User talk:Szopen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Old talk

Hi again,

Thanks anyway.

Guy Montag 10:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Hi Szopen,

I am interested in your imput on Revisionist Zionism during its period in Poland in the 1930s.

Send me a tell if you are interested.

Best regards,

Guy Montag 03:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Witaj. Moze chcialbys sie przylaczyc do polskiej Wikipedii.
Dzialamy pod adresem http://wiki.rozeta.com.pl/
Kpjas

Moze kiedy w przyszlosci

Er, that's not the Polish Wikipedia: the Polish Wikipedia is located at http://pl.wikipedia.com/ . --LMS
Read the http://pl.wikipedia.com/, it says that Polish Wikipedia is temporarily on http://wiki.rozeta.com.pl/. --Taw
That's right. We are sincerely willing to move to the pl.wikipedia.com but there are still obstacles on the wikipedia.com's part.--Kpjas
Czesc Tomaszu, mam wrazenia ze znam skads Twoje nazwisko. Nie brales kiedys czynnego udzialu pryz rozwijaniu freeciva? szopen

A bralem, bralem. Jeszcze lezy u mnie na dysku sporo niewlaczonego kodu. --Taw

Witaj w wikipedii drogi Szopenie. ciesze sie iz Polska jest tu coraz mocniej reprezentowana. -- WojPob

Szopen -- some of your proposed changes sound good. One I would not make, though is the one about co-opting Slavs, except to maybe say Slavic leaders or leading warriors -- this information was taken directly from reading several 9th century sources. It may be a simplification, but it's neutral and correct. Thanks -- A friend

Toszopen,

I have been gone for several days. Will try to catch up on the questions accumulated in the meanwhile. First of all. Danzig is located in the territory of Old Prussian Land. The church however "christianized" Danzig from the West by the Cistercians. Oliva (at Danzig) was founded ca 1178 and christianized from Pomerania- Pomerellia (little Pomerania). Pomerania was a part of the Holy Roman Empire.

Monk Christian of Oliva, was designated the Apostle of Prussia by the pope. Brandenburg margraves had inheritance right to Danzig, but pope gave Danzig and Pomerellia to Teutonic Order together with Prussia, Livonia etc. (Earlier history was recorded as part of Magna Germania , first time 98 AD ).

Prussia was "christianized' from the east. (First Poland tried, was repelled several times by Prussians). Then Baltic Crusades or Northern Crusades against Prussia, Livonia, Lithuania. Archbishop of Riga was then head over the four bishoprics of Prussia (by order of William of Modena, papal legate). Riga was under Visby, Gotland. Posen or Poznan was til circa 1250 under Magdeburg. Before the Polanen received ducal title from emperor , they were part of Czech .(Czech and Lech)Czech and Polish dukes, kings all pledged allegiance to emperors for the land they held in lien (on loan)

Mieszko and Boleslaw were margraves of the empire ( married to Saxons).

Later Polish kings all were married to Habsburgs, Vasas ( Austria, Sweden were part of empire) Archbishop of Krakow (a Hanseatic League city was a prince of the empire. And "Polish " kings continued pledging allegiance to emperors, either by pledge, marriage or as members of the order of the "Golden Fleece". (Catholic Counter-reformation). From circa 1695 to 1768 ? Electors of Holy Roman Empire , Saxony were also kings of Poland.

They probably did not put too much emphasis on all these facts in your country during the communist regime.

With your last statement about Hitler, perhaps you can explain to me the Polish leader Rydz Smygly( can't remember exact spelling) , who in March 1939 had a portrait of himself painted riding through the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin taking over Germany. What explanation do you have for that ?

What is your explanation of the expulsion of hundereds of thousands of Germans from Polish Corridor starting after 1919 and of the 50 thousand of these (ethnic) Germans from the Polish Corridor in summer 1939, herded on a death march by Polish neighbors( recorded as Bromberger Blut Sonntag (Bromberg Bloody Sunday)?

user:H.J.

To szopen on Prussian Confederation: JHK added things to this.

Prussia always resisted incorporation , but it was tried several times .

1453-1466 was " War of the cities". 1466 Treaty of Thorn, was denied by pope and emperor. Habsburg Teutonic Grandmaster continued as head over Prussia. Emperor Maximilian II was elected as king of Poland also, but died and Sigismund III Vasa of Sweden,duke of Lithuania, Prussia, also became king of Poland.

Emperor Maximilian II's son Maximilian III, Austria, Teutonic Knights Grand Master, was elected king of Poland also. see outside link: http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/desbillons/eico/seite45.html

Prussia never had any Polish institutions. Language was Hanseatic League Low German Platt, later High German.

Hanseatic League cities had German language independend city council government under city majors.

Krakow in 1504 had German city council. Many cities in Poland , Ukraine etc were founded with Magdeburg city charter rights. user:H.J.

Answer to your email.

It is a little lengthy and confusing to me. I believe I have answered most of it here already. In the email you write something about Pomorze and 150 years. I believe you are inquiring about Pomerania ( in Latin and English) ? Here is a good website to read about some of Pomerania http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12225a.htm Pomerania was a part of the Holy Roman Empire until 1804/6 and a part of Magna Germania for nearly 2000 years. Several times it was conquered by Polish , all together for about 50 years. user:H.J.

What is Magna Germania when it's at home? You say it existed for 2000 years, yet the concept certainly did not exist after the fall of Rome, even if there was such a thing in Roman writings. If Magna Germania didn't exist (which it didn't), then how could pomerania be part of it?

To szopen You are absolutely right and you know it and I know it about all the complicated and diverse history of people in Europe. But I live in America since 1962. People here in general do not know anything about European or any other history besides what they hear daily: The USA is the greatest. Now I am over simplyfying and there are very educated people who know every detail. But the general public and overwhelming majority do not know anything about Europe other than WWI and WWII propaganda. Therefore I am writing my inputs in wikipedia with the majority of English speaking people in mind who live all around me. When you give them too many details they just get totally confused. In the last 10 years or so it has gotten better and I know from schools that now they show a little bit of European history in school books. But believe me the onesided Cold War education was totally black and white and the WW II education is still totally black and white. When you go to any book store here they have isle after isle of books all on WW II. Then if you are lucky you find maybe one or two books on a particular country. I started collecting historical facts by bits and pieces .The main reason why I spend this much time, which I should not, on inputting in this wikipedia , is to show the family relations of the leaders of the different countries in Europe.When you read about the "Polish crown" it is to me important to know who these people actually were. It is important to me that the Polanen who came into Germania were taken in as Brother of the Empire and received land in lien ( land on loan), the same as the other rulers who pledged allegiance to the emperors. And you are right , when you notice , that so many places in todays Poland were German speaking. The cities in Poland Ukraine and Lithuania were founded with German Magdeburg law and the cities had self government by a city council or Rat. Therefore you have the Rathaus ( Ratus ?) in Danzig. And no Germans wanted to be taken over by any other authority. Berliners did not like it when they had to give up the free independend Hanseatic League city status when the Kurfuerst electors of Brandenburg took their seat in Berlin. And the German phone book is full of Germans with Polish names, who all came to Germany over the centuries, rather than living under "Poland" which was actually under Russia. Another point about the German names of places in Poland. First of all this wikipedia is in English and there are guidelines about keeping the English names of places and in addition giving local names. Taw tries to change everything into Polish , which is wrong. Poland supposedly signed an agreement, that the German language is an official language again (I do not know if this is for the German parts taken over by Poland after 1945 only , or if it is valid for all of Poland).Therefore the German placenames (which are often also the English) are still absolutely correct to use. I have a 1998 Swedish atlas that shows both the German and the Polish names. I have a ca 1600 atlas, that shows a large German speaking city of Bromberg and below it a small town Bedgocz (or Bidgocz). I have looked at many church records of the LDS http://www.familysearch.com go to records and places. ,type in Bromberg or whatever town and you will find German churches going back as far as Lutherism. Some areas may have been officially in the kingdom of Poland but they were not Polish . Again ,when you look at the "Polish kings" , how many were Polish ? And as I have found out ,all dukes , kings of Poland pleadged allegiance to emperor, they had to, because they received land lien, on loan and if the son did not want to pledge allegiance, the land went back to the empire. That was the feudal law system. And it would be interesting to read the 1466 Treaty of Thorn, but I can tell you already, the emperor and the pope declined it in 1467, therefore it is not ratified, it is void. The emperor was still overlord of Prussia, even when Albrecht of Brandenburg Ansbach Prussia Hohenzollern pledged allegiance to his uncle Sigismund I (of the Jagiello Habsburg family). Albrecht was put under ban. So there are many different histories to everything and the Lutheran history is in opposit to the Catholic history. I just hope that many more people where you live, go and look at actual history in contrast to the official state histories. On the Schwiebus question I can tell you that I looked for Zuellichau (Polish Sulichow ?) on the Silesia map and it was not on there.I know my grandmother was born in Zuellichau, I have been there as child during bomb attacks on Berlin. Then I found out that officially Zuellichau has been in Brandenburg since ca 1450. But my family still considered it Silesia. I did find it on the Brandenburg map. On that 997 year for first time mentioning of Danzig ( Gyddancyk). Danzig as Gothiscandza -Gothic coast is mentioned centuries earlier. 997 AD is the year when the first Polish attempt together with St Adalbert to take over Prussians failed. And since Posen then stood under Magdeburg and Adalbert ( who had baptised Hungary) was educated at Magdeburg ,the German and Hungarian post office issued a commemorative stamp in 1997. On Lithuania, read the wikipedia on Lithuania and Latvia Riga. Many of these parts were ultimately under the empire. That is why it is so important to actually look at all the rulers ,their families and the dynasties of that time. That big "Polish" kingdom of the 15th century , largest land in Europe is more a myth, perpetuated by English speaking people in the 19 and 20 century, who had a great interest to have the European empires disappear. It is, what is called here "in the best interest of the economy". user:H.J.

To szopen, Hallo and Happy New Year, Thanks for your detailed message to me. I am not a home for several days and do not have my collection of materials and books with me. Here is a website address that shows some Prussian Belarus Lithuanian Polish info http://www.belarusguide.com/as/history/jermal1.html This site shows you the Prussian and Yatvigian Jatwinger land, which was later to the south conquered by Masovians.

The German Heimatvertriebene (expelled from homeland) are aware of Stalin having moved many people from Ukraine Belarus etc into German lands taken over after 1945 .Poland first tried to move Poles there, but many left again to go to the actual Poland (not the German part under Polish administration).

Many people got hurt with WWI and II and many other wars since then. Therefore it is important to look at the causes effects on who profits from all this.

When I get to my computer I will write more again. user:H.J.

Thanks for the article on the Slavic peoples. It was very interesting! As user:H.J. says, not all Americans keep our heads stuck in the sand. (BTW, I'm gonna move Slavic Peoples to Slavic peoples per Wikipedia naming conventions. --Dmerrill

Hi, Szopen. I took liberty of editing your last reply on user talk:H.J. page. Just mostly some English language details, I thought, might need a little polishing. Great article and great reply!! I enjoyed reading it. Czuwaj! Mruk

szopen -- in English, we usually say Adrianople. That's why it was the was it was.

Yes. I was just about to say this. Adrianople, in English, like Constantinople. --MichaelTinkler

Sure, why not? More links are usually good. I wonder if it might not be better as a footer than a header, though I am not convinced my idea is right :)

By the way, I found an interesting website, www.onwar.com, that seems to have a very complete list of wars and so on. I noticed you were having a little trouble with the way we silly English feel we must "translate" names, so I thought you might find it a useful resource for the proper names of battles and wars in English. -- Paul Drye

I think we have all done the rounds with user:H.J.. So long as she stays out of the Vikings and Norse mythology I will be happy, but if you need any moral support, you'll get plenty from myself (sjc), MichaelTinkler and JHK who have all probably had some of what you're getting. Good luck and kind regards sjc

To szopen,just a short note to say thank you for your nice message. user:H.J..

Hi Szopen! 13 YEAR war, not years! Still too lazy to set up my own page. Here is my address: mruk@email.com Czekam, J-23.

Sorry, mruk, it is Years, at least in English (like Hundred Years War, Thirty Years War, Seven Years War, Seven Weeks War): the construction "Six-Day War" is a more recent innovation. User:David Parker

Re: King Jadwiga - no problem: where I'm wrong let others correct me, as long as they know what they're talking about (I assumed it was just another piece of the inane babble that certain people keep putting into these articles). Maria Theresa was a king too, apparently, though Jadwiga's sister Mary seems commonly to be referred to as queen. Regards, User:David Parker

Your statement about Ignacy Lukasiewicz was misleading. The article on petroleum histroy is laughable for a start, mentioning nothing but Spindletop and starting in 1901.
Ignacy Lukasiewicz's invention of the kerosene lamp in 1853 is also contentious, as one source says "No inventor of Kerosene lamp can be named but hundreds of persons filed patent applications". There are lamps mentioned from the 1780s and the oil extraction industry in Europe started in the late 17th Century - but the European technology of almost mining shallow reserves has little relevence to the modern industry and so giving Lukasiewicz a leading role would be almost false.


Well, he build first in the world refinery and i don't know any other who invented kerosene lamp before Lukasiewicz. He also definetely build oil well as one of first person in Galicia.

Anyway, ignore me: i was just having very bad time. [[szopen]]


szopen, do you think that adding decades as far back as 1690BC is really worthwhile? I'm no historian, but did enough happen that we can actually even date accurately that far back? --Robert Merkel

I'm not historian either. They were just on most wanted list, so most of that list were that entries: i wanted to get rid of them szopen

While the change to Peenemunde was 'offensive' to you, I feel it was in line with the truth - the Polish helped over the V-2 (and I put that information there) but from what I know they did not help the British over Peenemunde, the British knowledge there came mainly from aerial recon.\

Not exactly true TwoOneTwo. As i stated in article, British _denied_ that they received reports from AK about Penemunde. But fortunately copies of reports (microfilms) which were sent to Britain survived the war. This is quite similar to Enigma, which was also for years denied by Brits that Poles did anything to crack Enigma.

here is the cite from www-site i found : "Rumours and fragments of information about German research into new and terrible means of creating death and destruction were, by the beginning of 1943, reaching Allied intelligence through Resistance and espionage sources so frequently that it was clear that something was afoot. In the spring of 1943, the Polish Home Army obtained information about a secret establishment at Peenemunde, on an island named Usedom at the mouth of the River Oder. A Polish engineer studied the evidence and decided that it could mean only that Germany was experimenting with rockets and techniques of jet propulsion. The Poles, at enormous risk to themselves, sent the information through to London. At about the same time, British Intelligence received from occupied Denmark a photograph taken by a Danish officer of a small pilotless monoplane with what seemed to be a jet engine mounted above the fuselage - the shape that was to become known to millions of long-suffering British and Belgian civilians as the flying bomb, nicknamed by Londoners the doodlebug, and correctly designated the VI.

The VI that had crashed without exploding on the island of Bornholm had been photographed, and the picture provided British Intelligence with confirmation that the Poles were on to something. A hazardous reconnaissance sortie photographed the Peenemunde site from the air, and the results made it clear that action was needed. On 17th July 1943, 600 bombers launched a major raid on Peenemunde, doing damage that postwar evidence confirmed had set back German rocket development substantially. Later that summer, an experimental launching ramp for the VI was built in Poland near Blizna, and test launchings of the VI went ahead in profusion. The ever-vigilant Polish Resistance rapidly discovered the site, and by studying it and the missile launchings guessed that the device could have a range of some 200 miles. The Home Army collected fragments of flying bombs that had exploded, and were able to determine where they had been built - information which was passed to London and became the basis for targetting raids of the mounting Allied bomber offensive. But the Poles' greatest coup came when an unexploded VI settled in the mud of the River Bug.

At enormous risk, the intrepid Poles removed its wings (which had been showing above the water) so that the Germans could not find their lost secret weapon. At a suitable moment, Polish engineers recovered most of the bomb (although sadly not the warhead) and smuggled it in small pieces to Warsaw, from where the results of detailed examination were sent to the Polish government in exile in London. This excited the British and American scientists enough for them to decide to collect the prize from occupied Poland. In an extraordinarily risky and yet sucessful operation, a Douglas DC3 "Dakota" was flown from Italy and landed in a muddy Polish field. Several days later, the crew and the Polish resistance men together managed to ungum the Dakota from the mud, and Germany's secret weapon was flown to England."

on other page: (http://www.dnai.com/~salski/No05-06Folder/Jedd-Poland-Contribution.htm" "Polish intelligence reported in 1941 that the Nazis were building new and mysterious weapons in Peenemunde on the Uznam island, on the Baltic Sea. Polish reports and maps delivered to British intelligence in 1942 and 1943 were more specific, and indicated that they were building rockets capable of mass destruction.

The British, convinced of the veracity of these reports and supplied with all the necessary information, on August 17, 1943 bombed and demolished the V-2 factory in Peenemunde. Over 500 Allied bombers dropped 1600 tons of bombs and 280 tons of incendiaries. The operation code name was Hydra. Forty bombers were lost over Peenemunde and one Mosquito over Berlin. I mention Berlin because the whole operation was conducted as though it was directed as a regular bombing of Berlin. "

Extensive quotes from single sources do not make a case! I agree that the diminuation of the Polish contribution to Enigma was outrageous (and has been fixed) but I am not convinced as to the Polish contribution to the 'discovery' of Peenemunde in particular, cetainly they retrieved a rocket from the River Bug (as noted under the V-2 article) but I have not seen evidence for Peenemunde.

Thanks for the heads-up on the Cyrprus article Szopen. I hadn't noticed the content in Cyprus/History. It was exactly the same as you suspected - and was removed from Cyprus. --maveric149

Yes, indeed, we have many year-in-review templates running around. If you check my user page you'll find that I was using one developed by Tsja (who seems to have given up on us). I filled in lots of the early middle ages with it. If you want to standardize the whole thing, feel free! MichaelTinkler

Dear Szopen, I'm glad that as a Polish reader you only found a few things to change in History of Poland (1939-1945). I know a reasonable amount of Polish history but I have to be careful of offending Polish patriots here. I don't have any problems with your edits, except that you introduce the NSZ and Zegota without telling the reader what they are. Try and add a line somewhere that explains them. Also, have a look at Wladyslaw Sikorski and Tadeusz Bor-Komorowski and tell me what you think. Adam 13:21, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I just didn't have time for more changes ;)

Provide the links for NSZ and Zegota then :) Even better, explain what it was. Until now, there is small mentioning about NSZ in Armia Krajowa article. About SIkorski: Irving is maybe first and main English-speaking advocate of the idea that either Soviets or Egnlish killed Sikorski, but in Polish speaking area problem was discussed many times and there are three theories (in addition to soviets and english, also Polish opponents of Sikorski are suspected). --- szopen

I'm assuming these comments are from Szopen (please sign your comments). I will add some references to NSZ and Zegota when I get time (I don't actually know what Zegota is, but I will find out). On Sikorski - I don't read Polish: are there English sources online on the various theories of his death? Is there evidence rather than just theories? Adam 14:29, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There is no evidence. Only testimonites by Czech pilot and various Polish testimonies, but non online. I've read them once in few Polish serious newspapers. Also Sikorski almost died in accident before he left Canada. He got some warnings also IIRC. It seems (in context) that someone tried to kill him even earlier. Question is who? The possibilities are Germans, Poles, Russians, English. Russians would be mostly suspected, then English, then Poles, then Germans.

Zegota was official (in the sense that it receivced funds from Polish gvt-on-exile and was part of AK structures) Polish underground organisation for helping Jews. Some of the founders before the war were anti-semites. Zegota organised shelters, food, false papers, funds etc. Official name was "Council for Aiding the Jews" (Rada Pomocy Zydom), half of members Polish, half Jewish-Polish.

NSZ was strictly nationalistic roganisation which killed communists, Jews, collaborators etc. Since NSZ fought agaisnt communist regime until 1956 or so, Polish security force fabricated a lot of materials about NSZ and sometimes it's hard to find out what's true, and what's false. Surely some of authentic documents present at least some of NSZ as maniacs (they were looking for Jewish ancestry in almost every Pole, and definetely considered every member of Zegota a Jew). Usually today they are caricatured as organisation whose only task was to seek and kill Jews, which is a bit of simpilification although i guess not much - although some NSZ admirers are trying very hard to whiten whole organisation. During war part of NSZ became part of AK, while second part (Lizards union or something like that: zwiazek jaszczurczy) was outside AK structures and fighting on their own. Unfortunately i haven't got much time to make larger research and pu tit in wikipedia. --szopen

--szopen

[edit] Ethnic composition

Thank you for the explanation, but the article should be named Ethnic composition of Litwa środkowa and the censuses performed after the year should be removed from it. Halibutt's explanaitions that the name is too long to express the right meaning, so he shortened it to absurdity is not an explanation that is good enough. I discussed with him and Lysy and did a research on my part on literature that is available for me and what is available on internet, and I do know what I am talking about. If Halibutt is a friend of yours, please tell him to stop playing war in Wikipedia with Lithuanians, tell him that it is not enough to pretend to be nice before the international audience, that he has to be nice in his edits too, for his work to be of value to articles about Lithuania. Juraune 19:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where's that sig?!?

Szopen, re. Wikipedia:Problem users, please sign your recent posting! (Otherwise it looks bad!) -- Viajero 12:46, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sorry Szopen, but I have listed Polish mine detector for deletion as it seems to be a copyright violation. Just because it is listed on the web in a few places does not make it public domain. It would specifically say it was public domain if it was (unless it was from before 1923 or something like that). The extract you copied is from a book, which as far as I can tell is copyrighted. If you have any evidence this is not the case, do let me know. Otherwise it will be deleted one week from now. You might want to read Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information. The talk page has lots of useful info too. Angela 11:45, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I just looked at it again and realised it was just a small bit copied. I thought the whole article was from there. I think it might be ok as fair use, but I would recommend you make it very clear which bit is from the book. The easiest way is to put it in <blockquote>s. And I think the name and author should be mentioned too. I've rolled back my changes to the page to remove the copyvio notice. Angela 12:05, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)
Sorry for being so hasty to copyvio it! It looks much better now with the full book details. Angela

[edit] Problem user page

Hello, a hitherto unknown user named User:NiceGuy removed your complaint against User:Nico from Wikipedia:Problem users. Given that this account has only been used to make changes to Problem users and given that the user crudely tried to cover his/her tracks by making a formatting edit and marking it Minor afterwards, it seemed suspicious and I reverted the deletion. Since this complaint doesn't seem to be prospering, perhaps the best thing would be for you to remove the listing yourself. I will ask the same of Nico. -- Viajero 17:09, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] List of Battles

Grotnik(i): Some (perhaps older) English language sources do refer to the "Battle of Grotnik". My impression has always been that "Grotnik" was a nominative case and that "Grotniki" was the genitive case. English usage has it that when names are taken from a language that uses cases, as does Polish, one always uses the nominative. The English genitive would then be formed by putting "of" before the nominative.

Links: I regret that I haven't worked on the battles recently. I find it difficult to understand the point that you are making. Could you please provide a link to something that illustrates your point? ☮ Eclecticology 13:06, 2003 Nov 6 (UTC)

Have you and Niko kissed and made up yet? You ought to. Life's too short. Martin 00:09, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I comes here, Martin.

Szopen! I would like to apologise for some unpleasant comments I've made earlier. I'm glad to see you understand my(/our) points too, and I would be happy if we could reach a compromise and end up with a good article. -- Nico 06:06, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Nico - and you too, szopen. I'm sure you didn't do it for my benefit, but I do love it when people work out their differences. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. :) Martin 18:58, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Szopen, it is good to see that you have come to an agreement with Nico. There may be some more work to do, and there are others who were involved in the conflicts whose views matter. I believe it may be time for some optimism, but just would like to say that some more patience may be needed until everybody is happy with the articles under dispute, they are, therefore, not yet unblocked again. Cheers, Kosebamse 16:24, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Nice to have you back at the discussion. Let me say, that I think you are an excellent contributor. In fact, after our last discussions, I have a lot more understanding for the Polish point of view on Silesian history. I’m sorry that I was a bit unfriendly in the beginning. Sincerely, Nico

Hi Szopen, do you know anything about the copyright status of the English translation of the Protest of Zofia Kossak-Szczucka article? It is now at Wikisource and Ec has asked for confirmation that it is not a copyvio. Adam suggested I ask you. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Thank you. Angela 23:43, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hey Szopen - yeah, I'm the same as the jlk7e on SHWI...your suggestions for the intro to Silesia sound good. I'll incorporate them into a new version. Do you know what the procedures are for unprotecting the page? Would it be inappropriate for me to do it, since I've been involved in the discussion, or what? Because it seems like we're approaching consensus. john 03:55, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I suppose if GH translated it and put it into Wikipedia then it would have to be under the GFDL anyway. I wasn't sure if maybe it had just come from somewhere else, but if it was GH, I think it can safely be used at Wikisource. Thanks for your help. Angela 19:30, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hey, I've called a vote on the Silesia introduction, asking various questions, in the hopes that this will clarify some of the issues people seem to have, and perhaps work towards finding some solution. I'd appreciate your comments and vote. john 21:43, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Dear Szopen, are the headers in the battle pages negotiable? :) I think they would look better on the bottom... Maybe i missed some discussion about this. Muriel Victoria 15:38, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

  • I agree with the headers - i usually insert a "navigation bar" in the articles i create - i just think they could be at the bottom. So you created list of battles? Excellent work! If you ever feel lonely in Military History, i am another enthusiast. Muriel Victoria 15:47, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

note: I'ev created initial list, but most of it was contriubted later by others... for some time i was self-appointed maintainer, but it was short :)

[[1]] "On Oct. 9, 1334, he confirmed the privileges granted to Jewish Poles in 1264 by Boleslaw the Pious. "

Was it Boleslaus the Shy or Henry the Pious ?

Was it in 1264? then it was: Boleslaus V, Duke of Poland

Cautious

Hi Szopen, what do you think how we should proceed on the Silesia talk page. I noticed, that there has been little traffic in the last days. Of course I know, that you already did contribute a lot to that discussion, and I could understand if you want to move to other fields of knowledge. But the current version of the article is obviously not accepted, and we do not have another version. I would be pleased, if you could give your feedback on Talk:Silesia (above the "Silesia (moderated) always has the consensus version" line). Or, if you want to e-mail me, you may do so: my address is mt AT mirko HYPHEN thiessen DOT de. A similar message goes to Space Cadet, Kpjas, Nico and Matusz. -- Baldhur 17:27, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Szopen, I've created a MediaWiki message for the List of battles header, so we don't have to type the whole thing everytime. Now we can just type {{msg:battles}}, and it will show up as History -- Military history -- List of battles. The battles that already have the manually typed header don't have to be changed (although they can be, it doesn't matter). Adam Bishop 21:50, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I like you, szopen. I'm grateful for the initial compromise version of Silesia you wrote, and I am sorry if you are leaving. Nico 11:00, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Did you read Democide and Rummel pages?? Read it. Cautious 13:42, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I tried to link the Polish general you added to the Haiti page but could not even find his first name on Google. This was all I could find in English: "General Jablonowski died of yellow fever. Sept. 29, 1802 in Jeremie. Only in Haiti a little over a month. He was part black! 32 years old." Do you know any more? Rmhermen 14:35, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

I found this page and tried to add some detail to artcile: [2]. I hope the online translator was working correctly. It also seems that there was a Polish politician named Władysław Jabłonowski in the mid-1800's. Rmhermen 16:41, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] your addition to Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II

Please sign.

Please format in a way to enhance reading and understanding what comments are yours, what are quotes, what are someone else's.

Please consider which heading you want to put your comment under.

regards! (in hurry)

/Ruhrjung 18:15, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies please vote to keep it. Cautious 20:47, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Szopen! I'm watching recent development of Polish-relating pages and I come to thinking that we really need article on aftermath of Potsdam for all the nations involved (expressing nations' feelings about it included). I think that in advent of German Expellees activism it would be desirable to balance their POV by providing overview article and interlink Potsdam aftermath, Expulsion of Germans after World War II, future Expulsion of Poles after World War II, Regained Territories and what else there is on the topic.

However, I'd like to know your opinion on it: is there a chance that it becomes a source of new problems (rv wars) instead of solving existing? -- Forseti 09:20, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User_Talk:Uriyan - "what they teach in Israel about history of Poland"

Hi Szopen, I am a 17 year old Israeli Wikipedian. I read your discussion with Uriyan on his talk page. Just thought you'd be interested to know that Jewish autonomy in Poland between the world wars was in my History curriculum this year. Jeru 11:27, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Helga is back

Look at the last edits from User:Wighson. Cautious 18:27, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Szanowny Kolego, czy nie odnosisz czasem wrażenia, że 24.23.39.36 to po prostu nowe wcielenie naszej starej, dobrej znajomej Helgi? Space Cadet 12:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andreas Schluter

Space Cadet, i AM going to report you as vandal. 1) I revert on Andreas Schluter page because people are simply ignoring the discussion with was on talk page 2) Second, i haven't call you moron, while you are calling me names instead of choosing to discuss on talk page. Szopen

1) I'm not ignoring any discussion. I digested it and expressed my opinion on the Talk page like you wanted 2) I would never dare calling you a moron! "Palancie" is just Warsaw-style friendly irony regarding the ridiculous inconsistency of your reasoning. You say that the guy surely knew the city as Danzig, but at the same time you forget that in that case he also knew Frombork as Frauenburg!
Let me take a wild guess here: you are not from Warsaw, are you? I once knew a "Poznaniak" from Leszno. "Ordnung muss sein!" on the outside and total inconsistency, chaos and anal retentivity on the inside. Just like YOU! He also liked snitching on his friends and acquaintaces. Pozdrowienia! Cadet

Space Cadet, My opinion on the naming of the city is expressed on Uncle Ed's talk page in mediation paragraph. In short, let us remember that this is English wikipedia; therefore we should names that are meaningful to Englishmen _plus_ names which would help them to find further information. From all discussion on talk:Gdansk page it is clear, that "Danzig" is still widely used in English, even if the using is slowly disappearing. Therefore Danzig/Gdansk may be considered two alternative names in English. This is not the case in Frombork: while Danzig/Gdansk is city quite known, Frombork is virtually unknown, therefore there is no need for alternative name.

Also, there was no edit war over using of Frombork/Frauenberg, but Danzig/Gdansk.

If the "palant" in Warsaw is friendly way to express irony, no wonder Warszawiaks are so disliked in Poznan. In Poznan "palant" is HIGHLY offensive. Szopen

Kochany Ziomalu!
As far as I know, everything in Poznan is HIGHLY offensive, especially common sense and broad horizons, but that's beside the point.
Just because an average Joe Blow uses the word Danzig, doesn't mean his usage is correct. He also uses the word "worm" to describe insect larvae, centipedes, milipedes and earthworms. The encyclopedia should not contain what common people think, but what educated people should know.
And another thing: how exactly do you measure how well the city is known? By counting Google hits? That's REALLY scientific! So above some number of hits you use one rule and below it you use another! And you really don't see the absurd of this?
Your streets over there are really clean, but very often one gets an impression, that so are your minds. (Another example of friendly irony, not to be taken as an insult). What about the word "ściem"?
Wszystkiego...!
Szczerze Oddany,
Kosmonauta Pieszy

Kosmonauto pieszy, nie jestem jakims hiphopowcem zebys mnie tykal jakims ziomalem.

Jeszcze raz, po polsku, zebys zrozumial.

To jest angielska encyklopedia, nie osrodek edukacji Jana Kowalskiego. Anglicy powszechnie uzywaja nazwy "Danzig", czy nam sie to podoba czy nie, jako nazwy alternatywnej w stosunku do historii Gdanska. W kazdym cholernym artykule z NYT (a to nie sa przecietni Joe Blow'owie) w ktorym wspomina sie hsitoryczny GDansk, uzywa sie nazwy Danzig. Tak wiec forma Danzig/Gdansk albo Danzig (Gdansk) jest rozsadnym kompromisem ktory a) pozwala zrozumiec przecietnemu czlowiekowi gdzie to jest b) edukuje go, ze Danzig i Gdansk to to samo miejsce. Jak widze jednak, dla Ciebie jedyny mozliwy kompromis to totalna kapitulacja jednej z opcji i pokorne pochylenie glow przez Twoja opinia. Szopen

I knew it! I knew it! EVERYTHING in Poznan is HIGHLY offensive! But this time it's my fault. I used an old slang world, hoping that it still must mean the same as 15 years ago, when I left the country. I completely missed the Hip-Hop Era, but I guess, instead of developing new expressions, they incorporated old ones and assigned new meaning to them. Not very creative, probably not from Warsaw, either.
Anyway Koleś, getting back at your accusations, which you were too shy to write in English, so that no one can see your inconsistency and self contradiction: you say I avoid compromise but I don't really see any consideration of my way of approaching the subject from you! Where is your compromise and aren't you the one who expects total submission to your views? I at least listen patiently and thoroughly answer every point. You just ignore anything that's inconvenient to you and freak out like some Nicoid or something.
Gościu, since when is NYT a scientific publication or an encyclopedic source? I understand your reasoning, I AGREE WITH IT and don't see how it does not support my scenario: a guy reads an article about somebody famous born in L'viv or Gdańsk, doesn't know where it is, clicks on it and voilà - the article has all the alternative names with a detailed description of usage as a function of political affinity, population structure, etc. This way John Smith gets educated
If you really have to write in polish, Wujek, please use the diacriticals, show some respect to my language, darn it!
Kosmak So here it is in English. Where there is self contradiction and incosistency and where are personal attack on you. Show me concrete sentences, Space Cadet. Space Cadet, i'm not a hiphop-fan to let you "fingering" me with some "ziomal". Once again, In Polish, so you would understand. This is English encyclopedia, not education centre of John Doe. Englishmen are widely using "Danzig" no matter if we liked it or not, as alternative name when talking about history of Gdansk. In every damn article in NYT (and those are not average Joe Blows) in which historical Gdansk is mentioned, there is name "Danzis". So form Danzig/Gdansk is reasonable compromise, which helkp average man to a) understand where it is b) and it's educating him that Gdansk and Danzig are the same place. As i see, for you however compromise means total capitulation of one side and humble bowing down before your opinion."

Hi, Szopen! So now that I've practically begged you to answer at least one of my points or scenarios, you still ignored them and translated your last message to English. Why? What gives? Are you listening? Space Cadet 16:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Are you lying on purpose, Space Cadet, or you are not checking your emails??

From: "Arkadiusz Danilecki" <adanilecki@cs.put.poznan.pl> To: <spacecadet123@inorbit.com> Subject: Wikipedia Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:06:34 +0200

You asked for private letter, i've send it. Where is your answer? I understand, that soemone may not answer immedietely (I personally check wikipedia sometimes ocne a week, sometimes even less often).

Tnx for info about adding links to pl wiki, I am still new here and learning the wiki lingo :) From your main page, some articles are done (more or less, this being Wiki :D), just need redirects (I will get right on it):

Hussaria to Hussars Battle of Kircholm to Salaspils

If you would like to coordinate some changes (or give me a few tipes), my gg is 1298166 :) --Piotrus 16:08, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That may be of interest: Wikipedia:WikiProject_History_of_Poland

--Piotrus 21:10, 11 May 2004 (UTC)


About Dubingiai. Notes by me in talk page. Also I'm looking for material on History of Lithuania. Answer on it later. Linas 15:17, 2004 May 20 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed your vote in the previous VfD on Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies and wanted to let you know that I have reopened the issue and wish for you to please cast your vote at VfD--naryathegreat 23:50, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Hi,

Can you have a look into the articles edited by User:Irredenta. The problem is with naming policy in Vilnius article, as well as with historical issues in the following articles: Gabriel Fahrenheit, Johann Reinhold Forster, Georg Forster. Regards.Yeti 10:17, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Szopen, please give me some time to react. English is not my nativ language, and I am not a historian. I am not able to write as quick as you want me to. It is not about ignoring you. I only need some time for this work. --Irredenta 15:32, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligentsia

Gratulacje i podziękowania za artykuł o Inteligencji, jest świetny. Aż żal że nie można doń dodać zdjęcia (bo i jakie..?). Halibutt 10:56, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Warsaw Uprising

You may find this interesting: plan to make Warsaw Uprising a featured article for 1 August. More info: Talk:Warsaw Uprising --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:22, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Na stronie User:Halibutt/Warsaw Uprising pracujemy nad wersją roboczą. Bardzo by się Twoja pomoc przydała... Halibutt 11:40, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
Dzięki, miło usłyszeć coś poza krytyką. Na szczęście jeszcze jest sporo do dopisania, zwłaszcza kalendarium i sytuacja na linii Alianci - Stalin - rząd RP - kraj. Halibutt 10:01, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Partisan

My dear anti-semite, Polish nationalist and so on, and so forth; please take a look at Talk:Partisan and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CVA. Halibutt 09:43, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

To be sincere nothing happens. I tried to contact CVA several times, but the only thing he did was to erase my comments at his talk page. Once he altered my user page, but was reverted and did not carry on. I doubt any cooperation is possible with him, although his contributions are sometimes very useful. I think I'll give it up for this time. Let's hope CVA grew up and won't behave that way any more. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 10:52, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] meta:How to deal with Poles

As I wrote in the edit summary there - I'm still not sure whether it's hillarious or simply sad. Nevertheless, as a summary it's really great. Also, as a Pole you can't have inferiority complex. It's either knowledge of ones' national value or lack of thereof. In other words, it's not inferiority complex, it's conscience of scientifically-proven inferiority.
Also, I was thinking of adding some other rules there - ranging from obsession with adding irrelevant and unpronouncable Slavic names everywhere to generic anti-Semitism (and anti-everything, to be precise). [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:05, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

I'm just afraid the non-Poles will take it seriously. Anti-semitism and drunkedness while writing articles. SC.

Oh my, oh my... You know what our problem is? We still care... [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 16:27, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
Some time ago someone created the Template:Wrongtitle. One only has to put {{Wrongtitle | title=Abrakadabra}} on a page to see the following:
The correct title of this article is Abrakadabra. It appears incorrectly here due to technical restrictions. So I decided to create a similar template: {{Mentitle | title=article}}. I have no idea where should it be placed but it might perhaps prove useful as a generic reply to several types of comments.
Now on to something more serious: perhaps you could enlighten me. The meta page you created is of course a joke (grim joke but still). However, the phenomenon behind it seems painfully real. I was curious how to describe it with one or two words and got stuck. It's definitely not a polonophobia since there isn't much of a fear there. It's not hathred either. Do you know any term that would be better than Well-established assumption that Poles are...? Polish stereotype?
No-no, it was a personal question. I have no intention of putting it into a wikipedia article, it was a pure and simple curiosity of how such a phenomenon could be described in short. Believe me, opening another can of worms by creating such an article is not exactly my idea on how to spend the remainder of my summer vacations. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:00, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bitwa pod Orszą...

...widziałem ją na Twojej liście rzeczy do zrobienia. Dodałem tam ostatnio sporo informacji i stworzyłem notkę o niejakim Kanstancinie Astrožskim. Myślę że mógłbyś chcieć dodać tam coś od siebie (zwłaszcza że jestem raczej specjalistą od XX wieku, nie od XVI). [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 08:50, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hubal

Szopenie, kiedy Ty się w końcu nauczysz że nazwisko Piłsudski pisze się przez "ds" a nie "dz"? :) Tak czy siak - dawnośmy się. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]]

[edit] Wake up

Slavs aren't intertwined in the royal families of Denmark and the UK and there is no Slavic art in those areas(except stolen and traded) to back up your revisionist claim of a common bond of ethnoracial descent. It is common to find Celtic and Nordic art side by side and intertwined, but please, don't lie about the social status of thralls(slavery). Slavs invaded Germania and caused the Volkerwanderung, which ended up with Germans coming back to reclaim the land by the Teutonic Knights. All of this resulted in World War II and the Cold War. Please refrain from using braggart fiction purporting dynastic connections as truth in Wikipedia articles. This is a hostile act and I will not be silent over it! 24.255.40.174 13:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It would be easier do asnwer if you weren't anonymous. First, I have heard for the first time about Slavic invasion; usually it is clamied that Slavs just filled the void after Germanic tribes (most of them NOT the ancestors of the Germans) have left. There are other theories as well, however. I was not ever writing anything about thralls.

That fact that Slavic princes were interwined in royal families of Denmark in England is frankly quite established theory, though in XIX and early XX century German historians were making everything to twist chronicles (which state that quite clearly) and prove otherwise. Szopen 12:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For information: User:24.255.40.174 is an alias of the banned User:Kenneth Alan. - MPF 18:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wizna

Dzięki za słowa uznania, miło że ktokolwiek to czyta. Tak naprawdę to chciałem tylko wyczyścić nieco Battle of Kock (1939). Ale jest tam też sporo informacji na temat walk o Brześć i twierdzę tamże, więc postanowiłem to przenieść do Battle of Brzesc. Tyle że tamtej bitwy nie da się dobrze wytłumaczyć bez Wizny i Mławy, więc postanowiłem napisać stuba... ale jakoś mi nie wyszło :) A kiedy ja mam na to czas? Odpowiedź jest prosta jak futerał na cepy - ja nie mam na to czasu. Odwyk konieczny od zaraz... [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:44, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nowa periodyzacja

Ostatnio pracujemy m.in. nad nowa, chronologiczno-tematyczna hierarchia artykylow o Polsce - moze cie zainteresuje: Wikipedia:WikiProject_History_of_Poland/Periodization. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Main namespace cleanup

Heya, I've moved Szopen/About to User:Szopen/old-About. There's some edit history, so perhaps you want to keep it. Otherwise just delete it (or ask an admin to do so). &0xfeff;--fvw* 20:38, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

[edit] Polskie pany...

Słuchaj, no tego to się nie spodziewałem... na tej stronie w moją stronę rączo poszybowała uwaga o polskich panach i tym, że powinni zostawić Świętą Ruś w spokoju... Śmiać się czy płakać nad kondycją ludzką? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 07:55, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

...for helping with this anti-German guy (Grand Duchy of Poznan article). Do you know who he is? I can't keep track of him since I think he keeps changing his name every few weeks. Bwood 01:28, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wielkie Księstwo Poznańskie w Encyklopedii PWN

WIELKIE KSIĘSTWO POZNAŃSKIE, utworzone 1815 na mocy decyzji kongresu wiedeńskiego z zach. części Księstwa Warsz. i przyznane Prusom; obszar — 28 951 km2, ludność ok. 776 tys.; władcą Wielkiego Księstwa Poznańskiego był król prus., jego przedstawicielem — namiestnik (do 1831 ks. A. Radziwiłł); na czele administracji stał nacz. prezes; Księstwo podzielono na regencje — pozn. i bydg., te zaś na 26 powiatów zarządzanych przez landratów; 1824 utworzono sejm prowincjonalny (o charakterze stanowym) jako organ doradczy. Po upadku powstania listopadowego 1830–31 autonomię Wielkiego Księstwa Poznańskiego ograniczono, rozpoczął się proces germanizacji. W 1848 parlament frankfurcki uchwalił wcielenie większej części Wielkiego Księstwa Poznańskiego do Rzeszy; nie doszło jednak do tego i jedność „prowincji poznańskiej” — jak wówczas urzędowo zaczęto nazywać Wielkie Księstwo Poznańskie — została utrzymana; do walki z konspiracją rozbudowano aparat policyjny. Od lat 80. XIX w. wzmożenie germanizacji (Komisja Kolonizacyjna, Hakata, Kulturkampf); 1904 zapoczątkowano ustawy wyjątkowe podcinające pozycję gosp. ludności pol. (1908 ustawa o wywłaszczeniu pol. własności ziemskiej). Pod względem gospodarczym Wielkie Księstwo Poznańskie było żywnościowym i surowcowym zapleczem Prus; wcześniej niż w innych zaborach nastąpiło tu przejście do kapitalist. gospodarki rolnej (ustawa o uwłaszczeniu 1823, uwłaszczenie chłopów). W latach 40. XIX w. Wielkie Księstwo Poznańskie było ośr. spisków (Związek Plebejuszy, Centralizacja Poznańska); liberałowie pozn. rozwijali program pracy organicznej; 1848 ludność Wielkiego Księstwa Poznańskiego brała udział w Wiośnie Ludów (powstania wielkopolskie), a 1863 poparła powstanie styczniowe (udział w nim spowodował nasilenie represji władz prus.). Po I wojnie świat. w wyniku zwycięskiego powstania wielkopol. 1918–19 i na mocy traktatu wersalskiego, 1919 większość ziem Wielkiego Księstwa Poznańskiego weszła w skład II RP.

[edit] Inne wydawnictwa

  • S.Truchim, Historia szkolnictwa i oświaty polskiej w Wielkim Księstwie Poznańskim 1815-1915, Łódź 1967
  • J.Stoiński, Szkolnictwo średnie w Wielkim Księstwie Poznańskim w I połowie XIX wieku (1815-1850), Poznań 1972
  • W.Molik, Kształtowanie się inteligencji wielkopolskiej w Wielkim Księstwie Poznańskim 1840-1870, Warszawa-Poznań 1979
  • T.Klanowski, Germanizacja gimnazjów w Wielkim Księstwie Poznańskim i opór młodzieży polskiej w latach 1870-1914, Poznań 1962
  • (autor) Przewodnik pod Poznaniu i Wielkim Księstwie Poznańskim, Poznań 1909

[edit] Polskie organizacje w WKP

Czy w tej sytuacji nadal twierdzisz, że WKP nie istniało po roku 1848 ??? I co to oznacza??

  • że mieszańcy Poznańskiego, którzy zakładali te stowarzyszenia się mylili, twierdząc że mieszają w Wielkim Księstwie Poznańskim
  • że autorzy gazet wydawanych w Poznaiu się mylili, twierdząc że mieszają w Wielkim Księstwie Poznańskim
  • że polscy posłowie do pruskiego i niemieckiego parlamentu się myli, kiedy twierdzili, że mieszają w Wielkim Księstwie Poznańskim
  • że autor przewodnika wydanego w 1909 się mylił opisjąc sposób podróżowania po Wielkim Księstwie Poznańskim
  • że Hohenzolernowie się mylili utrzymując między swoimi tytułami do 1918 tytuł Wielkiego Księcia Poznańskiego
  • że autorzy Encyklopedii PWN i kilku innych encyklopedii się mylą opisjąc Wielkie Księstwo Poznańskie w latach 1815-1918
  • że znakomici polscy historycy się mylą opisując różne aspekty rzeczywistości Wielkiego Księstwa Poznańskiego w latach 1815-1918

I tylko ty masz racje twierdząc, że jest inaczaej - a Ci wszyscy panowie z XIX i XX wieku zmówili się w tajemną konspirację, aby robić zamieszanie w Wikipedii???

Czy nie lepiej zabrać się do jakieść pozyteznej roboty, zamiast się ośmieszać tymi głupimi gierkami i przepychankami. Grand Duke of Poznan 06:53, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] gdansk

Hey Szopen, see what you've voted for at Talk:Gdansk/Vote: List of cities in Poland Post-45 Cross-naming make no sense. -- Mr. Wszedroik


Done. I also tried to add key events. However, it is a long list, and the key events are not yet complete. Any suggstions? You may edit the page if you want. -- Chris 73 Talk 10:13, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I did some rewording of the Bio entry, but in general I like it! Hope this one will work out -- Chris 73 Talk 11:04, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
The voting page is now in the preparation stage at Talk:Gdansk/Vote, and introduced at Talk:Gdansk. Comments are welcome. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:49, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Let me know if you want to push back the starting day/time of the vote. Otherwise I would like to start on midnight of Friday. -- Chris 73 Talk 08:27, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Could you check once more Talk:Gdansk/Vote? I will start the poll in about 12 hours, unless you need more time to select a period. See Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion. Maybe you could also put both pages on your watchlist? I really want this to work, and end the revert wars on dozends of pages. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 12:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Voting has started, I am announcing it on different pages now. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:12, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Vote going well so far. I have created an article for the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost at User:Chris 73/Signpost, so User:Michael Snow can include it in the next signpost (if he wants to, possibly with some more editing). Please have a look, and feel free to edit the page. It also mentions you as one of the organizers of the vote, hope this is OK. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 02:10, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I just checked all edits, and the software is sometimes acting funny. Could you check this diff [3] to see if all votes are placed where you wanted them to, or if a vote was removed accidentially. If everything is fine, then never mind, and thanks for voting -- Chris 73 Talk 02:37, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vilnius, Wilno and whatnot

I jak Ci się podoba nasz nowy kolega (?) Chciałem spróbować jakoś się z nim dogadać, ale po tym co napisał na stronie dyskusji nie jestem pewien czy jest sens. Któż chciałby rozmawiać z takim nazistowskim szowinistą jak ja... Halibutt 05:25, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Voting Warschau/Warsaw

Hi. Since you have edited on pages with disputes about the names of German/polish locations, I would invite you to vote on Warsaw/Vote to settle the multi-year dozends-of-pages dispute about the naming of Warschau/Warsaw and other locations.--Schlesier 08:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kopernik

Tobie cos na glowe padlo? (za przeproszeniem) czy nastala jakas nowa moda germanizowania Polski w imie ... no wlasnie czego? Chyba w stylu "kazdy Polak ktory dziala przeciwko sobie bedzie bardzo lubiany przez zachodnich betonow (czytaj: Nie wiem gdzie Polska lezy, ale mam duzo do powiedzenia na jej temat)" - daj na luz. (IP z artykulu o Koperniku)

Czlowieku, czy Ty wiesz coto jest kompromis? Czy Ty wiesz czym zajmuje sie wikipedia? Zadaniem wikipedi nie jest ustalenie prawdy. Zadaniem wikipedii jest pokazanie stanu ludzkiej wiedzy. To znaczy, ze jezeli sa jakies dysputy, wikipedia je zapisuje. Jezeli nie potrafis zrozumiec tego prostego faktu, ze na wikipedii nie walczy sie o prawde, nie wygrywa sie dysput, a szuka kompromisu, to nie masz tu czego szukac.
po za tym, skad u Ciebie taki zapiekly nacjonalizm? Przeszkadza Ci to, ze Kopernik pisal listy po niemiecku, a nigdy po polsku, ze mieszkal w miescie gdzie mieszkancy byli niemieckojezyczni, a wkraju ktory byl autonomoczina czescia Polski? Chcesz teraz za niego decydowac kim on wlasciwie byl? Gdybys go zapytal, kim jest pewnie by odpowiedzial "Prusakiem", a gdyby go zapytac czy jest Polakiem czy Niemcem pewnie by nie rozumial o co chodzi,. polecam ekture kilku ksiazek na temat swiadomosci narodowej Prus Krolewskich w XV/XVi wieku, kolego. Szopen 08:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Kompromis nie oznacza ze mozna opowiadadac glupoty. Twoj watek o nacjonalizmie jest smieszy - napisz do ministra edukacji i spytaj sie dlaczego ten nacjonalista uczy w szkolach ze Kopernik byl Polakiem, jedz do Warszywy i rozwal pomnik ktory mu postawili rodacy (identyczny jest w Chicago, troche Cie wyniesie robienie Kopernika hybryda polsko-niemieckiej - nie zapomnij rowniez zadzwonic do nacjonalistow z encyklopedii brytannica bo ci amerykanscy szowinisci juz od dawna szerza klamstwo ze jest Polakiem! A na sam dobry koniec - w dominujacej wiekszosci niemieckich stron internetowych jest napisane ze to polski astronom, (jak widzisz ten okropny polski nacjonalizm nawet Niemcy ogarnia!)
"po za tym, skad u Ciebie taki zapiekly nacjonalizm? Przeszkadza Ci to, ze Kopernik pisal listy po niemiecku, a nigdy po polsku"
W Muzeum w Toruniu mozesz znalesc pisma w ktorych Pan Kopernik bezblednie spisywal nazwiska polskich chlopow (gdyby nie umial mowic po polsku, to by a) sie z nimi nie dogadal a) nie umial napisac poprawnie polskiego nazwiska).
"teraz za niego decydowac kim on wlasciwie byl?"
Ja tego nie zadecydowalem, zadecydowali to historycy i sam dobrze o tym wiesz. Bo wszedzie oficjalnie jest uwazany za Polaka. Ty chcesz sam zadecydowac ze byl "`Polako-Niemcem" chodz zadne zrodlo tego nie podaje. To Twoj wymysl, ale milo ze odwracasz kota ogonem.
"polecam ekture kilku ksiazek na temat swiadomosci narodowej Prus Krolewskich w XV/XVi wieku, kolego"
Polecam isc sie spytac bylej Pani od hiry, jakiej narodowosci byl Kopernik (widocznie chodziles na wagary gdy o tym bylo).
P.S. (Szopen byl Francuzem!)

Jeszcze jeda ciekawostka : Kopernikus, Nikolaus (1473-1543), polnischer Astronom, der das heliozentrische Weltsystem aufstellte. Diese Theorie geht davon aus, dass sich die Sonne. ... to z niemieckiej encyklopedii MSN Encarta - Kopernikus, Nikolaus.

Ale po co brac pod uwage co pisza Niemcy z rozumem, prawda? Nie lepiej to robic kompromisy z takimi ktorzy regularnie wandalizuja polskie artykuly wpychac swoje rewizjonistyczne wizje swiata? Pewnie ze lepiej! :-)

Kolego, Twoja pani od "hiry" (cokolwiek to ma byc: sadzc po uzywanych skrotach chyba jestes dosc mlodym czlowiekiem) jest dla mnie o wiele mniejszym autorytetem niz phistorycy z doktoratem, ktorzy sie tymz ajmuja profesjonalnie. Na temat narodowosci Kopernika dyskutujemy tutaj juz ponad piec lat. Wszelkie Twoje argumenty znam na pamiec. Ja nic nie zdecydowalem - to jest, KURWA, rezultat PIECIU LAT WOJEN na wikipedii z roznego rodzaju oszolomami, Niemcami ktorzy uwazali, ze to Niemiec, Polakami, ktorzy na sama sugestie ze moze on faktyczine byl Niemcem noz sie w kieszeni otwieral i tak dalej.
Wikipedia zapisuje fakty i dysputy. Jezeli w glosowaniu na najwybitniejszego Niemca w historii Kopernik byl w pierwszej dziesiatce, to znaczy, ze spora grupa ludzi uwaza Kopernika za Niemca. Wikipedia wiec nie obraza sie na rzeczywistosc, tylko zapisuje, ze jest dysputa na temat jego narodowosci i tyle,
Nie ma sie co powolywac na encyklopedie inne, bo jak na pewno wiesz z zwielu dyskuji na wikipedii, zawieraja one czasami bledy.
Fryderyk Chopin uwazal sie za Polaka. Nie wiemy za kogo uwazal sie Kopernik, natomiast podpisywal sie "Niemiecki matematyk z Prus Krolewskich". (Argument, ze wpisal sie do niemieckiej nacji w Bolonii jest oczywiscie chybiony, bow szyscy sie tam wpisywali).
To raz, a dwa w sredniowieczu, nawet poznym, swiadomosc narodowa byla zdecydowanie bardziej rozmyta niz teraz. Dzielynscy, jedni z liderow opozycji szlacheckiej w Prusach, chociaz pochodzili z Wielkoposlki, uwazali sie za .. Prusakow. Ogolnie wiekszosc miekszancow Prus za ojczyzne uznawala wlasnie PRUSY, i Kopernik PRAWDOPODOBNIE czul sie przede wszystkim PRUSAKIEM, a POlakiem i Niemcem pozniej dopiero.
Ze tez ja musze to wszystko tlumaczyc facetowi, ktory przyszedl miesiac czy dwa temu do wikipedii i nie chce mu sie nawet zajrzec do archiwum, zeby poczytac wszystkie dyskusje na ten temat...

Szopen 10:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nie boj sie... czytalem wszystko, rowniez na pl. wikipedii - Ty powinienes zwrocic uwage, ze idziesz na kompromis ze slynna niemieccka edytorka (bo od niej sie tuaj zaczelo) - ktore zostala zbanowana, a teraz regularnie pod IP "zmienia" artykuly. Gdys wykazal jeszcze do tego troche zainteresowania i sprytu, doszedl bys tu na wikipedii do jej imienia i nazwiska. Co znowu by Ci umozliwilo znalesc przez google jej "artykul" w w niemieckiej gazecie internetowej (neo-nazistowskiej) ktora chwali hitlera itd.
Co do glosowania na najwybitniejszego Niemca... mylisz sie, nie zmiescil sie nawet w pierwszej 100 !! (bylo glosowanie na internecie, poczym 100 najwiekszych NIemcow bylo przedstawionych w TV - Kopernika przytym nie bylo. Dodatkowo powiem Ci ze nasz minister edukacji sie w tej sprawie wypowiedzial i stwierdzil ze "go to denerwuje" (czytaj: germanizowanie Kopernika).
Co do narodowosci - lokalny patriotyzm byl szeroki w czasach Rzplitej, a jeszcze w tym wieku Polcy z Litwy uwazali sie za Litwinow, co nie oznaczalo ze jednoczescie uwazaja sie za Polakow. Tak jak dzis ktos moze sie uwazac za Kaszuba lub Wielkopolanina, Slazaka lub Warszawiaka, a jednoczesnie Polaka.
Kopernik jest oficjalnie uzwazany za Polaka. To ze sa dysputy miedzy "zwyklymi ludkami" (a glownie z tymi "deutschland, deutschland uber alles) jest juz opisane w artykule o narodowosci Kopernika. Ale isc na kompromisy z oszolomami w glownym artykule, uwazam za totalny bezsens. P.S. W dyskusji artykulu Kopernika, jest tekst w ktorym Nietzsche stwierdza ze czuje sie Polakiem (mowa o Nietzsche) - w artykule o nim ani mru mru o tym fakcie. Kiedys mialem tez wypowiedz Galileo ktory stwierdza "Ten polski astronom ....." (O Koperniku) niestety juz nie posiadam tego linka, a szkoda.

[edit] Zygmunt Szendzielarz

Czesc. Mam pytanie, skad posiadasz informacje ze Szendzielarz zmasakrowal wioske (cywilow, kobiety i dzieci) ?--Witkacy 16:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chodzi tu o Zygmunt Szendzielarz, ktory zwalczal - rowniez - litewska policje ktora kolaborowala z Niemcami. W wyszukiwarkach wpisujac jego nazwisko + masakra lub massacre nic o tym nie wyskoczylo--Witkacy 17:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chodzilo o Dubingiai ale juz sie wyjasnia :)--Witkacy 06:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dzieki, znalazlem rowniez w encyklopedii o tym. Moze dolaczysz do dyskusji na [4]--Witkacy 07:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Co sadzisz?

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

[edit] Sigrid the Haughty

Hi Szopen, I remember you from the Europa Universalis discussion site. I give you a translation of the article in the Swedish Nationalencyklopedin, which should be a summary of present view among scholars in Scandinavia:

Scandinavian queen mentioned in Icelandic sources and in Saxo. Sigrid is given as the daughter of a Westrogothic lord, and married to Eric the Victorious and the mother of Olof Skötkonung. After Erik's death, Sigrid is said to have burnt a Norwegian and a Russian suitor to death inside a house, cancelled a planned marriage to Olaf Trygvasson of Norway, but married with the Danish king Sweyn Forkbeard. However, Sigrid is a constructed character, and the information about her does not fit well with other sources. She has for instance been confused with the Slavic princess Gunhild, who was the consort of Eric the Victorious

Consequently, we don't even know whether the Slavic princess and Sigrid the Haughty were one and the same person.--Wiglaf 10:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Szopen. You seem to have quite a convincing case there, although I don't share your critical view of Old Norse sources (you'd be surprised by how accurate they can be). You should move parts of the presentation you have given me to the Sigrid article and present it as a discussion. It could have a separate section on the accounts in the sagas, and a section about the Polish princess. Then, I think it will be a finished article.--Wiglaf 14:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD: Nazi or German Occupation?

Check this VfD vote: [5] --Ttyre 19:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ciekawostka

en:Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice#What the hell? - może Cię zainteresuje.Halibutt 03:35, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polish Wikipedians' notice board

Shortcut:
WP:WNBP

zapraszam.--Witkacy 13:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Semitism in Poland

I understand your time constrains, nevertheless we might have a case of the over-zealous editor. Please take look again at the article and the discussion. --Ttyre 19:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Przeproszenie

Przyjmuje wasze przeproszenie. Dziekuja. Wiele ludzie zadaja przeprosin. Niewiele ludzie przepraszaja! And I hope you forgive me for turning the "obsession" remark on you (and for my poor Polish)! HKT 22:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bikont

Podesłałem Ci artykuły. Dotarły? Halibutt 13:32, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sacha Pecaric

Hi Szopen: See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 28#Sacha Pecaric. The article Sacha Pecaric has been nominated for removal to Jewish Polish current events. Thank you. IZAK 28 June 2005 10:15 (UTC)

[edit] anti-Polonism

Moglbys dac glos na zostawienie - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Polonism dzieki--Witkacy 4 July 2005 22:27 (UTC)

Rozpoczalem zbieranie materialu na rozbudowe artykulu--Witkacy 8 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic conflicts in western Poland

Hi. Thanks for the note. Unfortunately, I also have no time. I have asked User:Piotrus to take a look at it, he is knowledgeable about the subject and a NPOV editor. Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk July 6, 2005 06:22 (UTC)

I am not that knowledgable about Polish-German history. I think there is hope for the article, but it needs substantial expantion and rewriting - and I also don't have time (or better said, will) to do it. Still, I think it can became eventually as good as the History of the Jews in Poland article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 6 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)

[edit] Jomsvikings

Wiglaf suggested that you might be able to contribute to this article, particularly in archeology and the relationship between the Jomsvikings and the local Slavs. Any help would be appreciated. --Briangotts 6 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

Hi Szopen. Although I left the English Wikipedia some time ago, I remember your cooperative attitude even in the most difficult discussions. Are you interested in a German-Polish meetup on the island of Uznam/Usedom? If so, add your name to this list: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Treffen_der_Wikipedianer_auf_Usedom/Spotkanie_Wikipedystów_na_Uznam. Take care -- Baldhur 9 July 2005

[edit] Please vote

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland--Ttyre 19:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wieluń

Jeśli chodzi Ci o anona na stronie o bombardowaniach Wielunia - już co nieco dodałem od siebie. A jeśli chodzi o rozszerzenie artykułu - tutaj masz fajny skrót, razem z bibliografią. Ja niestety w domu mam niewiele. Halibutt 11:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

W najnowszym numerze "Lotnictwa"(z września) widziałem list od czytelnika(jedna strona pisma) podający szczegóły jak jego miasteczko było bombardowane(a w zasadzie masakrowane) przez Luftwaffe.Podaje on też kilka żródeł, książek w którym można znależć więcej informacji.--Molobo 17:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zniemczanie Kopernika

No cóż Space.com jest profesjonalnym serwisem o astronomii i astronautyce używanym przez światowe media, pozwolę sobie polegać na ich zdaniu o tym kim był Kopernik.Co do Warszawy-to nie jest związane z zagadnieniem. --Molobo 16:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Kulturkampf

Możesz zerknąć na ten artykuł ? Usilnie trwa tam próba wymazywania wszelkich wzmianek o prześladowaniu Polaków i stanowisku Bismarcka. --Molobo 18:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt

Mysle, ze chcialbys sie wypowiedziec. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

As to your comment at my talk page: tomorrow I'm having a chat with a chap who is a specialist on the matter, I'm sure he could send us some links or sources.

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

[edit] AS

Any details? Diffs and links preferred... Is it a wiki discussion or off-wiki? Halibutt 13:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Babel

Could you consider adding this template to your userpage? It is very helpful in case translators are needed and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligentsia

Witam pana, panie Szopenie. Prosze zobaczyc co dodalem ostatnio do Intelligentsia#References. mikka (t) 19:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Somosierra

Thank you very much for the notice.

The appellation of "suicidal" is in no way meant to reflect poorly on the Poles themselves, of course, but rather on Napoleon's lack of judgment. I was informed by Chandler's The Campaigns of Napoleon, p. 641

To order a small force of seven officers and 80 men to charge up a steep narrow road into the very mouths of 16 cannon before supporting infantry could get close enough to engage the gunners was a very callous thing to do, even for Napoleon…he was effectively sentencing a gallant unit to almost certain destruction.

On casualties and the multiple charges Chandler writes:

...their desperate attack was only halted 30 yards from the smoking guns. By this time, 60 out of the original 88 horsemen had been killed or wounded. The Third Squadron had ceased to exist; no officer was left to command the survivors... Somewhat belatedly Napoleon ordered his troops to adopt the correct procedure: a properly coordinated infantry and cavalry attack…A brisk exchange of musketry caused several Spanish battalions to waver. Sensing this opportunity, the Emperor once again ordered a cavalry charge up the road, this time by the two remaining squadrons of Poles supported by the chasseurs-à-cheval of the Guard. On this occasion the timing was perfect. Harassed by the fire of the French infantry, the Spanish gunners were able to loose off only a single salvo before the cheering horsemen...were among their cannon, sabering left and right.

At any rate, the specifics concerning the Poles are for you to decide, but I trust you'll take the above into consideration. Regards, Albrecht 18:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Chandler is a meticulous researcher and a highly respected authority on the Napoleonic Wars, but it's quite possible that he mistook some of the more precise details of Somosierra given the volume and scope of his work. I would still trust that his overall description of the battle is correct; however, I won't presume to tell a Pole what happened to a Polish squadron! :) To address a few of your points:
  • I agree that two guns is a less frightening objective. Were the Poles still subject to the gunfire of all 16 during their trot toward the batteries?
  • I clearly haven't consulted the Polish histories. If your sources differ in the details, then I think you should go ahead and make the necessary changes.
  • Casualties are unclear. Previous (Polish) contributors had listed them as 18 dead and 120 wounded out of 200 participating horsemen. Again, if you're confident in your sources we can go by them, but there does seem to be wide consensus that the Poles took a pretty severe mauling that day. Just as importantly, I have no figure for total Imperial casualties, which are needed for the battlebox. Maybe you know the casualties suffered by the other (French) units taking part in the battle?
  • Of course it was a success: it's listed as a French victory, after all! But I think Chandler's correct in stating that the victory was achieved as much by the pressure of the infantry as by the cavalry charges.
Incidentally, I noticed from re-reading Chandler that I was a bit sloppy in my account of the Spanish dispositions. I may return later to tidy things up. Albrecht 07:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I just now saw your lengthy explanations on Somosierra talk; sorry about my hasty reply above! Albrecht 07:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Saw you on the forum

In discussion about UPA. Do you know that Home Army and UPA engaged in joint attacks on Germans ? I have a scholary work on the subject at home. I could give you the details later if you want, as well as details on attempts to create Polish units in 1944 by Germans. --Molobo 12:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history: Coordinator elections

WikiProject Military history The Military history WikiProject is currently holding elections for project coordinators. Any member of the project may nominate themselves and all are encouraged to vote here.
The elections will run until February 5.

--Loopy e 04:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam On Talk Pages

Please do not spam my user talk page. And yeah, have a clue what you're talking about next time. - Calgacus 14:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls, Szopen. This is what you get for your troubles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

Although I like the naming scheme we (me, Logologist and Appleseed) came up with, I am not claiming we are perfect. I tried to get others into the discussion by advertising it at our Polish noticeboard, W:Naming convention page and RfC, but it was only after most of the moves were done then the opposition has appeared. Since it appears that opposition is increasing, if there are more people who want to revert the moves, I am not going to object - if a discussion and a vote are carried out at Talk:List of Polish monarchs#Naming.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sadly

Sciurinæ continues to ignore all sources and puts POV tag without stating any reasons for it on the Kulturkampf article.

--Molobo 20:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish kingdom and Polish crown

Dear Szopen! Actually, I am not a historician. What I read in several textbooks is, that they point out the relative autonomy of Royal Prussia and that it was not part of the kingdom but the crown. This difference is not my invention. In any case: Royal Prussia came under Polish power in the Torun treaty (1466). It insisted on several prerogatives (e. g. own coins, own estates meetings apart from the Polish parliament, German language in administration). In the case of Warmia for example the Polish king wanted to reduce the autonomy of the bishoperic and he was explicitely against Lucas Watzenrode, Copernicus uncle. The Pope however ordained him and not the son of the Polish king. The reality in Warmia was, that the Polish king was important for foreign affairs, specially for the protection against the Teutonic order. In other fields he had allmost nothing to say though he wished to. May be the Polish king claimed Prussia as Polish (the english kings called themselves for over hundret years kings of France, although there was a different king of France in France). I have a different understanding of "integral part" of Polish kingdom, Royal Prussia was part of the Polish crown, but as indepent as possible, so it was hardly "integral" in the meaning "constitutive".--Dagox 16:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Szopen for your answer! If I understand we have a different point of view between Polish king and Sejm on the one site and the poeple of Warmia on the other site, which isn't surprising. Perhaps what I told in the discussion is biased torwards this "Prussian" point of view. One could also have the Polish point of view (like Balcer and you?). So there are two possible alternatives: Either Warmia is considered a normal Polish province with no substantial prerogatives and the people there (especially the chapter and bishop of Frauenburg) opposed that fact, or it was not an integral part of Polish kingdom but a quite autonomous prince-bishoperic only accepting the Polish king as some kind of protector and Warmians were in this respect loyal to the king. What Balcer argues is: It was clearly part of Poland and Warmians were loyal to the king hence they liked to be considered as Polish. This is not a consequent interpretation in my oppinion.--Dagox 11:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Szopen! In what we agree is, that the exact status of Warmia was in debate between the Polish kingdom and the bishops and chapter of Warmia. Explecitely we know, that Watzenrode insisted on the prerogatives and the largest possible independence which was achievable without causing armed confrontation between the Polish kingdom and the Teutonic order as Warmia, in between these two, would have certainly to suffer from an eventual war. Bishop Watzenrode can thus hardly be called a Pole although he had to swear loyality to the Polish king, his liege lord. But Watzenrode was Copernicus uncle and mentor and most likely Copernicus shared his point of view. Both where in the same political position, both were born in Thorun, both had studied in Italy. Copernicus himself called Prussia his fatherland (in his comment on the coin reform). So it would be best, to call him Prussian or Warmian - but both is not helpful for those who don't know details in this matter. We could renounce on a nationality in the lead to focus on his achievements which are not affected by this dispute. I could even accept to call him "Polish astronomer" but I think, then we should add a short reference to the considerable German influence upon him. I'm a bit surprised that some of the discussion participants obviously can't accept even this.--Dagox 11:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Second Peace of Thorun: You're right, "some" is probably more appropriate.--Dagox 14:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


  • "dweil wir eyn Volck und under eynem Herrn gesessen"
"Because we are one nation under the protection of one lord."
  • "die furstliche Durchleuchtigkeit [Albrecht] nicht verlassen muchte noch kunte"
"[we?] did not want to abandon his lordship [Albrecht] nor were we able to do so", there is no subject in the part you cited.
  • "wir allhier im Lande, das ein corpus und unter eynem Herrn gelegen, eyner den andern in Nothen nicht verliessen"
"we all in this country under the protection of one lord stay together in all troubles."
  • "Die meisten Auswartige sehen die Provintz ein in drey Woywodschafften geteiletes Land ab, welches von der Cron Polen bloss dem Namen nach unterschieden is"
"Most foreigners [people from other regions] consider the province as diveded in three parts [Woywodschafften], which is separated from the Polish crown only by his name"
  • "Wenn ich betrachte, dass wir Polen geworden und, aufgehoret haben, Preussen zu seyn. Ja! Die Polen, die Feinde von Preussen, haben, seit der Ziet, dass wir an die Konige von Polen uns ergeben haben, unser Vorfahren mittlerer Zeir beredete, biss gar niemand ubrig sey, der unsern Gesetz- und Pacten massugen Zustand verstehe, und wir dergestalt blosse Woywodschafften von Preussen und keine Lande Preussen, lediglich Polacken und kein Preussen, mehr seyn werden. Einen eigenen und abgesonderten Staatskorper haben - die von der Republick Polen durch Sprache, Sitten, Rechte, Gewohnheiten, Stande und Ordnungen, Rathe, Obrigket und Richter ganz verschieden."
"When I consider that we have become Poles and stopped being Prussians. Yes! The Poles, enemies of Prussia, have influenced [?] our forefathers that nobody shall remain who is able to understand our state based on laws and alliances, so that we shall be just normal parts [blosse Woywodschafften] of Prussia and not an integer contry Prussia, that we shall be just Poles [Polacken, pejorative] and not Prussians anymore. They did so since we subjected ourselves to the Polish kings. [So we stopped, ?] having an own and seperated state - from the Polish Rebulic totally different by language, morals, law, customs, class and order, council, gouvernment and judges."

This is an attempt. Some parts seem strange to me and I can't account for absolute correctness - specially the short quotes are lacking the context.

The discussion on the Copernicus talk page seems to start again, as if there had been no discussion in the last weeks. The poll has not led to an agreement. Actaully I'm also not happy with it, since there last some dubious votes and additionally several people did not vote although they clearly stated their preference for "no mention". I have not the time to contribute and I don't want to repeat myself too often. It seems that an agreement can't be found at the moment - so the edit war goes on (not from my side).--Dagox 17:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus

I took the liberty of removing your votes from the poll summary. The way I look at it, the poll was up for two weeks, and you did not choose to record your vote. Then the poll was archived, without your vote. Now you are inserting your vote into the summary, which puts it in contradiction with the poll results stored in the archive. Overall, this just creates confusion. Plus, having neverending polls is a bad idea.

As you voted for all of the options listed, my removal does not change the result much, and does not favor any side of this dispute.

I hope you understand my reasoning. If you still insist that your vote should be added, at least add it also in the vote archive page so that there is consistency. Balcer 14:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please

Look in the article Renaissance in Poland a tag haas been made on it suggesting it isn't neutral. Explanation was given as : Contemporary Poland, before it brought in German settlers to urbanize it, could boast little more than a series of fortified cragie lumps with some mud-huts around them. --Molobo 21:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Czy orientujesz się może

Ile liczyły sobie ludzi miasta w średniowiecznej Polsce ? Na przykład ile ludności miało Gniezno, czy też Kraków. Chodzi mi o lata w okolicach 1000-1300

--Molobo 17:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mieszko

Hi Szopen thank you for writing and notifying me. I am posting it here including my answer. I really do not have time for wiki, but I will answer, when I see messages Mieszko

I have remoevd the reference to pseudo-history book, because a) the theory is already referenced in links about "Scandinavian connections" b) there are HUNDREDS of book about Mieszko, i don't know why we should reference this one c) Mieszko was called by his contemporaries: Msko (in Arabian sources), Misico, Mesco, Mesico, Misika (by German sources). No German source call him Dago. Dynasty traditions uses names of Mieszko later, and contains tradition of coming from local peasants (sharply in contrast to dynastical traditions of Rurykowicze). There is one ABSTRACT containing mangled names written century later which call him "Dagome". Building theory on that is a prime example for pseudo-history. Just see the link scandinavian connections to Mieszko.

I know that this theory was once popular amongst certain circles of Germans historians, who tried to prove that Poland was in fact found by Germans/Scandinavians, but I thought those theories are long gone after 1945. Szopen 09:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Szopen,

Dagome Iudex reference was made mid 11th century, that is about a thousand years before 1945. The Dagome refers to someone known as Dago, Dagr, husband of Ote or Oda von Haldensleben and their three children. Boleslaw I Chrobry, son of Mieszko I and another wife, is not included in this Dagome Iudex. Many north Germanic rulers of the time are known under the Slavic names now, for example Waldimar, now known as Vladimir (of Kiew, Russia) etc.

This is my educated guess of what Mieszko could stand for:

Mieszko, for all I know, could be some type of attribute in Slavic language, as was done with all the Piasts. One later Piast named (translated): Curly Hair, Kraushaar in German and same name in Polish language sounding something like that. Mieszko sounds to me also like what one calls in some German dialects a cat Mietze Katze. This would have been spelled in earlier German something like miecze cacze also with double cz, miesczcze caczcze). Cz was centuries later replaced in High German Sound Shift to tz or tt. German words like Modern High German: Hitze (Engl. heat), Blitz (Engl. lightning) were earlier written as hiczcze, bliczcze. etc

What you call psedo-history really goes back to most of Polish history, which started 'in a fog', in myth and fables.

I added the reference to Miezko I talk and to Scandinavian connections Dagome Iudex describes Dago or Dagr (Mieszko I), husband of Ote

Dagome Iudex refers to Dago or Dagr, who was married to Ote (Oda von Haldensleben and they had three sons, Boleslaw I Chrobry was not included. Dago is the one later called Mieszko I of the Piasts. The Daglingers were a dynasty from Norway. Dagobert is also an old Frankish name of several rulers.

  • Book: (The Daglinger 'Piasts') 'Die Daglinger "Piasten" [6] by Jochen Wittmann

MG 3/24/2006

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue I - March 2006
Project news
From the Coordinators

Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in.

Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months.

Kirill Lokshin, Lead Coordinator
Current proposals
  • Proposed guidelines for categories of military people are currently being discussed. A number of issues have already been resolved, but the proposed scheme is still in draft form and further input would be very welcome.

delivered by Loopy e 05:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent discussions

I noticed your recent discussion with an anon user regarding issue of Polish and German relations. The anon stated one source of his views on one talk page, you might be interested: [7]

The source is from [8]

I recommend you look at the site and what ideology it represents. --Molobo 18:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Szopen

[edit] For you information

here is the complete conversation [9], not only Molobo's twist to it. As you can see, the only reason why this sample was posted, is to show the frustration over the Polish inclination for twisting. Had I found the Polish article, I found later, I would have posted that one instead. Of course Molobo is not reading or forwarding to you the other link I posted from a Polish writer about Falsification of History in Poland [10]. You seem to be a fairly reasonable person and if only a few sensible people are willing to look at true facts, then all the hard work at wikipedia makes it worth it. But sadly Wikipedia is full of twistings and it is really a waste of time trying to make it at least a little bit compatible with reliable history books. The Molobos will not let this happen. MG 4/8/2006

[edit] Warto zobaczyć tą dyskusję

[11] --Molobo 11:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Torun

You had reverted twice [12] [13] to Molobo who deleted [14] vital infos which are also reported on Toruns Website itself. You better watch on whom you rely (or ally?), and revert to. --Matthead 23:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tragedy of Polish 'historians'

It is a tragedy that Polish history as presented by Polish historians is so often derided by Western historians because it has largely been re-written to suit Polish nationalistic tendancies. Poles rely on histories written (and then copied) by themselves often to the complete exclusion of everyone else's histories. Its a mistake. One example of this very clear display of overt nationalism is the number of Poles who are busy writing up on the ENGLISH-language Wikipedia, clearly because they wish to propagate their bias to a wider audience who they doubtless see as 'misled'. 81.131.13.215 12:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's sad that you do not know a zilch about polish history. First, it's not strange that most people writing about Polish history are Poles. It's not strange also that western history isn't entirely free of bias - because for decades it was based on German and Russian histories, which WERE heavily biased Szopen 12:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II

The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lokshin 18:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pope Stephen IX (or X)

Hi,

I read what you wrote on Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło about the attempt to rename the page into Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania, and I agree totally with you. I think as rule there can't be more than one variant of a name in the title of an article. If more than one variant is possible, the title must chose only one and the others must be explained in the text itself and redirects must be used from alternative titles. If such alternative titles were admitted in the article's title itself, then we'd have to rename, for examples, Stepanakert into Stepanakert/Xankəndi, Tighina into Tighina/Bender/Bendery or 2003 invasion of Iraq into 2003 invasion/liberation of Iraq...

I am myself implicated in a very long and endless debate which is, I think, similar to this one. It's about the need to rename the article Pope Stephen X into Pope Stephen IX, and so on until Pope Stephen III into Pope Stephen II. The historical reasons of this naming problem are detailed in Pope-elect Stephen. Those historical facts are not the matter of the debate. Everybody agrees on those facts. The problem is some users want to rename Pope Stephen X into Pope Stephen IX (or X), which is an absurdity because of the same reasons as above.

I've launched this debate on 19 February and it is endless because it seems to interest very few people and it's impossible to reach a majority. I'm now prospecting for other people who would share my opinion on the matter. If you think you have something to say about this, I would be very glad if you did on Talk:Pope_Stephen_X. I thank you in advance.

Švitrigaila 00:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I thank you very much for having answerd my call. :o) Švitrigaila 17:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bielski

I will take a look at it and see what I can do, but I don't know very much about them beyond what's in the book. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Briangotts -- I'm getting on this one. (See my discussion on The Bielski Brothers Talk page.) Jewish resistance movement topics are a content-area specialty of mine. When I have the article ready, I'll add it to the New article announcements page of the Jewish History WikiProject so you'll be able to review it and contribute there. Cheers, Deborahjay 11:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Molobo

Prosi o kontakt. GG 3091223. A moje przy okazji to 1298166. Pozdr, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Prosił też by Ci przekazać ten link. //Halibutt 15:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


Cześć Szopen, blok zdjęty ale nie posiadam czasu by coś więcej edytować. Co do przesiedleń Niemców, proszę oto żródło z IPN o powodach : http://www.ipn.gov.pl/a_120504_grot_wardzynska.html Wśród racjonalnych należy wymienić przede wszystkim doświadczenia Polaków wyniesione z okresu międzywojennego i pierwszych miesięcy okupacji z północnych i zachodnich ziem Polski, zaanektowanych następnie przez III Rzeszę. Przypomnijmy, że niemieccy działacze polityczni, przede wszystkim z Deutscher Volksverband i z Jungdeutscher Partei, przeszkadzali w asymilacji Niemców z ludnością polską. Piętnowano mówienie po polsku oraz łączność z kulturą polską. Bojkotowano obchody polskich świąt narodowych, a ludność niemiecką, która nie przestrzegała narzuconych zasad, uważano za zdrajców i renegatów niemczyzny. Wysyłano skargi do Ligi Narodów o rzekomo trudnym położeniu mniejszości niemieckiej, a od października 1938r różne Stutzpunkty NSDAP prowadziły wręcz działalność irredentystyczną. Do stałego repertuaru tej organizacji należało rozpowszechnianie propagandowych filmów i broszur o antypolskiej wymowie. Utworzona następnie, na polecenie Reichsfuhrera SS H. Himmlera z mniejszości niemieckiej, terrorystyczna organizacja Selbstschutz, współdziałała w masowych egzekucjach przeprowadzanych w ramach „Intelligenzaktion” przez operacyjne grupy policji bezpieczeństwa, donosząc, wskazując i internując miejscowych Polaków. Ci, którym udało się przeżyć internowanie i obozy, tak opisują aktywność Selbstschutzu: „Złożył na mnie doniesienie niejaki „X”, Niemiec, któremu zwróciłem uwagę jeszcze przed wojną, że używa słów niemieckich”. „Zostałem na ulicy zaaresztowany przez „X”, siodlarza z Działdowa, z którym znaliśmy się przed wojną. Nosił karabin i miał na rękawie opaskę. Zarzucał mi rozbijanie związków niemieckich przed wojną. Internowania objęły setki osób. Łapano ludzi na ulicach, wyciągano z domów. Rodziny internowanych wysiedlono. Oblicza się, że w ramach „Akcji inteligencja” zamordowano na terenach polskich przyłączonych do Rzeszy ponad 40 tys. Polaków, a ponad 20 tys. zesłano do obozów koncentracyjnych. Przeżyło zaledwie kilka procent z nich. Osoby te zostały przeważnie wskazane przez miejscowych Niemców, jako wrogo nastawione do Rzeszy. Wysiedlenie Niemców po wojnie wykluczało powtórzenie się podobnej sytuacji w przyszłości. Do względów emocjonalnych należał fakt, że nie było w Polsce rodziny, która nie poniosłaby w wyniku okupacji niemieckiej, strat biologicznych i materialnych. Rozdzielenie zwaśnionych narodowości po takich doświadczeniach wydawało się sensownym rozwiązaniem. --Molobo 22:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As expected

Information on persecution of Poles in Prussia was deleted.[15] --Molobo 16:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hakata

Możesz zerknąć na artykuł o Hakacie ? German Eastern Marches Society Polacy zagrażali Niemcom bo "Polonizowali" Posen, a Hakata nie była wymierzona w Polaków. Przynajmniej takie argumenty daje Niemiecki user który upiera się przy flagowaniu tego artykułu który rozszerzyłem. --Molobo 21:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006

The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion about Jagiello

I was talking strictly about geographical size of two countries, look at this: [16] Juraune 13:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prussia

All information about discrimination of national minorities in Prussia was deleted. Information that Poles were subject to discrimination in Prussian state have been stated as "historical revisionism" by a German user[17]. All information about this presented on discussion page was either ignored or claimed that it is a Polish POV because Poles feel unsecure living on others land, despite the fact that sources were non-Polish. Please help in achieving NPOV in the article --Molobo 15:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very important

All information about the role of Lebensraum deleted from information about goals of Nazis deleted, Poland and Warsaw according to the user are part of "Greater Germany" : [18] User doubts Hitler wanted war and Lebensraum in East and pursuses changes to indicate he wanted peace with Poland: [19] Hitler wanted to settle territorial issues but Poland didn't trust him: [20] No comments. I even went as far to give links but the user deletes them as POV. --Molobo 09:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] zygmunt

Would you share your opinion at Talk:Zygmunt II August and Talk:Zygmunt I the Old and Talk:Sigismund III of Poland. ObRoy 04:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New colleague, greeting you!

Drogi Szopen, I'm hoping you're feeling more positive towards the Wikipedia environment since the rather touchy (and touching) remarks you wrote on your User Page. That's what's prompted me to leave you this little message here. You're welcome to visit my User Page, and perhaps sometime we can collaborate on some topics of mutual interest. Keep your spirits up, and stay with us! Cheers, Deborahjay 11:23, 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 19:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What Wladyslaw Bartoszewski told us not long ago...

...when he paid a visit to Israel and came to talk with the staff of the Ghetto Fighters' House:

"Of course we criticize our country -- because we care so much about [her]!" (translated from PL>HE simultaneous interpretation, as near as I can recall it).

I offer this, drogi Szopen, as a recent example of how some contemporary Israelis -- including immigrants from Europe and the West, among them Holocaust survivors, among whom are former fighters in the ranks of the ghetto undergrounds, partisans, and other antifascist forces -- learn about Poland, from notable Poles themselves.

Whatever may be said about the man's politics -- and doubtless he has his detractors -- Wladyslaw Bartoszewski is in my eyes a model of human decency, and I wish more politicians (worldwide) had his integrity.

I mention this in all humility, in the face of the topics of history that you and I engage to edit, that contain so much of the barbarism and brutality that is warfare: surely a candidate for the all-time greatest shame of humankind, i.e. the settling of ideological and religious differences between peoples by engaging in mass, organized bloodshed.

But let's not discuss my compromised pacifism here/now. I only wanted to state that I'm open to listening to and learning from my Polish colleagues, while hoping that my own attempts at conscientious writing and editing will be read with understanding.
Thanks, Deborahjay (secular American-born (3rd gen!) Jew, Israeli since 1984) -- 09:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AK, AL, & what Israelis learn

(speaking for myself, reading on my own and unrelated to whatever's taught in the State secondary curriculum, let alone the utter neglect of Poland in my own USA secondary education...!)

I referred to (i.e. decribed) the Armia Krajowa as "nationalist" based on my understanding of their name (= "Homeland Army"). This as contrasted with the Armia Ludowa, whose leftist (Communist?) leanings are revealed in their name (= "People's Army").

I recall reading that the AK had formal contact and dialogue with elements of the Jewish resistance movement, and I certainly did not intend to imply an overall policy of antisemitism. This matter will no doubt surface in future editing I'll do, and I'll be sure to pay it special attention. For this, I especially value your pointing out what may be insufficient knowledge (and even a POV bias) on my part. Thanks! -- Deborahjay 09:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

NB: See my response to yours, on my User talk page... Deborahjay 01:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The two senses of "nationalism" in English

I've given considerable thought to the point you raised (on my User talk page) about the sense in which the English-language term "nationalism" is used.

I still [keep on forgetting] that in English "nationalist" is not Polish "nacjonalizm". In Polish "nacjonalizm" is pejorative term and no Pole would call AK as having the ideology called "nacjonalizm". NSZ (part of which was then lossely incorporated into AK structures) was "nacjonalistyczna".

Unlike the Hebrew, as well as the Polish (if I understood correctly), that have two separate words, the Encarta (World English) dictionary gives these definitions for nationalism:

  • patriotism: proud loyalty and devotion to a nation
  • excessive loyalty to nation: excessive or fanatical devotion to a nation and its interests, often associated with a belief that one country is superior to all others

A careful editor will probably rewrite the latter as "nationalist extremism" (or "rightwing militancy" or similar language depending on context) -- but this still doesn't solve the problem of the possible misreading of the stand-alone term "nationalism" to mean nothing more than patriotism.

Perhaps "patriotic nationalism" will serve, awkward though it seems. Still, the desire to avoid being misunderstood or worse, provoke antagonistic readings, is a powerful motivation. Cheers, Deborahjay 00:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 19:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expect no contact for a while...

...except this acknowledgement of reading the update you wrote on my User page regarding Jewish partisans. We're now in our third week under fire from the Islamic fundamentalist freedom fighters, specifically the Hezbollah, dedicated to ridding the planet of the Zionist menace, among whom I and my family surely number, having accepted Israeli citizenship and living where we do (see template on my User page for updates). Meanwhile, I trust you'll do your usual conscientious job. See you later, I hope. -- Deborahjay 14:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 12:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Poland's WW2 losses

Radio Polonia reported on 9/6/06[21]that a commission is being set up to investigate Poland's WW2 losses. Do you have any knowledge on this recent development? I need the help of Polish Wipedians since my Polish language skills are at a basic level. Barney Dombrowski AKA--Woogie10w 23:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 20:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expulsion of Germans after World War II

There is a discussion going on between User:Lysy and myself at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Lysy has brought up an important criticism of the article that I agree with and will result in a shift in the tone of the article. I would like your input into the discussion before edits are made rather than afterward. Please join us in this discussion.

--Richard 12:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use

Just questioning you because you look at least semi-experienced... Would the Linux penguin picture have to be removed? (because you can't hhave copyrighted images on userspace?

Just trying to find out DPM 17:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. DPM 14:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linux

Hi, Arkadiusz. I think that a little more work on Linux would bring it to Featured Article status. I would be grateful for your comments here. Thanks. Axl 09:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A user witha cause

Just look at this... spreading good will throughtout Wiki, isn't he :> -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poczucie humoru

Czytałem to wyjaśnienie już wcześniej. Mnie artykuł How to deal with Poles nie śmieszył ani przed przeczytaniem tego wyjaśnienia ani po przeczytaniu tego wyjaśnienia. Gdybym ja napisał artykuł który jest odczytywany zupełnie odwrotnie do tego o co mi chodziło to bym go usunął albo zmienił. Ty widze wolisz nazywać wszystkich w koło głupkami. Chce ci tylko zwrócic uwage ze osoby, ktore czytaja ten artykul nie wiedza ze jest pisany przez polakow (ja przynajmniej tego na poczatku nie wiedzialem). chce ci tez zwrocic uwage ze niektorych polakow irytuja dowcipy o polakach poniewaz powielaja negatywne stereotypy. KridPL 18:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No niestety pisanie o kimś że nie jest wstanie rozpoznać ironii szytej grubymi nićmi wyglądającej jak pokazówka dla przedszkolaków to jest po prostu pisanie że jest głupi tylko „na okrętkę”. Z tego co widze chciałeś napisać satyre na obcokrajowców a wyszedł ci dowcip o Polakach. Niektóre osoby traktują ten artykuł też jako test na inteligencje. Jak ktoś zrozumie satyrę to inteligentny a jak odbierze jako dowcip to głupek. A mi się wydaje że ty po prostu nie wiesz jak wygląda dobrze napisana satyra. W satyrze istotny jest tytuł, który powinien od razu ukazywać cel satyry np. „Satyra na leniwych chłopów”, „Żona modna” Krasickiego. I tak np. zatytułowałbym ten tekst: „Wszechwiedzący” lub „Wiedza zamknięta” lub „9 zasad ignorancji” itp. Druga rzecz ważna w satyrze to pokazanie krytycznego stanowiska autora wobec rzeczywistości lub osób. Przedstawienie takiego krytycznego stanowiska jest możliwe poprzez pokazanie „kontrastowego zestawienia” lub negatywnych konsekwencji ośmieszających cel satyry. np. w Satyrze na leniwych chłopów jest kontrastowe zestawienie pokazujące prostote, szczerość i prawość wyglądu chłopa w zestawieniu z jego lenistwem i obłudą. W „zonie modnej” modnisiostwo zony i jej luksusowe zycie ponad stan w kontraście ze służalczym życiem męża, są też fatalne konsekwencje w postaci doprowadzenia do bankructwa małżonków. W twoim artykule nie ma pokazanego krytycznego stanowiska autora i dlatego How to deal with Poles jest dowcipem z dopiskiem że intencją jest aby była to satyra. Powinieneś w artykule zestawić te kretyńskie dialogi z np. opisami ze stron użytkownika autorów tych dialogów że są ludźmi otwartymi i poszukującymi prawdy. Powinieneś też wykazać negatywne konsekwencje takiego postępowania np. w postaci głupot które miesiącami widnieją na wikipedi i są dalej wykorzystywane jako źródło przez kolejnych mądrych ludzi. I oczywiście nagroda nobla jak napiszesz to tak żeby było śmiesznie. Gdybyś dobrze napisał tą satyrę to miałbyś moje błogosławieństwo bo uważam że intencje masz dobre. Mam nadzieje, że weźmiesz moje uwagi sobie do serca i doprowadzisz ten artykuł do takiego stanu żeby ani Polacy ani obcokrajowcy nie mieli wątpliwości czy to jest dowcip czy satyra. KridPL 13:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Tego typu odpowiedzi są ok tylko jeśli są w połączeniu z przekazem emocjonalnym o co w słowie pisanym jest bardzo trudno. Gdybyś rozmawiał z kimś twarzą w twarz mógłbyś się ironicznie uśmiechnąć i potwierdzić w ten sposób prawdziwy sens zdania. Bez tego przekazu emocjonalnego takie wypowiedzi będą rodzić mnóstwo niedomówień a z czasem będą cie prześladować jak ktoś po latach będzie ci cytować wyrwane z kontekstu zdania gdzie sam przedstawiasz się w zlym swietle. Dopóki działasz na swój rachunek to rob jak uwazasz, ale ten artykuł nie ma tytułu How to deal with Szopen tylko How to deal with Poles a wiec dotyczy także mnie i innych polskich wikipedystow. Po prostu zrób to porządnie bo robisz to nie tylko w swoim imieniu. Jeśli ma być to satyra to napisz ten tekst zgodnie z zasadami literackimi którymi rządzi się satyra. KridPL 16:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/z/o/User_talk%7ESzopen_b350.html"