work on wikipedia

--Jadger 03:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar
hang in there, wikipedia needs more people like you Jadger 03:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
this award is self-explanatory, and you definitely deserve it Jadger 03:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
thank you for tirelessly reverting vandalism wherever you see it Jadger 03:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


The Resilient Barnstar
never stop learning and growing on wikipedia Jadger 03:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


The Barnstar of National Merit
thank you for expanding our knowledge on Central Europe, especially Historical Eastern Germany Jadger 03:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edit to DG to include Good Sam hospital

Dear Dr. Dan - It was a great idea to include Good Sam, but trauma center levels are not well-known. Level 1 implies lowest in most measurement scales, whereas it seems to me that it's actually the highest. Could you include some reference to this level? Sincerely, Novickas 16:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki links and names

Your argument that interwiki links are enough and that they make the inclusion of names in other languages unnecessary has a serious flaw. Those links are usually visible only on the Wikipedia website, but they are typically not carried over to Wikipedia mirrors, where many people get their Wiki-content from. Thus this page on Šilutė on answers.com does not carry interwiki links. So, quite simply, if you really believe that names in other languages should be mentioned somewhere so that the reader can easily find out what they are, the only place to achieve that consistently is through putting them inside the article text. Balcer 14:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My issue has always been about including these names in the leads of articles, followed by relevancy. Is the Polish name for this tiny town relevant? Should the Polish name for Munich be placed in it's lead too? Dr. Dan 16:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, for this particular town the Polish name can be left out, but the German name should be included. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that your argument "(has German and Polish link)" is problematic, that's all. Balcer 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
On that point, the "problematic" one, I agree. It's impossible to have one's cake and eat it too. There will always be glitches and exceptions to every situation. Now what about Munich? Dr. Dan 16:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Do I really have to answer all your rhetorical questions? Just assume I gave the obvious answer. Balcer 16:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The question was not rhetorical, and was as serious as a heart attack (God forbid either of us should have one over this matter). This particular town Munich, has no unique immumity from having it's Polish name placed in the lead of its article than any other town that we are talking about. And once again, I do not object to the areas in the Republic of Central Lithuania having these toponyms added. However tact and prudence to not include them, would be a noble gesture from Polish editors for the time being, until the matter cools down a bit, or some kind of modus vivendi can be reached. Dr. Dan 01:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Err, why do you pick on Munich, it has no special connection with Poland, so asking whether it should have a Polish name is purely rhetorical question (i.e. one that does not require an answer). Dresden might be a more interesting case, since it was by some standards a Polish capital in the 18th century. Anyway, I would tend to agree that Lithuanian towns which were not within Polish borders in the interwar period do not really need Polish names included, but that's just my opinion.
My general take on names is this. I must say I was a little bit ticked off when I first started editing (in the bygone days of 2004) that many Polish towns had German names in the leads, even towns like Poznan which retained a very strong Polish community for the past thousand years. This was especially annoying since other mainstream encylopedias like Britannica did not go to such lengths. Over time, however, my perspective on these things has changed, though I still have my limits (Lublin etc.). The fact that Polish Wikipedia, dominated by Polish POV by definition, has decided to include German names for any town which was within German/Prussian borders for a few decades (though not going to extremes, like counting the shortlived 1795-1807 period when Prussia/Austria owned just about all of today's Poland) really made me rethink the issue. My position now is that the bar for including an additional name should be fairly low, but without going too far and including names which have no use whatsoever in English publications.
Furthermore, I believe a lot of these problems will have a technological solution eventually, by for example making it possible to set the naming policy in the Wikipedia preferences. Thus there will be an option which displays only the current, modern name and nothing else, and then another option which will display all historical names in a given language. Ideally, one should be able to set Polish, Lithuanian, or German POV with a single click of the mouse.
Of course, I am not being entirely serious here, but who knows what the future holds? Wikipedia has only barely started to explore the possibilities that moving away from printed paper offers. Since I am not in a serious mood, let me share this feeling by suggesting you check out Uncyclopedia, the parody of Wikipedia. Start with Poland and Lithuania. Balcer 01:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] piece of information about prince Gui converting to christianity

Just saw your question in [5]

please excuse my poor english and wiki skills; as follows:

Is there any truth to the assertion that he "converted" to Christianity, in oder to bolster support from the West, in his struggles with the Qing? Dr. Dan 18:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
just stumbled over the same question. According to Kaminski, Gerd; Unterrieder, Else: Von Österreichern und Chinesen. Wien 1980. (= About Austrians and Chinese), a fairly reliable publication, the story goes like this:

Some jesuit missionary of Austrian origin named Andreas Koffler (1603-1651) was introduced to the "emperor" (most possibly Guiwang (桂王) but the name is never mentioned) by a converted General with the christioned name "Lukas" and the chancellor "Pan", christioned name "Achilles". The first meeting happened on a ship (but no location), which the "emperor" at that time did not dare to leave, because he was afraid of the ghosts he imagened to be on land. Kofflers explanation was, that the emperor "from time to time was quite crazy in his brains" (sounds like Guiwang ;-) The emperor was deeply impressed by the gifts (a round mirror, some mathematical instruments, a picture of holy Mary and her child and a picture of saint John) Koffler gave to the emperor. When the empress saw the picture of holy Mary and her child, she screamed, that she saw the baby boy in her dreams and was threatened by it. After some discussions about the procedures Koffler baptized the empress and the empress-mother, but could not convince the emperor himself to get baptized (especially because it would have ment, that the emperor would have to give up his concubines). Koffler managed to become more influential at the emperors court and when the empress bore a boy-child he baptized it on the name of "Konstantin"; under the condition that that child will just be allowed to marry one wife in future. Obviousely the emperor also sent a embassy of christian officials to the Jesuit mission in Macao (on chinese boats with a christian cross painted on their sails!). He even planned another embassy to the pope in Rome (which was never realized). Luck was not on the emperors side and instead of reestablishing Ming-dynasty he had to retreat from Manchu-power and finally got killed. Koffler was killed by a Manchu-captain on 12. 12. 1651 near the city "Thien-tscheu" (somewhere in Guangxi province).

The whole story was originally reported in Berichte des Pater Michael Boym vom Jahre 1653, welchen er in Rom abgestattet hat, in: Weltbott Nr.13. Teil eins und zwei (= Reports of father Michael Boym in the year 1653, which he made in Rome. In: Weltbott Nb. 13, Part one and two).

Well, the major goal of Jesuit mission was to turn high officials (and ideally the emperor himself) into christians. So when the Manchu started to invade china the jesuit missionaries split up into three groups: some fled with the troups of Zhang Xuanzhong, some with the princes of the Ming-dynasty, and the third group (among which was the influentual Johann Adam Schall von Bell) stayed in Beijing and established good contacts to the Manchu court. Consequently no matter which power should prove to control China in the future, there always will be Jesuit missionarys close to that power. In some regards Andreas Koffler was one of chinas most successful missionaries by managing to baptize the son of an emperor (the possible future emperor!).

If you have further information on this topic please let me know. --Pepolo 16:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mój Powrót Odwrotny

After a month of a self imposed "moratorium" (as I suggested others should consider regarding certain topics), I return to help build an Encyclopedia. It was my hope to also offer an olive branch towards the contentious participants that caused me to make my departure, and to try to make a small point to them as well. It seems this was delusional on my part, and it will be extremely difficult for me to do so now. I say this considering the very dissapointing response and the continuing hostilies and twisting missinterpretations conveyed by elements who wish to provoke and insult other contributors in WP. Therefore no "Olive Branch", but my visor remains open. Dr. Dan 02:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate your comments, am still in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! --Elonka 19:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You are very welcome. The result was very regrettable, and WP's loss, for now. Dr. Dan 00:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Dear Space, we've never really talked one on one. So what is your rationale for adding the Polish name of Biržai to English WP? Maybe you have a reason, so I ask you sincerely and without an ulterior motive. No animosity or accusations intended. What say you, Space Cadet? Dr. Dan 02:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think mostly consistency. We usually add alternative names or synonyms in the lead. Most of Polish cities have German names mentioned. And the cities of Troki and Birże were after all part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with a Polish majority and Polish as the official language. Space Cadet 11:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The question pertains to Biržai (which today has less than 16,000 inhabitants). I assume it had less than that during the PLC, and was probably a village. What is your basis for saying that the majority of its inhabitants were Polish?

[edit] Panevėžys

Apparently, you haven't read the lead of Liublino unija. Krakow has the same solution for names as Vilnius. There is also - theoretically much more controversial - Breslau example where you have German name in the lead. And I would promptly revert any removal attempt. Apparently, wikipedia is not very consistent... As for Lublin and Panevėžys, it seems that it was discussed. It happens that I share Lysy (talk • contribs) views (polish nationalist?). On the other hand, I have impression that you agreed to put national versions there in the text, so I follow this solution (even if I feel that WP:NC(GN) suggests something else). I hope this will fix the problem in this particular case. --Beaumont (@) 20:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

For your most excellent suggestion the Bright Idea Award seems quite appopriate. Keep them coming, my Dear Dr. Dan! --Piotrus, 23 Nov 2006
Enlarge
For your most excellent suggestion the Bright Idea Award seems quite appopriate. Keep them coming, my Dear Dr. Dan! --Piotrus, 23 Nov 2006


[edit] Why? Why? Why?

Recently the most esteemed Prokonsul of Wikipedia from Poland (yes, the same one that recently awarded me the medal on the right, although I was hoping for the The Polish Barnstar of National Merit 1st class, instead), Piotrus, queried me on the Jogaila talk page (see: Thoughts on the Title), and asked me why I have removed foreign names from many of the leads of Lithuanian cities and towns in Wikipedia. He also commented that he didn't understand why Lithuanian cities are the only European cities without important names in other languages. Prokonsul Piotrus also implied that he has asked me many times for an answer, and mentioned that he is still waiting for a reply and something of an almost plaintive "Why, Why, Why"? I feel your pain! I have heard you, and promised you a reply. Here it is.

I have to begin by telling you that your premises are fallacious, because first, Lithuanian cities are not the only European cities without important names in other languages. And although you'll never acknowledge it, and will obfuscate around the issue with some blather about Germany and Belarus, let's be honest, what you really mean is Polish names, rather than important names. This is what you are really after. A definitely tough one to admit, I'm sure. And this relentless effort by some to add these Polish names in the leads, has nothing to do with "educating" our readers, but more of a desire to continue "mental possession" of something that is not theirs. Secondly, I have stated my reasons on the issue on numerous occasions, on the talk pages and edit summaries. So that is why I was remiss in getting back to you, since I felt you read quite a bit of my imput with the rest of our little club. I guess I was mistaken. You also gave three "random" examples, Strasbourg, Cieszyn, and Kamianets-Podilskyi, which I personally felt to be piss-poor examples, as the first two are border towns, and the third example doesn't support your position at all. But even with better examples from you, it's a moot point. Let's take the example of the article about Poland. Should the lead of the article include the "important" Latin name: Polonia, or the German name: Polen, or the Lithuanian name: Lenkija, or the Latvian name: Polija? I think not. This logic needs to be applied the leads of the cities and towns of Lithuania as well. So that you understand this a little better, I am not against the expansion of knowledge in either Wikipedia or anywhere else. If and when, an article benefits from the inclusion into the article, of the Polish geographical toponym in question, I don't see why there should be an objection to this. My problem as stated on many occassions is the Lead, followed by relevance. When you have someone flying around in a spaceship on their user: Space Cadet, user page, telling me that the reason that Birzai needs its Polish toponym in the lead of its article is because Polish was the official language of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (an entity that ceased to exist in the 18th century), that to me is funnier than the ridiculous article Polish plait. Oh yes, Space Cadet also stated the majority of Birzai's inhabitants were Polish. This "fact" allows me to believe that Space Cadet or just Spacey are are appropriately named. Then we have Lysy, good old objective and neutral Lysy, who only wants the Polish name in the lead of a town where he believes there is a significant percentage of Poles living there today. When recently asked for proof of this, I think he left it as everbody knows (the old "it's common knowledge" gambit). A source Lysy, please. As for User: Halibutt, he offers the best attempt at reaching a consensus on the issue or a modus vivendi with Lithuanian editors as he likes to call it. Not only is Halibutt so kind as to let us know what the Polish toponym for a Lithuanian city is in the lead of an article , but takes every opportunity he can to remove the corresponding Lithuanian toponym throughout Wikipedia and replace it with anything that's not the Lithuanian toponym, (he tells us the basis for this is that he wants historical consistency). The true bottom line is that a Polo-Centric Wikipedia is not what is important in WP's English version. If you want to call aspirin, "polopiryna", that's fine, just do it Poland (you'll find it in Polish Wikipedia under aspirin). Rzym is the Polish toponym for Rome, and Monachium for Munich, and on and on. These so-called important names do not need to go into the leads of the articles in English Wikipedia (what a mess it could become). Keep these toponyms in Polish Wikipedia, or link them (which is highly appreciated and appropriate) with the "in other languages" section and the problem is solved. Lastly, Poles who have a beautiful culture and history (some which is shared with Lithuania), need to have a greater sensitivity to the national pride of it's North-Eastern neighbor, a mere 3.5 million people in a world of 6.5 billion people. Especially since Polish identity and things that are sensitive to Polish pride are very often attacked and denigrated by its enemies. Lithuania is not, I repeat, not Poland's enemy. So finally, if you truly, dear Piotrus want to create the harmony between these editors that you claim, don't just talk the talk, walk the walk. Sorry, but putting Polish toponyms in the leads of Lithuanian cities, towns, and in some cases villages, is not walking the walk, and is not necessary. Dr. Dan 02:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm it is very strange - there are no voices, which argues about placment of Kłajpeda to Klaipėda any more. M.K. 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This was a very interesting read. Thanks for the lengthy explanation. It gives a good idea for the roots of this whole naming conflict. Quite simply, you believe that when Polish editors (let me use this shorthand expression) add Polish names in the leads of articles about Lithuanian cities, this stems from, and here I quote you: a desire to continue "mental possession" of something that is not theirs. Of course Polish editors would loudly protest that this is not their motivation at all, but of course you know perfectly well that they are deluding themselves. The real motivation is perfectly clear to you, even though the Polish editors are blind to it.
Now as far as I am concerned, you might be right. Our subconscious is after all a mystery to us, and we as human beings might be guided by motives which we would never admit openly to others and even to ourselves. Still, your certainty about this issue seems somewhat exaggerated: how can you be so certain about what really motivates us? Do you have some professional credentials in this field? Can you really divine our true motivations without ever meeting any of us face to face, and relying on Wikipedia contributions alone?
Finally, does it really matter what the motivation is behind our edits? Should not our edits be judged on their own merits, without consideration of what was the motive for making them?
Still, after looking at all these conflicts I believe that the only solution is for the Poles (and other non-Lithuanians) to stay away from editing the leads of articles about Lithuanian cities. I do hope however that in time the Lithuanian editors will join the general trend on Wikipedia, and start to proudly highlight the multicultural history of their cities by including their names in the languages of the communities which once inhabited them. For examples of this trend on Polish wikipedia, please check: Lublin, Łódź, Białystok etc. Balcer 00:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me throw in my explanation as well. Many English books, articles and other sources, for whatever reasons, use Polish name for Lithuanian cities. Sometimes it is over a half of the sources, sometimes it is a very small amount. This is much less common 'the other way around' - i.e. it is much less likely that a Polish city (even one like Suwałki) will have a Lithuanian name in an English source. Thus I believe that many English users may benefit from seeing a Polish name in Vilnius, Kaunas, Trakai and other places, simply because it is highly probable that they had seen it somewhere and they might be expecting it ('oh, I remember that...'). I don't mind if in the spirit of equivalent exchange, good will or whatever Lithuanian names are added to cities like Suwałki or Augustów or other that are related to Lithuanian history; even if in most cases this is much less useful for most English readers out there; and it will mostly only benefit a small number of Lithuanian editors using English Wikipedia, that's fine with me. I don't fill that adding Suvalkai to Suwałki diminishes Polish culture; on the other hand, I fill it adds a valuable tidbit of info and shows the multicultural history of that region. Because of that I cannot understand why our Lithuanian friends tend to assume bad faith and think that we try to polonize their articles or enforce some Polish imperialism by asking for the Polish name; for me it is all about a piece of encyclopedic info (old name) found in many sources and showing that in the past many cultures interacted there (often German, Russian or other names are relevant as well). As for the usage in the articles, I believe that if it is crystal clear the article is connected to only one of the cultures, use one name, if not, use both. Nonetheless if you are so sure that my 'real' reason is because I want to show those cities are really Polish or something like this, I cannot convince you otherwise no matter what I say I do, I am afraid.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 03:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, Be Not Afraid, and mind your colons. Dr. Dan 05:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet invasion talk

hi, please DO NOT edit other users' talk [6], even if it's erraneous/ungrammatical. Rather add your own comments. Thanks. Constanz - Talk 08:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colon

Dr. Dan, I am enjoying conversing with you on the RFC. However, could you please take care to properly indent your comments? Just use one more colon than the person you're responding to. Appleseed (Talk) 04:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The beauty of Colon Etiquette is its simplicity. There's only one rule, the one I mentioned above. Succumb to it. Let the zen of the colon consume you. Appleseed (Talk) 15:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
No, you were very much in the right. Cheers, Appleseed (Talk) 04:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] no personal attack warning

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

forgotten reason [7] and the signature --Beaumont (@) 12:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The preceeding beautiful piece was written anonymously by user: Beaumont. How nice that you should care. Actually not "really" written by him, but it obviously made an "impression" on him. Care to send it around to anyone else? I'll be checking up on it. Dr. Dan 23:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I am not in Dr. Dan's fan club and I don't think it exists but if someone is lazy to click on the link, I would like to note that there is nothing even remotely close to a personal attack. This is not a new phenomenon to present the disagreements on content or users as a civility issue. I commented on this trend earlier and not once and I find it very unproductive. Let's stick to the issues that cause this all, rather than try to deflect discussions from the topic to the civility. Unless there are truly serious civility problems, discussing the manners should be reserved for fora, such as alt.fan.miss-manners and alt.parenting.solutions. --Irpen 04:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I raised these questions directly in the involved Piotrus' RfC [8] , no answer till now. M.K. 13:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Irpen, I know that I didn't make anything remotely close to a personal attack, so I didn't bother to respond to the charge itself, just to the foolishness of his making the charge. And as a side note, you'll have to agree the "club" that Beaumont has joined ever since he "got off the tramway" of neutrality, is always making these kinds of charges and threats. I suspect it's a remnant of the totalitarian regimes that were into censorship and threats, that some of them came out of. As a side note, let me say my thoughts on the subject we're discussing is a reason that I dislike RfC's altogether (there's a quality of censorship that hovers or looms over them), and I try to sometimes "lighten things up a little" with my remarks. As I've often stated, there is a big difference between the articles and the talk pages. That's my spin on it, in short. Dr. Dan 22:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friendly suggestion

From: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

Behavior that is unacceptable

  • Don't misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:
    • Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details). It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Never edit someone's words to change their meaning.

Balcer 03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I came here to thank Dan for occasional copyediting of my talk page entries. I really appreciate it. Please continue doing so. That copyediting of my articles by the native speakers is always appreciated as well goes without saying. --Irpen 04:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Some people like corrections, some people don't. For me, errors on talk pages are part of their charm. It is lovely to see all the possible ways English can be twisted and mangled by people from all over the world, while the basic meaning is still conveyed. Anyway, if you don't have explicit permission, don't make corrections. It's a guideline which makes good sense. Balcer 04:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it is bigger infamy to talk on other peoples behalf. As I understand this edit did not involved you, but Piotrus and Lastochka, who are not present here. They should make statements and if necessary reverts not you, Balcer. M.K. 13:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I am sure Dr. Dan would have reverted his edit himself once he realised that it violated an important Wikipedia guideline. I have simply saved him the trouble. Quick action here was good, since if other users had added comments in the meantime, it would have been more difficult to roll back the changes. Balcer 15:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Balcer, I only copyedit people's remarks who I like, or have a high regard for. What you consider "charming" as a result of the twisting and mangling of the English language, I find distracting from the point that they are making, and it occasionally leaves an impression of stupidity, or at the very least, illiteracy. However anyone who specifically asks me to desist from doing so on their behalf, will receive my full cooperation. I'm surprised you take the position that you have, because it is not logical. It implies that one should not copyedit the encyclopedia either, and leave all of the grammatical, syntaxical, misspellings and other "charming" remnants of the graduates of the 4th grade intact, and preserved for all time. Anyway on a more serious note, I read and re-read my corrections and failed to see where I misrepresented people or what they were trying to say. Could you point out an example? Dr. Dan 22:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It is not my position, it is a Wikipedia guideline, which has presumably been drafted for good reasons. It only refers to discussion pages, obviously, and does not imply at all that one should not copyedit articles. As the guideline makes clear, you are not supposed to edit the comments of others without their permission, period. Even if you are only correcting grammar and spelling. Hey, I don't make the rules, I only point them out. Obviously if you keep on doing it, I am not going to complain to anyone about it, but sooner or later you will encounter an editor who will not appreciate your corrections, even those made in good faith. Anyway, now you know about the guideline and so my job is done :). Balcer 22:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Balcer. Your job would be more done, if you could give me the example I asked for, i.e., the supposed misrepresentation. Dr. Dan 14:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I quoted the complete guideline, without implying that you broke every single part of it. So, for your peace of mind, let me assure you that I did not see you misrepresenting anyone when you edited their comments. Balcer 14:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, I could have sworn you were making a more specific accusation. Dr. Dan 14:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that this whole off-topic thread was started to deflect from real issues. I don't believe anyone was ever blocked for good-faith corrections of other people's English, even at the talk pages. Moreover, Dan has made it clear that he only corrects the English of those with who his overall interaction is positive. Personally, I would have minded if my opponents instead of discussing issues would be picking up on my imprefect English as I would not have seen this as friendly corrections. This is not the case here. I don't understand why Balcer even goes into this while the Piotrus' RfC in question raises much more serious issues than how well-mannered is to correct English at the talk pages. In fact, the entire part of that RfC that talks about manners and civillity is grossly off-topic. There are many much more real problems raised at that page. --Irpen 03:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. Dan, please correct my English here as well.
Not much work for me to do, Irpen, your English is pretty good. P.S. I make plenty of mistakes of my own. Dr. Dan 14:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/r/2E/User_talk%7EDr._Dan_c3cb.html"