User talk:Dr. Dan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Danis Cocktail

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

Norkus

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

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

Lysy to Earth

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

As usuall

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

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

Morsztyn

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

Raudonė

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

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

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

---

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

Wesołych Świąt!

--Lysy^talk 06:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Wesołego jaja!

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

Peer review

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

Dziękuję

Naści Pisankę za dobre słowo :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Easter to you too. Balcer 21:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Riga

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

If you can use the Wikipedia:Page history tool, you are literate enough to give specific links to them, like this: [1]. Especially since time zones play havoc with any specific time references, making them mostly useless.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

A relative? :D

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

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

Edith Stein

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

Re: Easter greetings

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

Easter greetings and piano template

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

Elżbieta Rakuszanka

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

W/V... city

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

Khatyn massacre

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

Laba diena!

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

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

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

Email

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

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

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

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

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

Bells

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

Jagiello

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

RE:Jagiello

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

Polish medieval monarchs naming

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

Piłsudski

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

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

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

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

Userbox

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

Queen Mother

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

Recent Move

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

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

IPA

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

I am slightly confused by your request. As far as I can tell the pronounciation information already there, ['krakuf], is accurate IPA. We should probably make that clearer, I was looking for a good way of presenting IPA when we also have a sound file, I saw this somewhere, but I cannot find it now. Stefán Ingi 12:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You placed the tag on the Algirdas article. Maybe I don't understand the purpose of the tag, or perhaps your understanding of when where it should be applied. Can you elucidate? Dr. Dan 12:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The article on Algirdas currently has the pronounciation information: approximate English transcription [ˈaːl(ə).gır.dʌs], simplified Lithuanian transcription [āl'girdas]. The approximate English transcription is probably correct IPA but not useful because it seems to be more or less explaining how a "general English speaker" (whatever that means) might pronounce the word with no knowledge of Lithuanian. What we should be giving is a transcription of how a Lithuanian speaker pronounces it. This is the purpose of the simplified Lithuanian transcription given but in my opinion, this simplified Lithuanian transcription should be replaced by IPA because it is more likely that readers will know IPA than some different transcription system which is only used on six pages or so. Stefán Ingi 14:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Would such a tag be appropriate on the article about Kemal Attaturk?

I looked at the article and some of the interwikilinks but then other things came up, sorry. The thing is, however, that we don't seem to have any pronounciation infromation on Kemal Atatürk anywhere, but the cleanup-ipa tag is for articles where do have some information but not in the most appropriate form. Thus, on the Lithuanian articles I tagged, I would possibly be able to make the switch to IPA myself, but it would take some time and in the meantime I put the tag on in the hope that somebody who would be able to do it more quickly would do it. Finally, returning to Atatürk, I will put up a request at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language for somebody to put up an IPA for it but I cannot do anything more as I know nothing about Turkish. Stefán Ingi 20:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What is your level of knowledge in Lithuanian? Dr. Dan 20:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

None at all, but if this simplified Lithuanian transcription system is any good, then with that, and the IPA phonology table at Lithuanian language it should be possible to switch to IPA. In any case, I don't have time to do that now. Stefán Ingi 20:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused. You know nothing about Lithuanian, yet you put up the IPA tags in several articles. You say you know nothing about the Turkish language, and this is why you can't put up the same tag on Attaturk. So what gives, or what's the difference? Dr. Dan 20:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The tag I put up on the Lithuanian articles is a cleanup tag. Even with (close to) no knowledge of Lithuanian it is possible that I can clean up the pronounciation information that is already there on the Lithuanian articles. But I cannot find any pronounciation information at all in any form on Atatürk so without knowledge of how Turkish spelling corresponds to Turkish pronounciation I cannot do anything. Stefán Ingi 21:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In any case, the request bore fruit. [2] Stefán Ingi 21:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Good. Knowledge is power! Dr. Dan 22:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

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

Pact of Vilnius and Radom

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

Requested link

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

Władysław II Jagiełło

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

Dan...

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

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

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

Halibutt...

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

I did not mean a complete divorce, but a step back and a minute or two of hesitation before you post yet another such comment on my talk page would most definitely do you good.

WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL bind all of us, even as intelligent, excellent, infallible editors as yourself. Mentioning my ego, suggesting my arguments (and me personally in consequence) are pseudo-intellectual, summarizing the whole argument of those you disagree with as gibberish and so on and so forth - all of these are perfect examples of how not to behave. Having lived considerably longer than me you should know that by now and I must admit that I'm kind of disapointed to see this is not that obvious. Also, putting things in my mouth and then bashing me for your own inventions is unfair, a tad similar to the famous when did you stop beating your wife argument. This very case is even more disrupting, as I'm trying hard to find some modo vivendi with two of our newly-arrived Lithuanian editors (much like with many others before), an effort you're certainly not helping by strengthening antagonisms with your lies.

I doubt you'd be happy if I adopted the same tactics you use - against you. First I'd start to look down on you, then add a suggestion of extremism or nationalism here and there (boy, would be hell of a fun), then would call you names and in the end ask other editors (but not you personally) why do you think Hitler should've murdered all Frenchmen as well. It wouldn't bother me at all whether that's what you stated anywhere; slander is a fun in itself. Get the point now? I'm trying to behave properly - and I expect reciprocity if abiding by the rules of Wikipedia is too complicated. If that's too much to ask for then I'm sorry to bother you. //Halibutt 00:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Continuation from Talk:Republic of Central Lithuania

...

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

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

(I have copied the above lines from Talk:Republic of Central Lithuania and I'll respond here, in order not to spam the article's talk page with our private chats.)

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

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

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

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

Dan, a paragraph above you've accused me of making ad personam remarks and I have asked you to provide a reference edit for that. Do you still stand that I attacked you personally in the dispute, or were you mistaken ? --Lysy^talk 17:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my not undestanding the purpose of your earlier comment, here is what you wrote: "An interesting observation. I too, met people from these "small islands" of Lithuanian language, while in Poland (which in the modern world of mass communications, began to erode}. I saw the same phenomenon in the Kashubian areas. Dr. Dan 14:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)" Now, what was the reason for you to put that comment there ? And why did you consider this to be "an interesting observation". What's so unusual about this and why did you decide to mention that ? --Lysy^talk 17:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

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

I understand that it was regarding her observation about islands of Lithuanian speakers in Belarus as it immediately followed her statement. What I did not understand was your purpose in making this comment (let me quote it again): I too, met people from these "small islands" of Lithuanian language, while in Poland (which in the modern world of mass communications, began to erode}. I saw the same phenomenon in the Kashubian areas. --Lysy^talk 19:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have also noticed that you've again missed my request to provide references for my edits that led you to claim that I've been personally attacking you. Here it comes once more, then: ... you've accused me of making ad personam remarks and I have asked you to provide a reference edit for that. Do you still stand that I attacked you personally in the dispute, or were you mistaken ? --Lysy^talk 19:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Like a roulette ball, round and round it goes, where it'll stop nobody knows! Without making this too complicated Lysy, maybe if you answered my question, you'd have the answer to your own question. Juraune made a point, I responded to it. No ulterior motives. No agenda. A simple comment to her, with reference to a couple of personal experiences. In fact, I find your remark (or question), Do you find anything wrong with it? (the Lithuanian, Kashubian or German speakers in Poland), to be exceptionally ridiculous. Since you'll probably find this remark undoubtedly to be an ad hominem attack, you need to tell me for the last time, just what were you driving at. Just what, did you read into my comments to Juraune. You know, the comments to her that you needed to respond to so badly that she didn't even have time to respond back. And on another point of yours, Wikepedia is a collaborative project, of course it is. But if I ask Piotrus or someone else a question, or they ask me one, it's a simple courtesy to let them respond. Don't you agree? Or should one be like a child who can't hold it, and goes in their pants? So what was your intent, with your unrelated and hostilely formulated remarks? Could the answer to the riddle be in your still unforthcoming answer? Dr. Dan 22:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, why is it that you cannot give an answer to a simple question other that with another question ? It's not a lesson in rhetorics that I'm expecting from you. A simple question can be addressed with a simple answer. So, let me put it in another way (for the fourth time now): Can you please provide a diff of (a link to) my particular edit where you think I have attacked you personally instead of referring to your comments in a dispute ? --Lysy^talk 06:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. //Halibutt

Obviously this has stalemated to neither party getting a satisfactory answer to their question. Or should I say, the answer they want to hear. I have told you several times now, that the answer to your question, lies in your answer to my question. Since I believe your interjection caused the altercation in the first place (and was interpreted by me, as very hostile), I have asked you to correct my perception. An interesting observation of mine (I know how you like those), is that in these disputes, many questions often go unanswered. How about this, you are right and I am wrong. Case closed. Dr. Dan 14:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, if you felt attacked, I apologize. It was not intended or I was not aware of (what you have obviously perceived as) my evil intentions. I am sorry that you felt bad about this. No evil intentions again here, but I think you are very sensitive. --Lysy^talk 17:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And my apologies to you. And please Lysy, I do not consider you evil, nor your intentions to be evil either. You're kidding aren't you? What I really and truly would like to know, however, is what you thought the intention of my remarks to Juraune were? What was "strange" or "thought was wrong" regarding islands of minorities in Poland speaking in their native tongues? Dr. Dan 17:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No secret here. The islands of ethnic minorities in Poland seemed so obvious to me that your mentioning it as an "interesting observation" seemed strange, especially that you are more familiar with Poland than an average American. I did not know what was the purpose of the comment, therefore I asked you. Probably could have done it in a more polite way, but I didn't expect you'd interpret a simple question as a personal attack. I'm still surprised, esp. after you claimed you had a thick skin. Dan, can I ask you a personal question now ? --Lysy^talk 18:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do claim to have a thick skin, and I also have claimed when darts are thrown at it (especially when I think there is an agenda, and ulterior motive behind it, God forbid you should think I mean you), I will respond with an ICBM. Forgive me for keeping the pressure on you , but I think you are using weasel words, to lessen the sarcasm of your questions and remarks.

Juraune made a point. I agreed with it. I added a comment that my observations and experiences, in meeting these people, confirmed her statement. The Kashubian encounter, is particularly humorous, and to this day appreciated by me in a personal and heartfelt way. They helped me Big Time. You then stated that my remarks seemed "strange". Then you asked what's wrong with these minorities speaking in their own native tongues? As if I said something was wrong, with that. I don't think it has anything to do with "politeness". Can you honestly think the issue is, that you could have asked this more politely? I took it as a provocation. Plainly and simply! And nothing you have said, lessens my perception to that effect. I accepted your couched apology, and gave one to you. The matter is over in my mind, because you will not admit to what you were doing.

Your buddy (the one that I'm taking a short break from, see: Above remarks concerning Halibutt), likes to accuse people of putting words in his mouth. Your question, Drogi Lysy, What's wrong with that?, is doing precisely that. Why, because I never said or implied that there was anything wrong with that. If it's not clear now, I don't think it's possible to make it any clearer. At least not in English! Regarding your asking me a personal question, I'm not sure. Maybe "No Original Research", should be followed up with "No Personal Questions". But since we're becoming old friends by now, why don't you send me an email, and that will keep the question and answer truly personal. Or is this the kind of personal question that needs to be thrown out into the colloseum, or some other arena? Dr. Dan 20:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, your comment about Kashubian minority in Poland was completely irrelevant to the thread where Jaurane discussed the ethnic grounds of Lithuanian claims to Vilnius. Your observation of the obvious yet irrelevant fact was so peculiar in this context, that I've asked:

There are areas where people speak Lithuanian, Kashubian or German in Poland, but is this something strange ? Do you find anything wrong with it ?

A fairly innocent question that could be answered with a simple statement like: "Yes, this is strange because I thought Kashubians lived in Lithuania" or "No, nothing's wrong about this, I just thought that was the right moment to impress everyone with my knowledge of ethnic minorities in Poland". Instead you've chosen first to accuse me of using ad personam arguments and when I asked you to show where you saw ad personam argument in my question, you resorted to claiming that it was my provocation. This now is particularly absurd as it was your irrelevant comment that triggered my question in the first place. Again then, why did you make this observation about Kashubians in the discussion about Lithuanian claims to Vilnius ? Did you think that would shed some more light on the discussed topic ? Or did you just think "Hm, boy, that reminds me of Kashubians, I'd better type something", or was it a failed provocation of yours ? Was this what made you angry ? --Lysy^talk 20:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Dr. Dan 20:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

For the nth time: what was your purpose in mentioning it then ? --Lysy^talk 21:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

LYSY:There are areas where people speak Lithuanian, Kashubian, or German in Poland, but is this something strange? Do you find anything wrong with it?

Dr. DAN: No, and no. Dr. Dan 22:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

p.s. As for the Kashubians, why did I mention them? Probably for the same reason you added the Germans. You see, sometimes subjects expand to include different, but related topics. Your instinctive reaction to add Germans to minority speakers in Poland, was the same and only reason I added the Kashubians (I might not have been so attuned to them, if they hadn't helped me personally, when my car broke down near a Kashubian village). So then, for the first time: Can you explain your purpose in mentioning the Germans in your above question, and their relation to the the "thread where Juraune discussed the ethnic grounds of Lithuanian claims to Vilnius"? Your "honest" answer would once again answer the question that you have yourself posed, (and although you have asked me a lot of questions, the Kashubian one is new, I couldn't read your mind).

p.p.s. I enjoyed your "hypothetical answers", that I should have given you, to your innocent question very innocent question ..."Yes this is strange because I thought Kashubians lived in Lithuania" or the even better, "No, nothing's wrong about this" (sic), I just thought that was the right moment to impress everyone with my knowledge of ethnic minorities in Poland"... Now, now, Lysy calm down.

I am calm but thanks for reminding. Let me try to summarise, then:

Dr. Dan made a purposeless irrelevant comment in a discussion about Lithuanian claims to Vilnius. The comment puzzled Lysy, who asked what's wrong or strange with Poland having minorities. Dr. Dan interpreted the question as ad hominem argument against his statement. Eventually they both engaged in a time wasting dispute.

Would you agree with this summary ? --Lysy^talk 06:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would, but with three important amendments. The puzzled Lysy's comment, or question rather, then puzzled Dr. Dan, who never said that there was anything wrong with Poland having minorities. The puzzled Dr. Dan thought this comment (question), was even more purposeless and irrelevant than his own comment. Dr. Dan's mention of Kashubians had nothing to do with "the thread" of the discussion, while Lysy's mention of Germans did. How's that? Dr. Dan 13:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, everything that followed was irrelevant, including mentioning Germans. That is why we've decided to continue this entertaining discussion in your userspace that you've kindly provided for hosting it, instead of the article's talk. --Lysy^talk 18:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

-John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Cleanup Templates

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

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

Józef Piłsudski

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

Talk:Jogaila

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

Oh well! I thought there was an agreement to wait a month. Or is the urgency to move it an immediate crisis? Dr. Dan 04:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Piotrus and Elonka couldn't wait a month with the new name. The funny thing is, because the result went against them, they wanna do it again; but it was Elonka who did the poll in the first place, and it is her again who is doing the new one, which has exactly the same format as the one they don't like. What can I say?! Well, I bet you my bottom dollar you won't here old Pete complain is it goes his way. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 10:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If the support for Jogaila is as overwhelming as you claim, then the name will easily win a proper RM vote. The vocal opposition to holding such a vote can only serve as proof that no concensus support for such a move exists. Can you at least be honest and admit that you oppose the RM vote because you know you will not receive concensus majority support?Balcer 16:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, there was a poll. It was a ten option poll set up by Elonka (an opponent of the outcome) which was endorsed by everyone until the result came up unfavorably. Jogaila won with a 60% margin over the diacritic name, and was one vote from a majority in what was, after all, a ten option poll. There is clearly no other name as popular as Jogaila. If you wanna propose a vote away from Jogaila then it's up to you and others who support you to find a name which could be popular enough to gain the consensus you say you're so interested in to get a vote to that name from Jogaila. Simple as that my friend. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, a quick question about your Iraq analogy, which I find puzzling. When did the US last overturn the results of an Iraqi election, because they were unacceptable? Since I cannot recall any such instance (at least not on national level), what did you mean exactly when you wrote the discussion was "like the "democratic" elections being held in Iraq". The discussion is confusing enough, and there is no need to inject false analogies. Please explain what you meant, or change your comments appropriately. Balcer 16:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all did I ever say on a "national" level. If I had used Palestine and the Hamas electoral victory instead, would that have been a better analogy? Could I get your permission to use that analogy instead? Btw, are you suggesting with your question, that your purpose is to overturn the results of this poll, because they were unacceptable?The fact remains that there has been plenty of disapproval from Washington when the "preferred" candidates lost in Iraq's and Afghanistan's local elections. Perhaps like there might have been in Warsaw, if Zeligowski's "election" in Litwa Srodkowa had backfired. Dr. Dan 16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Request for advice

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

Concern

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

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