User talk:Lysy/Archive 2006

Olivier Minne - Right on "Cible" (Target)

Olivier Minne is one of France's most beloved television personalities; and France 2's "La Cible" is no exception. This fast-paced big-money game show from Fox World Productions is my top pick for 2006, proving you can't keep a good question-and-answer quiz format down! Minne asks contestants a series of multiple choice general knowledge questions in each rapid-fire round of "La Cible" in order to score points! When it comes to testing viewers' knowledge, "La Cible" means challening, mind-boggling fun.

Rejewski memorial

Do you know when the Bydgoszcz sculptural memorial to Marian Rejewski was unveiled? It bears a striking resemblance to the one commemmorating Alan Turing at Whitworth Gardens, which was unveiled on Turing's birthday, June 23, 2001.

I've for years now seen similar sculptures of historic figures seated on benches, so this resemblance is likely due to a common influence. In any case, it's refreshing beyond words to see statues of great people down off their pedestals and mingling with all of us ordinary folk! logologist|Talk 04:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Your recent NPOV edits on Transnistria were deleted

Your recent NPOV edits on Transnistria were deleted. Can you put them back? -- Bonaparte talk 11:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You should also add their about the identity between romanians and moldovans. -- Bonaparte talk 14:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Nicolaus Copernicus

I see you removed the NPOV from the said article. Why was that? It seems to me as if a good bit of that article is quite disputed. Cyberevil 01:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add the tag; if it wasn't done by following proper procedures you were right to remove it. Well, I might see to it. Or would you prefer to while you are at it? Cyberevil 01:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

anti-Polonism

The whole article is an intractable mess. I'd like to, if possible, organize an online chat meeting with a few other editors interested in the article so we can all work on it together. Doing so, IMHO, would take much less time than me going through one sentence at a time and griping about it (practically every sentence in the article, as I noted several months ago, when the article was, astonishingly, worse than it is now, needs to be reworked or discarded), and then waiting for people to happen across my comments at some later date. Tomer^talk 01:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but my feeling is that Polish editors working on the article is what has caused its current state of disrepair. Not because Polish editors are dumb, but because two in particular are such vociferous trolls that they've managed to drive everyone wanting to improve the article away, including other Polish editors. What would save the time and stress of yet another edit war would be for the Polish editors to distance themselves from the few who have made, and continue to make, Poland-related articles in the English WP into a mess of POV-pushing OR. Tomer^talk 02:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, several months ago when Molobo and Witkacy drove me away, it was much worse than it is now...but it's still horrendous, and for whatever reason, progress is being made far too slowly, IMHO. I'm not saying that it can be fixed overnight (although I could "fix" it to my satisfaction overnight, I'm sure me just going ahead and "fixing" it would accomplish nothing whatsoever, since all my changes would be immediately reverted and even more garbage added to the article for good measure). Tomer^talk 02:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Geography of Poland discussion

Could you take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland#Terminology? Logologist has begun renaming some of the voivodships (Lower Silesia to Dolny Śląsk), but I don't believe a clear consensus has been reached regarding terminology. Olessi 05:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

1% of population from Ukraine are romanians

There are about 1% of Ukraine. This includes all (so called moldovans), being the third largest minority group in Ukraine.

in Ukraine: [[1]] The former Soviet regime still uses, unfortunately, the artificial division created before 1990, that accredited the idea that in Ukraine exist two different nations: the Romanian and the “Moldavians”. Nowadays, the official statistics shows that in Ukraine exist 324.500 “Moldavians” and 134.800 Romanians. Adding this two officials data, results that the Romanian community represents the third minority group from Ukraine, after Ukrainians and Russians. On the other hand, the Romanian cultural organizations from Ukraine are estimating up to 800.000 the number of the Romanian community.

So please correct the data. Bonaparte talk 08:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg Myth

Hi - you wrote

+ + Hi, do you know how an when this myth was born ? I would suspect Nazi propaganda machine, but it would be goo to know. --Lysy ^(talk) 09:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

During the war, it was the Allies themselves who described German military might as overwhelming and radically new, to make up for their own shortcomings. Poswtwar historians perpetuated the myth. I will find some decent sources to corroborate this and get back to you...ok?Michael Dorosh 17:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Székelys of Bukovina

I wrote an answer on the discussion page. Zello 08:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Белару́ская Наро́дная Рэспу́бліка i Українська Народна Республіка

"The Belarusian People's Republic (Belarusian: Белару́ская Наро́дная Рэспу́бліка, eng. transliteration : Belaruskaya Narodnaya Republika) was fist independent belarusian state in history. Belarusian People's Republic, (also wrongly translated as "Belarusian National Republic" , because national in belarusian is Националная)"

A Українська Народна Республіка to Ukrainian People's Republic czy Ukrainian National Republic ??? 83.16.78.126 13:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Occupants

The current version may lead to false conclusion that the inhabitants themselfs renamed the location. There is nothing false in stating that Rumia was given German name after 1939 by German occupying forces. --Molobo 14:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think mosy people will understand the "occupants" correctly. OTOH "German forces" is simply wrong, as it was not "the forces" who renamed it, but administrations. No need to get into all these details in this article, though. --Lysy ^(talk) 16:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Then it is fitting to rename that after invasion by Nazi Germany(since NSDAP didn't invade Poland as a party but the German state), the village was renamed by German occupation administration. I don't think this should displease anyone. --Molobo 18:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 18:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Secui

Yes Lysy! Secui emigrated from Transylvania after that massacre made by Habsburgic authorities to Bucovina. They are of different origin separated to hungarians. Even the fact they lost their language, they were still with appart identity, even today. Bonaparte talk 18:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria

I spent a significant time trying to clean up the Transnistria article that was in is in a sorry state tortured by the silly edit wars. Then I was reverted wholesale by User:TSO1D then I spent a considerable time explaining the edits in Talk:Transnistria#My changes. Then the User:TSO1D restored most of it censoring out every attempt to add Russian POV into it (that I think is needed for the balance). Then an anonymous wholesale reverted all the job. I carefully restored my, TSO1D's and Zscout370's, Phil Boswell's, and Node ue's jobs. Then in come another anon and wholesale reverted all the jobs back. I restored it once more (keeping the additional Phil Boswell's job. Now came you and reverted wholesale it once more.

Can you spend a few minutes on the talk page and explain what is wrong with my edits. Do you really like repeating the phrase In the security zone controlled by the Russian peacekeeping forces, the MRT regime continued to deploy its troops illegally and to manufacture and sell weapons in breach of the agreement of 21 July 1992. In February 2003, the USA and EU imposed visa restrictions against the Transnistrian leadership. repeated literally twice? abakharev 13:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, see you have not stopped on the wholesale reverting. Lets discuss then you will finish abakharev 13:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you behave in more civilized manner than your trolls I am removing the offending word abakharev 13:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand the revert war. Still spending so much effort on waging the revert war, somebody could stop for awhile and clean up the mess.

As I understand the blanked paragraph is suppose to be a copyvio from a paper source (Pavliuk at al). I have not seen the original, so I was trying to be neutral in this war. Anyway as we all now it required only a few minutes to retell a few sentences to remove the copyvio problems (or alternatively quote it and put is as an attributed quote). I would personally prefer the second way as some of the paragraph should be attributed. We cannot say "Ukraine and Moldova share the common interest in removing Russian troops from Transnistria". It is a POV, they may also share the interest of not having a war in their doorstep and not to have to contribute their own resources for the peacekeeping or whatever. I was trying to put "according to Pavliuk at all, Ukraine and Moldova..." but was reverted and decided not to interfere.

I believe the question of the language is clear: both Transnistria and Moldova name their language Moldovan not Romanian. We can state that most of the linguists consider the languages identical and of course the reference to Moldovan language provide all the info about the similarities and difficulties, but we cannot state that the official language of Transnistria is Romanian before it will be recognized by the Transnistrian (or at least the Moldovan) government. Africaan is very similar to Dutch, Serbian to Croatian, etc. but we name according to the official policy of the government. I was still trying to be neutral to the issue, seeking first to clean up the mess. abakharev 14:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

History of Lithuania

This is really very silly and I hope that it doesn't turn into some sort of revert war. I'm sure that we can come to some compromise between the ueber patriotic and Lithuanians-can-do-no-wrong version of events and the pro-Soviet viewpoint. Perhaps each chronological section could include a paragraph that highlights (generally) the motivations of both the 'freedom fighters' (or whatever you want to call them) and the pro-Soviet loyalists. As an American, I can recognize that the history of my country hasn't always been spotless and that an accurate description of it would include a balanced look at things like the Revolutionary War/American War of Independence.

The communists liberated Lithuania from Fascist oppression in WW II and provided significant economic opportunity in the form of a giant trade network and infrastructure. Lots of people were sad to see that go and made their voices heard in the kleptocracy that accompanied the transition to democracy. Their version of events is just as true as any nationalist.

Believe me or not but I'm not a Lithuanian nationalist. And I'm open to the dispute, possibly on the article's talk page. I don't accuse you of bad faith, but saying that "communists liberated Lithuania from Fascist oppression" is biased POV statement already, not to mention what you said about "significant economic opportunity". Let's get back to the article. --Lysy ^(talk) 17:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with valuable editors

In responce to your message, let me just say again that I do not deny that Ghirla often overstepped in the edit conflicts and, sometimes, said things that were better not said. All I am saying, and I am saying it for I don't know what time, is that it is possible to deal with him and to achieve a compromise, unlike with many others who are similarly opinionated. I conflicted with him before and still have several unresolved issued where we disagree on some RU/UA related articles, and I learned from experience that it is possible to work on article with Ghirla and achieve compromises on the articles. The important thing is that he is not simply opinionated but that he is very knowledgeble and prolific editor too. The number of his superb quality contributions is immence and people with such immence expertize and committment to the project are very much respected by me. Such people are the jewels of Wikipedia, and yes, even diamonds have some defects in real life. The highest degree of frustration to which Halibutt, without a doubt an excellent contributor in overall, was driving me at times never made me anything even close to Polonophobe. And I am not even talking about some real problem contributors here, like ..., well you know them well. The source of most of these problems is not lack of civilty (which occasionally is the main problem too) but the content disputes and unwillingness of both sides to work for the compromise. --Irpen 00:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Message from anon

Şini es tu? Şî di undi es? Spune-mi di şi urasc maldaviani...

"Cine esti tu ? De unde esti ? Spune-mi de ce _URASC_ moldovenii" (what node wrote there is in a language invented by him). I especially like the "urasc" part, node is trying to understand why _HE_ hates the people of Moldova. Btw, hello Lysy, just ignore node, that's the best thing to do ;) I'm from Moldova and I think you're doing a good job with the articles! --Just a tag 11:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks from Boni and yourself aside, it says "Who are you? And where are you from? Tell me why you hate Moldovans..." --Node 09:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Except the fact that there are no words like "sini", "es", "di" and "maldaviani". And "urasc" is "I hate". --Just a tag 11:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Try Googling them -- they certainly exist. --Node 00:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Mwoahaha. Mai ya hi must CERTAINLY be THE used words, because O-zone has a whole song about it. --Just a tag 01:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

They're words (though nonsense words). But those words, "şini", "es", "şî", "di", and "maldaviani" all exist... you can find them in some poetry, even, and each has a real meaning. --Node 06:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

They're words - you can't read or something ? I said CERTAINLY be THE used words. "And when he walked in, clAosed theO door/Theya recAgnised him right away/It was just Node, yes, noth more/TheYre was nAo dAoubt, he's a stray". This is precisely how your phrases look to me (except that you also make a lot of grammar mistakes). So, cool, I made up a poetry, now it's on wikipedia, hence on the web, all erroneous words can be found on google, all the words are real, with a real meaning, great! You will never see "di" or "maldaviani" and especially "es" in published poetry, but you don't seem to get it, then go ask your parents, show them some of your written phrases, ask them if they write it like that in Moldova. Your fault is in inventing weird words like [2] while trying to pose them as "moldovan language" therefore making people of moldova look like some sort of illiterate fools, if you find that to be fine, go ahead, continue your holy quest of making a bad image for both moldova and its inhabitants. I'm done with you, come to Moldova, study here for a while, then we can talk, otherwise you are just ranting about things you don't know about. --Just a tag 12:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about in Moldova, but in Romania, a few poets have published in their local grai, including many from around Iasi, and I assure you they use plenty of "di"s and "es"s. --Node 08:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You said the truth here. "I don't know about in Moldova" how come that you recognize that you really don't have a clue? Bonaparte talk 08:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

He will just realize he will go back with romanian language that he loves so much... Bonaparte talk 13:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack. I just translated in english what you wrote there http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALysy&diff=33926166&oldid=33910647 they can all check the IP, and it comes from your area node. Bonaparte talk 09:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

See Arizona -- there are about 6 million people who are permanent residents here, and far greater number during the winter. That's greater than the population of Moldova, and it's nearly 1/4 the population of Romania. Does that mean that I can claim that there are really only 4 Romanians total in these disputes? Or that every 4th anon with a Romanian IP is you? --Node 00:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Bono, that's his hype word now: "personal attack", whenever he doesn't understand something it's clearly a personal attack" :) --Just a tag-11:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I got it now. Every time he doesn't understand something it's clearly a personal attack! Strange way to think about it Bonaparte talk 12:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That Sunday in Bromberg/Bydgoszcz

You ask for a source for the (around) thousand Germans killed in Bromberg and vicinity. The source is the Polish/German co-production again. The number listed in the article is based on the work of Hugo Rasmus. Rasmus checked the church books in order to find a correct number - as opposed to what the Nazis claimed. He arrived at 358 persons, but this refers to Bromberg city alone. The lynchings occured also in the villages around Bromberg. The number of thousand or more is from the documentary. There is a transscript of it, but it is in German.

While I do not want to discredit the documentary (and I have not seen it, and of course would very much like to), I'm not sure if a film can be taken as a reliable historic reference. How do we know if these people in the villages were lynched or not ? Or even wheter they were they armed or not ? Who killed them an under what circumstances ? Who were the victims ? --Lysy ^(talk) 10:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that documentary is based on the work of Polish and German historians. The people killed were Germans living around Bydgoszcz. To my knowledge, this is not denied by any side. It is also used as an argument against the claim that it was just the punishment of German "diversants" shooting at Polish troops. The only point that is open is the number of persons killed outside Bydgoszcz.

I understand the makers of that documentary wanted it to be "open source". That is why they allowed to put the transscript on the web. The link is given. If no agreement on the validity of this can be reached, the wikipedia entry should at least say that the number of Germans killed outside Bydgoszcz is not known or open to discussion.

Good, I have changed the wording into what I hope is a "compromise" version. I'm not for hiding the 1000 number, but would like to see some sources to support it, more reliable than a movie, reliability of which is simply difficult to judge as it's not a peer reviewed publication, and the subject is cenrtainly a controversial one, so we need solid figures or none. --Lysy ^(talk) 18:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks definitely good enough to me. I will check if the work of Rasmus or the Polish historians is clearer or if there are journals discussing that, but, frankly, I do not expect much.

Maybe there is some official institution in Germany that makes an investigation about this ? I would expect more could be available in German archives than in Polish on this subject. --Lysy ^(talk) 19:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Provocative WP:Point question at RFAdm

Before Alex answers, let me just say that this is a highly POV phrased question that pretends to describe a certain real situation which it does falsly. Having said that, the answer to this provocative question (No) is obvious and was known in advance and nothing else can be expected and this is a transparent WP:Point on the par with the usual meaningless questions at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the President's court nominees. --Irpen 10:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is provocative, but I would like to know if the future admin would be neutral or not. A number of ppl, including yourself, expressed their views that experienced editors should be immune to wp rules. --Lysy ^(talk) 10:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This is false. I never said that. I called for discretion, yes. That is if one is reverting edits from anon open proxies that obviously come from one and the same editor within minutes from Chinese, Taiwanese and Australian IPs. Or restoring a POV tag, whose removal is a vandalism. In rush the admin may forget to check such things and dealing with established editors requires the admin to first make sure that nothing like that was happening. Ronline's first admin action since elevation being blocking Mikka who was simply not decisive enough to block open proxy IP and revrerted them, makes Ronline remembered for a long long time. If the cost of that would be Mikka's indeed never coming back, and only due to the itch by Ronline to get a fame by being the first one who would have blocked Mikka without bothering to check, and lack of courage to admit and apologize, which he refuses so far, he would be remember all too well. --Irpen 11:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As if you did not know, I was not referring to Mikka's case, of course. --Lysy ^(talk) 11:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You put the words in my mouth (about immunity) that I have never said. I only condemned Mikka's block. --Irpen 11:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you Irpen to stop it. If you really have some issues you may act in another way. Otherwise stop it. And don't speak about Ronline or other editors like that I don't allow you. Everybody has the right to ask any question there. It was a good question. I know to what user it was adressed. It is a russian one and his name begins with G. Bonaparte talk 11:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte, I express my opinion to Lysy when I feel like it. Your "not allowing me" to do things the way I see fit is irrelevant yet. Once you earn some respect, I will gladly take your opinions into consideration. Judging from your tone and behavior you haven't yet started your your quest towards the "Best wikipedian ever" that you suggested may happen one day and I feel confident that whatever cognac I buy, I will enjoy it myself [3] or with my other firends. --Irpen 16:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You did spoke about Ronline and sometimes about me also on other user's talk page. That's called .... Bonaparte talk 16:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Guys, can you please bring the rest of this discussion elsewhere ? --Lysy ^(talk) 16:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did, Bonaparte, and didn't try to say it in a foreign langauge and I stand by every word I said. If you view whatever I did unethical, I will welcome an RfC on the issue to bring it to the attention of the wider community. --Irpen 16:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Irpen, for putting wrong words in your mouth but I believe you know what I meant.

Lysy, I knew your intentions and I know what you meant. The distortion, deliberate or not, put this whole thing on the wrong track. I opposed that particular Ghirla's block as well because he was blocked for restoring a tag over an article. It is long agreed that tag removal qualifies as vandalism. Should there have been reports of other clear violations posted to the board that lead to his block, it would have been a different story. You claim you caught him too at different times and never reported. So did I with Halibutt and, probably, for the same reasons.

I also know I'm asking difficult questions and I'm not asking them because I intend to confude Alex, but because I think they should be answered, as an admin should have good judgement of situation. --Lysy ^(talk) 16:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think your question and what followed made a mockery of the process. But it is also has a good side, because it exposed better the people who try by any cost to derail the adminship of one of the most worthy candidates around with unquestionable personal ethics. Wikipedia needs such admins, but some people care more about pushing certain POVs. The way you acted upon this RfAdm surprized me, I must say, but my personal perception of this is irrelevant. --Irpen 16:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you be so kind not to speak in terms of "most". You guys are always speaking in term of "most". The "most M.", the "most G." and so on... are you guys serious or what? try do edit in a neutral way and that's all, nobody will say anything against you. But I already saw how you removed the explanation of the split of Bukovina. Is this your "most"... ? and you're right your perception is simply personal irrelevant. Bonaparte talk 17:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, I'm sorry but I'm afraid this whole discussion leads us nowhere. Clearly we have different opinions on the issue and we both know this already. This may be further exacerbated by the fact that you seem to sympathise with Ghirla (and are considered his advocate) and I seem not to (and are accused of an anti-Ghirla crusade). I cannot help that on the first day upon his return after the block, he immediadely started revert wars with me on several articles. I think we know we have different views here and are just wasting our time trying to convince each other. As to Alex, I've met him only recently, the meeting was not a pleasant one, but I'm assuming his good faith. Please do assume mine as well. --Lysy ^(talk) 17:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As for "advocating", this may be a glaring perception but the wrong one. I take it upon myself, and not by anyone's request, to follow Ghirla's edits, moderate some of them, express my disagreement when warranted, but "advocate" only when he seems unfairly pressured. The reason is that I want him to continue his work for as long as possible and check his userpage for the great articles he wrote that by far exceed the combined contributions of both of us. Did you ever checked it, BTW?

There is nothing unusual that editors with more moderate views often try to give a hand to other users who they consider valuable even when not agreeing always with them. Occasionally, such giving a hand may result in a too forgiving attitude. Check for the unblock logs of Halibutt [4] and Molobo [5] to see some examples of this. I often moderated Ghirla's edits and never endorced his occasional rude remarks.

As for your good faith, I've seen you long enough to expect it, rather than just assume it, although, and especially in view of this, certain actions of yours keep surprising me. But Век живи, век учись, as saying goes. --Irpen 19:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure if this is the best place to discuss this, but since you've asked - yes, I've seen many of his edits, and I'm not impressed, regardless of his lack of civility, revert warring, offensive edit summaries and overall conduct. He seldom refers to specific sources and many of his edits are based not on facts but on his own opinions instead. And having seen some of his opinions (e.g on Warsaw Pact or on Polish plans to invade SU in September 1939 sic!) ), I'm reluctant to accept them as a reliable base to build quality articles upon. I don't deny that he is eloquent and a power editor, devoting much of his time to numerous edits, but without proper references the factual accuracy and therefore the quality of these edits remains questionable. --Lysy ^(talk) 20:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Irpen you keep continuing with "how great", "how good he was", "most" but you seem to miss somthing very important. Not the quantity but quality counts. So stop this long speech about it, you keep repeating yourself. Change your speech and your behaviour. Bonaparte talk 21:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

---

This talk page will probably not be read by me any more. See my user page for explanations. Thanks. --Lysy ^(e-mail) 22:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lysy, what is your email adress? 217.96.64.2 16:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I see that you supported Alex Bakharev for an admin. However I don't know if you are aware of his certain views: he supported an offensive Russian user Ghirlandajo that insulted and got to disputes with several other contributors based out of his dislike for their nationality[6] for example(Polish Mafia, rv idiotic Moldovan nationalism). Alex Bakharev went beyond pure support, but expressed an opinion that the user should have more rights than an anonymous trolls[7]. In other words he wants Ghirlandajo to have special rights above other users. I leave it to your judgment as to its good for Wiki to support a person expressing such proposals.

--Molobo 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

An Exceptional Newcomer

...indeed!

		An Award
		With this Exceptional Newcomer Award I want to say how much I appreciate your work, how good it is to have the pleasure of contributing to Wiki together with you, and how happy I am that you actually ARE here. SylwiaS

Discussion about Frombork

Hello Lysy! Thanks for your contributions to Frombork. Molobo and I are currently in a discussion about the manner of phrasing its return to Poland in 1945. As you have been active in contributing to the article recently, you may be interested in providing input to the discussion. If you are interested, the discussion is at his and my Talk Pages. Happy editing! Olessi 19:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. WikiThanks.

I would like to express my thanks to all the good people who spent their valuable time time and effort working on my (failed) RfA voting. Especially for those who actually voted to support me :). I am really greateful that you supported me, since you had really compelling reasons to accuse me in bad behavior. Thanks for your support, if you ever need a Russian or Australian reference or want to have a mediator with a reckless editor please consider my help. Lets move on and make together our Wikipedia an even greater place abakharev 09:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Tuchel Heath

Upon further research, "Tuchel Heath" is the same as Tuchola Forest (Bory Tucholskie, Tucheler Heide). The myth of the Polish cavalry charge at the Battle of Krojanty is already discussed at Polish cavalry#Cavalry charges and Nazi propaganda. I am not sure if Krojanty is considered part of the Tuchola Forest, but Chojnice and Tuchola look fairly close on a map. Based on this information, "Tuchel Heath" should redirect to "Tuchola Forest", and links to Krojanty and the Polish cavalry pages should be added to "Tuchola Forest". Olessi 18:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No original research

What does "no original research" have to do with Talk:Polesie? Thanks, User talk:LuiKhuntek (LuiKhuntek 07:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC))

Concentration camp vote

Thanks for the alert! The ne--Molobo 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)w proposed name sounds fine. I'll be checking WP articles sporadically over the next week for things like this, but I don't think I'll have time to contribute with new articles or anything. Olessi 13:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

May

I know why did you removed important information about public concern towards the behaviour of German minority in Poland that was subject of Parliament debates and presented in several media in Poland ? --Molobo 16:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think they are minor incidents and we do not have any reason to list them. If for whatever reason we wnated to have a complete list, it should also include examples of Polish-German positive cooperation and of negative behaviour of Poles towards German minority members. The list limited to the examples of German misconduct only is very one-sided and not useful as such. There are stupid people both among Germans and Poles, but why would it be useful to expose this ? --_Lysy^talk 16:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in trying to manipulate the article to push forward positive or negative, usefull for some or not usefull for some facts. What I am trying is to provide facts. The fact is is that the disturbing and hostile activity of German minority towards Poland was well documented in Polish media, and subject of debates in Parliament.Therefore this fills the criteria of notebility. --Molobo 17:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't think that anything that is mentioned in the media is worth being mentioned in wikipedia :-) --_Lysy^talk 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You are avoiding my questions. Likewise I don't think that nation wide media such as Gazeta Wyborcza, Wprost or TVP are below the rank of notability. --Molobo 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not avoiding your question, I simply do not see your question. --_Lysy^talk 19:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Mazur (dance)

Hi, I've added Mazur (dance) to Portal:Dance. --Roland2 15:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Btw

They are concentration camps made by Germans not being at the beginning under direct control of NSDAP or direct control of Reich , during WW2, thus being German Concentration camps.See Selbstschutz for list of camps made by ethnic Germans with Polish citizenship during September Campaign. --Molobo 00:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The Unbearable Lightness of Renaming

Thanks for your message, LuiKhuntek. I thought it was likely to go against Wikipedia policy to vote for your own Requested Move, but is this not so? (Seems odd if not!)  Best wishes, David Kernow 20:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know it's not against the policy. --_Lysy^talk 20:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Intriguing. I realise I've always assumed it would be. But I've just left a vote there and at least one other user (Lysy) hasn't been taken aback! David Kernow 20:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, thanks for your reassurance and assistance in restoring peoples' articles' names following my recent renaming spasm. Best wishes, David Kernow 20:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Poles

Hello. I noticed you reverted, without explanation, on Poles. Please note that the population box is meant for "sourced census" estimates only, as recently there has been a wave of contributors putting some extreme numbers into the box. All other-sourced estimates go under the section "Statistics" designed for that purpose. Thanks, and feel free to add numbers under there. Antidote 23:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Tnx

Thank you for your recent additions related to Poland, and for posting them in the new articles annoucement section. Have you considered using Wikipedia:Babel templates for your languages?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Witaj

Napiszę po polsku. Widzę, że zapominasz o zasadach Wikipedii. Zdjęcie autostrady w Poznaniu nadaje się do sekcji o transporcie, a nie o ekonomii. Pamiętaj o tym! --LUCPOL 18:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK RfAr closed

The AndriyK RfAr has been closed. Until by consensus he has agreed to a suitable and mutually agreed naming convention using the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conflict, AndriyK is prohibited from moving pages, or changing the content of articles which relate to Ukrainian names, especially those of historical interest. AndriyK is banned for one month from Wikipedia for creating irreversible page moves. Andrew Alexander, AndriyK, and MaryMaidan are warned to avoid copyright violations and to cooperate with the efforts of others to remove copyright violations. Ghirlandajo is warned to avoid incivility or personal attacks.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar!

While you are asleep on your Wikibreak I, Renata, award you this Original Barnstar to let you know that your hard work and pictures on Lithuania-related topics are very much appreciated. Renata 07:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No of course I don't. I welcome anybody's constructive edits (even the minor or silly ones). The more the better! Renata 17:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ponowna próba

Wymazania informacji o zbrodniach popełnionych przez żółnierzy niemieckich podczas Kampanii Wrześniowej, tym razem w artykule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_17th_Infantry_Division --Molobo 22:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Klaipėda Revolt

Of course I don't mind you taggingand editing the article. DeirYassin 18:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Poloniation & Russophobia.

I have already explained in the edit comment to Russophobia: Polonization is immediately relevant to the sentence where it is mentioned. If you cannot read carefully, I cannot help you, sorry. mikka (t) 07:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Vitovt

Ok, Volosatik. You do not like when Vitovt is called by his original name. Fine, we can leave Vytautas before we discuss it. But why the hell you delete everything esle? Maybe you left some explanation?

Polish-Lithuanian War

Thank you in concurring with me that the "war" took place, instead of "raged". Since I was wrong about my other edits and need sources, can you give me your sources for removing "raged". After all it was in the article to begin with. And by the way, do you happen to know the sources for the information in the article. Have the sources, as they stand now, come from all sides of the conflict? Thank you in advance, and counting on your impartiality. Dr. Dan 02:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:BSNB

Hello, and I think you will be interested in this new initiative to gather together people interested in the three Baltic States. It is now in the development stages so your input is welcome. Please share your mind and take an active role in this new notice board. Renata 04:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Maskhadov

Before questioning something, please take an effort to do a simple google test. The very first result the google gives to "Maskhadov Vilnius tower" string [8] is the article at eng.kavkaz.memo.ru from which I am quoting for you:

Maskhadov commanded a platoon in 1972-78. He next was a battery commander and chief of staff of a battalion in the Far East. In 1981-86 he served in Szeged, Hungary, with the Southern Group of Troops and then from 1986 in the Baltic Military District, first as commander of a self-propelled artillery regiment and from the autumn of 1990 as chief of staff of missile and artillery forces of the Vilnius, Lithuania, garrison and deputy commander of the 7th division. In January 1991 Aslan took part in the "Vilnius events" (the seizure of the television tower by Soviet troops).

Of course he became a "freedom fighter" later. But that's a different story. --Irpen 07:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please vote

Hi. You voted in support of Alex Bakharev his previous RfA, and I just wanted to let you know that there's a second one at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev 2. --Khoikhoi 03:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Trollish rant

odpierdal się jebany skurwysynu od porównywania AK do UPA, jebany faszysto !!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.96.248.99 (talk • contribs)

Who's the fellow, I wonder?. --Irpen 21:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I always feel flattered by this type of attacks. It confirms that I'm doing the right things. --_Lysy^talk 10:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Historic names

Sorry you needed to go on break before you could tell me why you feel the Lithuanian town of Panevėžys, needs to have its Polish name in the English Wikipedia. Especially since there is a Polish article about the town, which links to the English article (it clearly enables the user to know the name in Polish, if that's a necessity). Dr. Dan 23:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, because it's the historic name of the town of the Commonwealth. Why does it bother you ? --_Lysy^talk 08:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

p.s. I always though the above obscenity, added by the ranting troll, od....dol się, ended in dol, not dal. Did the fool spell it correctly? I could swear that a good friend of mine from Płock, used dol not dal.

I'm having problems staying on my wikibreak. I'll need to try harder. As for the "dol" you are right. I don't know about the US, but children are quite careless in PL nowadays. --_Lysy^talk 08:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

UPA

dlaczego Pan z premedytacją sugeruje jakieś domniemane pojednanie AK i UPA, proszę przedstawić jakieś wiarygodne informacje nt., np. Zarządu AK, zdjęcia oficialne wystąpienia wladz AK, to jest niedopuszczlane co Pan robi, i obraźliwe dla kombatantów AK !!!! 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Od kiedy pojednanie jest obraźliwe ? Link do przykladowej informacji podany jest w artykule. Przeformulowalem ten paragraf, zeby nie sugerowal, ze takie pojednania maja obecnie oficjalny charakter. --_Lysy^talk 07:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

a czy jest coś więcej poza tym 1 (JEDNYM) artykulem we Wprost ?, bo z treści postu wnoszę, że są jakieś jeszcze inne indywidualne pojednania (proszę o zacytowanie), bo mam wrażenie, że robi Pan sobie hucpę z tego "pojednania" jeśli kiedykolwiek do niego dojdzie! (wszak ludzie odchodzą i niewielu ich pozostaje). Od razu odpowiem że nie interesują mnie żadne prywatne uroczystości na prywatnym terenie. Sugeruje Pan również że są jakieś wnioski dotyczące budowy pomników upowców oraz próby oficialnych wspólnych uroczystości, proszę wskazać mi takie wydarzenia, wnioski, postulaty środowisk kombatanckich. Odnoszę wrażenie że nie jest Pan kombatantem a treść artykulu ma z grubsza inne przeslanie niż tylko "neutralna informacja" i byc może ma charakter osobistej wypowiedzi.

07:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Nie jestem kombatantem, sądze, że Pani też nie jest i to raczej w Pani działaniach wyczuwam zabarwienie osobistą nienawiścią i szowinizmem. Proszę sprawdzić historię artykułu, a zobaczy Pani, że paragraf, który mi Pani przypisuje nie jest mojego autorstwa. Jeśli chodzi o więcej przykładów, to nie trzeba daleko szukać, wystarczy użyć google. Gorąco zachęcam Panią do samodzielnych poszukiwań. Podaje przykłady kolejnych artykułów na ten temat Rzeczpospolita, Aspekt Polski. --_Lysy^talk 08:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

przecież ten artykul nie dotyczy w zaden sposób tego o czym wy piszecie, ja również zachęcam do szukanie w googlach linków, napewno znajdziecie tam kontakt do Zarządu Glownego AK w Warszawie i rzecznika prasowego tego stowarzyszenia, Jeśli tak bardzi zależy panu na pojednaniu z grabażami Polski bardzo proszę utworzyć artykul np. LYSY pojednanie z UPA, zachęcam !

11:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your voting!

Thanks!

Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.

If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very much, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

An article

Hello. As someone who is interested in the history of these areas I thought you might want to check the Rainiai executions (former name: Rainiai massacre) article and as well the discussion in the talk page about the article's naming. DeirYassin 13:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian articles

Regarding this edit summary I hope it is not a sarcastic disaproval of these edits I did just before that.

Now, to UPA, this would be one of the most difficult articles to bring anywhere close to the encyclopedic standards. Polish, Soviet and Ukrainian scholarship on this topic should all be taken with strong skepticism but other than these three, there is almost nothing left to consider. If you could bring in some scrutinized opinions of solid Polish scholars, that could certainly help. And thanks for guarding this and other related articles from the extremists. --Irpen 21:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

UPA

Panie LYSY proszę nie porównywać AK do UPA !!!! i nie prowokować agresji na forum , żadne wspólne uroczystości, żadnych pomników stawianych bandytom z UPA w Polsce nie było i nie będzie, proszę nie wypisywać treści które są dla Polaków obraźliwie, nie obchodzi mnie to że w Kanadzie bandyci Z UPA obchodzą swoje uroczystości i organizują marsze, i proszę uważać na to co Pan pisze !, bo inaczej ktoś może panu kark skręcić albo zabije was zwykły ludzki śmiech !!! [..disgusting personal attack removed by Irpen...] 24 luty 2006, 08:50 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.96.248.99 (talk • contribs)

odnośnie tego pana IRPENa, ma racje , niech ktoś zbierze opinie uczniów szkół z woj. podkarpackiego i zbada ich percepcję na wydarzenia z lat 1939-47, i co myślą o ukraińcach: 9 wrzesien 1939 "pogrzeby polski" z udzialem popów, ukraińskiej gawiedzi i wojska niemieckiego, 28 kwietna 1943 powstanie SS Galizien, przemarsze i msze ukrainskich ochodników do SS w Sanoku, Lesku ...., 1946-1947 msze w cerkwiach i święcenia siekier, tasaków na wojne z polskimi sąsiadami ... , —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.96.248.99 (talk • contribs)

Now that the troll is blocked[9], I removed part of his "message". Whoever, pls use English. --Irpen 21:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Image

Ahhh, it's so cool you have uploaded it. Thanks, it made my day! But would you mind if I cropped it a little? Renata 20:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I was thinking that I might use the pic to say thank you or something similar (you know, instead of a formal barnstar). Polish names for towns are annoying as hell but I grew to ignore them. I realized that they don't really matter much, because it is only one word in the whole article. However, it is one very annoying word. Why? Because it indirectly implies that Lithuania was Polish and that Polish had control over Lithuania and that it still has some claims over it and some other stupid stuff. It's like feeling that there is nothing really Lithuanian under this sun. There was somewhere this discussion when Zivibundas (what's the right spelling?) was still around. So my conclusion is: is it annoying? Oh, yes. Is it important? Only for Poles and Lithuanians. Does it matter? No. Renata 21:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I know and I understand. And actually sometimes it is very useful, when say I am looking for some town and I don't know local/English name. However, one thing I don't understand is when inside the articles wikilinks refer to Polish or Russian or whatever names, and not the current one. It's not only Vilnius/Vilna/Wilno/etc. but also other smaller towns. The most recent example I remeber, was Kalvarija was named in Polish in some article about history of 1939-1945. That I don't understand other than outbreak of nationalism. Renata 22:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me correct myself, or the editor did not know the Lithuanian name. But I have seen quite a few edits were a user would remove Lithuanian name and put in Polish. Sometimes in piped links. Renata 22:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The result of Panevezys debate: 3700 words were written over 1 word.... Renata 17:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Good summary. --_Lysy^talk 16:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dan ?

Did I misunderstand that there was an agreement, that Lithuanian cities that had not been part of Poland 1918-1939, would not have a Polish name placed in the lead (especially ones with links to their respective language articles), or was this only with Balcer and not with Lysy. And that if there was an event or historical connection to Germany, Poland, or Russia, etc., it would be placed in the article, if appropriate. What requires Taurage to have it's Polish name included in the lead? Dr. Dan 16:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No, Lysy believes that it's usfeul to have alternative names mentioned for places that shared Polish and Lithuanian history, not only after WW1 but also earlier. Lysy understands that this may be irritating for some who either were taught that these places had only Lithuanian names or those who for whatever reason prefer to present a single-sided view of the history. Lysy believes that this irriatation is a price worth paying for presenting a wider view, for undestanding, and respecting different POVs. Lysy also is against removing useful information for the sole purpose of meeting someone's agenda. Lysy does not think that mentioning the alternative names Polish implies that these places were, are or should be Polish. They are useful for people encountering Polish forms of the names in English language texts and the article's lead is perfect place for this. --Lysy^talk 18:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Understood, does Lysy think a city like Lublin should have its Lithuanian name in the lead of the article for the same reasons mentioned by Lysy above? Does Lysy agree that there is a historical connection between Lublin and Lithuania visa vis the Union of Lublin? Is Lysy prepared to add the Lithuanian name, Liublinas to the lead in the article in en-Wiki, in order to present a wider view, for understanding, and respecting different POVs. Dr. Dan 20:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind, but practically, how many English language sources do you know, where "Liublinas" ? Another question: historically, in what period was "Liublinas" name in use in Poland instead or along with "Lublin" ? I think you're missing the point. --Lysy^talk 21:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Lysy in the Third Person

Lysy, I don't ever want you to think that I don't like you, so I'm asking if you want to be addressed in the third person. Lysy used the third person in his above edit at 18:13 4 March 2006, repeatedly. This is why I'm asking. Besides that, I would like to read more about the revolt against Smetona in Taurage, in 1927. Where can I find it?

I don't think that you don't like me :-) You started addressing me in the third person first, above, I'm not sure why. As for the revolt, I've found it mentioned in Jerzy Ochmański's "Historia Litwy", Ossolineum 1990, page 292. He only mentions that the pro-democratic revolt in Taurage was very soon pacified. He does not say more about what happened to the rebels, does not mention any victims etc. I may try to find more on it for you tomorrow if this is interesting. As to your Lublin example, I really think it's missed. There were areas in Lithuania where ppl spoke Polish but not the other way round. There's nothing wrong or offensive in admitting this. On the other hand, there were areas of Poland where people spoke German and I don't think anyone takes offence that "Posen", "Graudenz" or "Wreschen" etc. are mentioned in the leads of the articles about these towns, even if they belonged to Poland during interbellum (as Taurage belonged to Lithuania). Is this a problem for you ? --Lysy^talk 22:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have seen many examples, of Poles being bothered with German names being addded to geographical locations, and upset with the deletion of Polish names from others, in the short time I've participated in Wikipedia. As I've said before, the easiest solution is a case by case basis. I've come to the conclusion that the portions of Lithuania, or Belarusia, or Ukraine that were part of Poland during the II Rzecpospolita, can have an inclusion of its Polish name. I'm not so sure that Polish was as widely spoken in the hinterlands of Lithuania as you might think. Especially amonst the common people. I have spent lots of time in Poland and been to Lithuania too. It amazes me how the very young have lost the ability to communicate in Russian, in a rather short time. As for you adding "Yiddish", in the lead of the Panevezys article, it speaks lots about where you are coming from. I don't think it's possible to communicate very well in Panevezys in Yiddish today. A pity, my Yiddish, is a lot better than my Hebrew. Dr. Dan 14:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC) p.s. the Tsar Alexander's stay in Taurage in 1807, long, short, trivial, or important?

You're certainly right that Poles are often upset by German names of Polish locations. While I can understand there is a number of different reasons for this (including education, propaganda and historic experiences), I don't think this is something that is good or should be encouraged. Poles should understand, that historically Poland was a multi-national country, and that the notion of "nationality" as we know it today, did not exist in 17th century or earlier. Although the fact that someone spoke German did not make him "anti-Polish". As I understand it, what generally mattered was usually not the language, ethnic origin or religion (although it's easy to find counterexamples) but what we would today call "citizenship". This of course changed with the partitions and later. So, what I'm trying to say is that I consider looking at whole history from the perspective of 19th or 20th century nationalisms is a major mistake and source of misunderstanding. Keep in mind, that when the nationalisms erupted in the end of 19th century, much of the history was rewritten to suit individual agendas and this of course influenced the perception of our parents or grandparents. We can be wiser than that.

As to more specific issues: You doubt that Polish was widely used in Lithuania. Let me ask you a question then: If not Polish, what language was used by the common people ? was it Lithuanian ? No, it was Ruthenian. The upper class however increasingly used Polish. How do you think Taurage was called in the times of Radziwill ? What language did the Radziwills speak ? Polish. It's not that I think that it something to be proud or be ashamed of. The fact is it were the elites that decided on the names of their towns and villages, not the common people (regardless of whether they used Ruthenian or Lithuanian).

Similarly to you, I'm (unpleasantly) surprised by how quick the people lost their ability to communicate in Russian, both in Poland and Lithuania.

To summarise, I believe that there's nothing wrong in admitting that in this part of Europe the collonisation moved eastwards, and that German culture influenced Poland, similarly to Polish culture influencing Lithuania, Ruthenia or Ukraine. It's the common heritage, that people in each of the countries can be proud of instead of trying to denying it. --Lysy^talk 15:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's not possible to communicate in Yiddish or Polish in Panevezys, but these names can be encountered in the articles about the town's history.

As for Alexander's stay in Taurage, I'll investigate it further. If it was not notable, I'd move it to "trivia" section. Otherwise, I'd expand it a little to explain its importance. You could help, too :-) --Lysy^talk 15:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, Lysy what's going on here! You included that Alexander I stayed in Taurage, not in the trivia part, but in the main article. Now you'll investigate it further, after my questioning its relevance or significance. You included the Yiddish name for Panevezys in the lead, after some consensus was reached avoiding these types of provocations (someone took it out later, perhaps it was you). Of course it's not possible to communicate in Yiddish or Polish in Panevezys, so are we looking for fairness, or a provocation from you? Getting back to more serious points in our discussion. The common people in Lithuania, spoke Lithuanian, not Ruthenian. I'm speaking now of Lithuania itself, and not its Eastern territories, which were vast. Somehow you and others think that, these common people couldn't express themselves geographically. That until their polonized Radvilai/Radziwillczycy, named a town, it didn't have a name? Or maybe that until the Radziwills told them a name for a bird, it too, didn't have a name? Please take the time to look at the history of the Lithuanian language linguinstically and philologically, before making these sweeping generalizations. Dr. Dan 01:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You're overestimating my desire to provoke you :-) As for alternative names in the lead of Panevezys, I maintain my position, that all reasonable names used thoughout history should be mentioned. I only did not insist on keeping the Polish names as I understood Polish irritates you for some reason and I would not like to get involved in a revert war over this as probaly both of us could use the time more productive. I think Balcer solved it gently by moving the Polish name off the lead. As for Yiddish, firstly the town was a centre of Yiddish culture and secondly, the latinised Yiddish name is frequently being used in English language literature of the town. Is this offensive as well as the Polish name ?

For Alexander's stay in Taurage in 1807, I think it's certainly not less notable than the other episodes mentioned in the history of this, otherwise relatively small town. I've expanded the context of his stay there a bit. Again, the article is still a stub and I'd like to encourage you to add some information there, too.

Back to out language discussion: I'm not suggesting that the origin of the name is Polish. I'd rather expect it to be German, or Lithuanian or a mixture, although in Polish it would also make sense ("the horns of a taur"). I'm not trying to speculate into this, though. What I was trying to say, is that Radziwills did not speak Lithuanian, therefore at least for a certain period of history the Polish name was used. I'm not sure when the Lithuanian form was firt mentioned. Since you mentioned "Lithuania itself", which I believe you mean to be "Lithuania proper", do you know when this term was born ? --Lysy^talk 17:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to you that the interaction between Poland and Lithuania brought elements of Lithuanian culture and language to Poland (oprócz chłodnika litewskiego), instead of it being all one sided? Think about it for a moment. And besides providing two of Poland's greatest leaders Władysław II, and Piłsudski, the two nations shared more than divided them, and the perception amongst Lithuanians was and is, that Poles and worse, Polonized Lithuanians, (like the Radziwills), held them as a "lesser" partner. As I told Halibutt recently, these are the reasons that the concept of "Between the Seas", the dream of the Marshall, didn't work out. This, was much, much more the reason than the bolsheviks or hiterism, that prevented this dream from flourishing and comming true. Lysy, do yourself, and your credibility a favor, and avoid adding information like 80% of Taurage was destroyed by the nazis. You should have known its nonsense, and not included it. It implies that once you are caught with "your hand in the cookie jar", you can't be trusted around cookies. All joking aside, I have been receiving contacts (emails), from different parts of the world, e.g., U.K., Belgium, France, as well as some more traditional neighbors of Poland, all concerning the behavior of one particular Polish editor (pointless to name, but you know very well who they mean). I honestly think that he does Poland's struggle for dignity and justice, a great disservice and a group should ask him to "cool it a bit". Even though its a "free Wikipedia", does the attitude and information provided by this editor help Poland or hurt Poland? Just a thought. Dr. Dan 02:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about the Lithuanian perception of Poland. I'm very much aware of this as I have quite some Lithuanian friends and we've emptied many bottles over such issues. During my first visit to Lithuania I've been quite surprised to learn this attitude, as I naively assumed that "Poles and Lithuanians are brothers" etc. while then I've found that in Lithuanian perception Poland was almost an enemy. This is hopefully changing now, most if not all Poles that I know have respect for Lithuania and I strongly believe in the potential to build much better mutual relationship. So far most of the prejudices remain on the Lithuanian side in my opinion, and given the history, this is understandable. You're also right about the probably unfortunate fact that Poles held Lithuanians as a lesser partner, even in the interbellum period, but the fact also is that Lithuania was a lesser partner then. Lithuanians IMO were paranoid about Polish domination only to learn soon what a real totalitarian domination meant.

Thanks for the advice about the 80% damage. I usually check at least 2 sources if some information is otherwise unknown to me, this time I did not and it immediately fired back. I'm not saying that 80% of the town was destroyed by the Nazis or not. I simply cannot easily verify this information and it seems doubtful, therefore I should have not put it into the article in the fist place. You're right that this damages credibility unfortunately. As for the fighters that you've mentioned, every "nation" has them. I think it will cool down with time, but then the new ones will come. BTW, do you know that every time my wikipedia home page was vandalised, it was done by Polish nationalists ? --Lysy^talk 11:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I did not know this, however I did notice that some could not spell properly. Two points, first Lithuania was not a lesser partner in the interbellum, because it chose not to be a partner at all. Secondly, although I doubt you'll agree with this, but as to the idea that Lithuanians IMO were paranoid about Polish domination, I should think no less than Poles were paranoid about German or Russian domination. Dr. Dan 04:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, I'd disagree. The Polish "oppression" of Lithuanians in 1920s and 1930s were nothing compared to what Germans and Russians did to that country after 1939. This said I'm not trying to glorify Poland of the 1930s. --Lysy^talk 07:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested

[10] --Molobo 12:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You're a Good Guy

Hey, I like your unbiased approach to topics, and I'm sorry for lumping you in with Molobo, SpaceCadet and Halibutt before. Hopefully we can continue to cooperate on making wikipedia NPOV. --Jadger 18:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Love your idea of CANAPPUS, if you have time, can you look at the following two articles, You probably do not have extensive knowledge on the subject, but even a simple understanding of English shows a glaring POV problem in these articles. The author of the article does not like my revisions of the article. Perhaps a clearer head such as yours can help out the topics.

Canadian Soldier story

Operation Medak Pocket

--Jadger 23:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to second that, though the nickname can give some misconceptions ;-). Ksenon 21:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Only if you use Ł instead of L, followed by ...ysy. Dr. Dan 23:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea what are you talking about, guys. --Lysy^talk 23:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

neither do I, CANNAPUS is some idea we came up with on my userpage Ksenon and Dr. Dan. Can I get some help on the Operation Medak Pocket page, it has gotten out of control and he has started to troll and flame me considerably, it would be nice to have someone who cannot be blamed of direct involvement to talk on the article.

--Jadger 04:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Here We Go Again

Lysy, in regards to your edit summary concerning Ukmerge, and "passion" and "constructiveness". Two points: First consistency, if I'm going to remove the Polish name from one city, why would I not from another? Or in German for that matter. Secondly, some good comes out of it, because you begin to add information in the article that wasn't there before, albeit usually more polocentric than not. BTW, I don't object, but its a legitimate observation.

Now to the more important aspect of my deletions. I have stated that I will not remove the Polish names of geographical locations in present-day Lithuania, held by the II Rzeczpospolita 1918-1939. I have also stated, that putting these names in the leads of the articles about Lithuanian towns, not part of Poland in the interbellum, is particularly unnecessary and questionable, especially when there is a link in Polish, German, or any other language for that matter. I have further stated that if you need to know the Polish name for Rome, go to the article and find the Polish link, and boom there's Rzym. Lastly, if there is some truly revelevant information concerning Poland or some other country, it can and should be incorporated into the article. Perhaps with a little less emphasis on trivia. Frankly, I thought this was more or less agreed to and resolved. At least between Balcer, you, and I. Dr. Dan 15:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Lithuania's GDP

Hi Lysy. I see that you reverted my edits to Lithuania regarding 46% vs 56% of the European average in terms of GDP. According to the article European Union#Standard of living, Lithuania has a (projected) GDP of US$15,657 in 2006 (see this source). The EU average GDP is $28,114 in 2006. By mathematical calculation, $15,657 is 55.7% of the EU average GDP - hence, rounded off, Lithuania's GDD per capita is at 56% of the EU average. In fact, Latvia is the only country under 50% of the EU average at the moment. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 10:31, 18 March 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)

Earth to Lysy, Earth to Lysy, can you read us? Hope you are O.K., or just having a nice vacation. Dr. Dan 03:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Oczywiście. Dr. Dan 15:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, pomyślę wy moglibyście potrzebować wiedzieć że pomnik w Raudanie był zainstalowany podczas Radzieckiego Okresu. To jest interesujące żeby one opuszczali to jedyne. Przypominuję sobie co podczas moich studiów w Krakowie, tam był raciej wielki pomnik do Czerwonej Armii z poważny (z grobami) w Plantach. Jest to wciąż tam? Dr. Dan 02:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wesołych Swiąt! Dr. Dan 03:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ausschwitz technical gas information

I still believe that comments are not relevant to the Ausschwitz article unless it can be commented that it was used for a particular feature. The detailed properties should be in the article of the gas. Agathoclea 09:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, - saying that I have not checked the other article in detail, to see how much of the info is there or not. But it can be added with out any problem. Basically if it needs mentioning I would like to see something on the lines of "Gas X was choosen because of property Y (<ref>URL of source (or bookreference) </ref>" Agathoclea 19:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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[11]. 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 15:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Some very worrying edits

In Polish Corridor, [12] A user appeared that seems to try portay Hitler as trying to get peace with Poland being portayed as "refusing". He removed several sources I provided as to Hitler's real intentions. He also uses data from military presecence to claim German majority in the region. The same is done in Polish September Campaign, where sources showing Hitler's real intentions have been deleted by the user or changed to POW way that downplayes Hitler's agression and true intentions[13]. For example despite the fact that a source states The proposal served to practically subordinate Poland to the Axis and the Anti-Comintern Bloc. Warsaw refused this in order to retain its independence the user changed it to Poland, however, feared for its sovereignty and questioned Germany's motivations indicating an irrational motive on behalf of Poland. Further changes of the user are worrying. For example he changes German agresssion into "German aggression". The sentence With Poland refusing to abandon its sovereignty to German demands, Germany withdrew from both the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact has been changed to : With Poland refusing its demands, Germany withdrew from both the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact And so on. Please react to this. --Molobo 10:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitler wanted peace with Poland and Nazi's only wanted to unite Germany ?...

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" : [14] User doubts Hitler wanted war and Lebensraum in East and pursuses changes to indicate he wanted peace with Poland: [15] Hitler wanted to settle territorial issues but Poland didn't trust him: [16] No comments. I even went as far to give links but the user deletes them as POV. --Molobo 09:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Kernave image

Hi, long time no see :) I just wanted to let you know that I cropped and rotated this image. It looks now quite different. Hope it's ok ;) Renata 19:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please check your email. Renata 22:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration

Hi! I filled an arbitration request concerning the usage of "liberation" in WP articles. If you are interested in, please add your name to the list of the involved parties and type your statement.

Please inform everybody who could be interested in.--AndriyK 20:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC about Irpen's conduct

Hi! We filled a request for comment concerning the conduct of User:Irpen. Your comment is kindly invited.--AndriyK 17:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stettin article

As to the Stettin article. I appreciate your comments. IN 1945 the Polish troops, contrary to Potsdam Conference, which had left Stettin inside of the Soviet German occupation zone, occupied Stettin, and the Soviet troops handed over command to the Polish. After that its citizens were expelled. That's how history simply was. Nothing more, nothing less.Smith2006 14:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's very likely, however it would be good to have sources to support it. From what I know:

1. there's been a Polish minority in Stettin already before the Soviets entered the town in 1945.
2. Almost all Germans fled the town earlier in 1945 but many returned (over 80 thousand by July)
3. They were expelled later in 1950s (the expulsions started in 1946), some worked in Soviet camps in Szczecin and its suburbs.
4. The Soviets officially transferred the town to Poland on July 5th, 1945, but maintained their military presence long thereafter.
5. The Soviets kept the seaport of Szczecin until 1955, when they handed it over to Poland.
6. According to Szczecin's official web page: "During the Potsdam Conference, the Great Threesome decided to award Szczecin to Poland"

--Lysy^talk 14:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

sorry lysy ther was no polnish minorty in Stettin existing before 1945, thats wrong.--Golumbuss 14:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not before 1939, but certainly before 1945 as the Nazis relocated a number of Poles there for forced labour. --Lysy^talk 14:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well that might be (1000 or 2000 in the Stettiner Vulkan AG shipping yards) but they were not permant inhabitnts with property there. The polnish people which live there right know, live entirely on stolen property of the prewar 350,000 german inhabitants. These act of ethnical cleansing should be clearly pointed out in the city history. Because its historically unique in its dimension in Europe. Sorry don´t get me wrong I am not anti polnish but this must be sayed. --Golumbuss 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your move warring at Act of Kreva

I have to say that your conduct tastes bad. You first moved the article to your preferred location, then open a RM. Majority had spoken in talk page a couple of days ago. We should give your RM the setting that you are requesting that move, not opposing it. Our difference seems to be that one of us uses English, one has reflections of another language (Polish) behind its use. Seeing the meaning of the term "Union", these are not unions. Henq 18:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I have looked at the talk history and it is not true that majority had spoken in talk page a couple of days ago. I've also noticed that there was opposition to the rename in the first place. Therefore, the article should not have been moved without opening a formal request. Only 3 ppl were in favour of the move and one opposed, that's not a consensus and a wider opinion should be seeked before renaming. The remaining talk shows that there were more ppl against the rename. Also, "Union of Krewo" is not my favourite wording, nevertheless I oppose the rename. --Lysy^talk 18:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, there is a digest of what I tried to prove in discussions above. This document is not a 'Union' document. It is only a set of promises made by Jogaila to the Queen of Hungary, a mother of 11 years old Polish Queen, asking her daugher's hand. There is no other documents confirming that the real 'Union' of Poland and Lithuania did happened in year 1385. When Jogaila married Polish Queen and became a King of Poland Wladyslaw II next year, in a terminology of historians he "started" personal union. As to the name Krewo for the location, where the confirmation of the document took place, even Polish historians Jerzy Lukowski and Hubert Zawadski in "Concise history of Poland" call the place "Krėva". It never was a Polish location, except for a period of 1922-1938. Current name of this Belarus location is "Kreva". Juraune 19:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand and acknowledge that formally, it might have not been a union, nevertheless, it is the name that is used for this. It's just a name and does not imply whether the documents constitued a formal union or not. However, we should not be inventing new names as we please, against the usage in scholarly works. It's good to explain in the article that it was not a union, but the title should stay. --Lysy^talk 19:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't engage in 'move war', and please list the moves on the WP:RM page.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Augustus III

There is no need to apologize. My time was not wasted at all and misunderstandings arise all of the time. I was rather rude to you and for that I apologize. Charles 05:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal on Notability

Because you're a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, I'm notifying you that the inclusionist proposa Wikipedia:Non-notabilityl is in progress to define the role of notability in articles. Please help us make this successful! Also note the proposal Wikipedia:Importance is a deletionist proposla that seeks to officially introduce notabiltiy for the first time. --Ephilei 04:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Kielce Pogrom

Please read this article carefully, and do not be misled by the title. As the article shows, the IPN has found no evidence for any outside inspiration. Here is the conclusion of the prosecutor: Według prokuratora, stan materiału dowodowego pozwalał przyjąć jako najbardziej prawdopodobną hipotezę, że "wydarzenia kieleckie z 4 lipca 1946 roku miały charakter spontaniczny i zaistniały wskutek nieszczęśliwego zbiegu okoliczności natury historycznej i współczesnej".

So, the most likely explanation, according to the official investigation, is that the pogrom was carried out spontaneously, without outside provocation. Our article should strongly reflect this conclusion. Balcer 15:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but some historians, including those from IPN still speculate (or argue) that despite the lack of firm evidence the pogrom was likely inspired. Some of their arguments include the fact that most of the victims were shot or that the army isolated the area and did not let the people who could have helped into it. Of course if it was NKVD inspired than it would be hard to expect that they would be leaving documents with proofs behind. Anyway, I agree with you, that the fact that the investigation was inconclusive should be stressed. --Lysy^talk 15:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree with your viewpoint, but let me stress that "inconclusive" in this case simply means that after 60 years IPN was not able to charge any particular individual with a crime. In other words, they were unable to prove that living person X struck a blow against victim Y etc. I do not believe it means that the basic understanding of the pogrom and what caused it is still not available.

Given that the investigation of the IPN was quite through and did not find solid evidence of outside inspiration, and that no former member of the Communist or Soviet Secret Services has revealed their involvement in the pogrom, blaming it on outside forces really falls into the realm of conspiracy theory at this stage. These searches for some rational, "complex" explanation for what was fundamentally a "simple", spontaneous, irrational event are a common psychological phenomenon (see John F. Kennedy assassination etc.)Balcer 16:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably you're right. It's also possible that it was inspired but on a much lower, local level, which would be also much closer to the "spontaneus" explanation. Only a speculation of course. Feel free to change the wording in the article to better reflect what you wrote about. I find it difficult to differentiate opinions from facts in this article and believe every word should be carefully considered. --Lysy^talk 16:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Gadu-Gadu

Me and Balcer were just talking using it, and we thought it would be nice if you would use it, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Err, I could only use skype, I was not aware that the Polish cabal used gadugadu ;-) --Lysy^talk 22:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 8 hours

Due to your edit warring and incivility on the page Erika Steinbach, you have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against disruption of the Wikipedia. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list.
Note to sysops: Unblocking yourself should almost never be done. If you disagree with the block, contact another administrator. Stifle (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock| I have neither been incivil nor disrupted the wikipedia. Also, please take a look at the talk page of the article and my edits of other articles, before accusing me of "doing very little other than participate in a sterile revert war". I believe the blocking admin have seen the accusations of Donnog but have not bothered to verify them and blocked me instead}} I'd appreciate an apology for the careless accusations. --Lysy^talk 22:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I support Lysy in that the block is undeserved. More in my post at the 3RR board. --Irpen 22:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd rather neither of them is blocked. Telling Donnog to revert back or be blocked is a gesture of goodwill to end the revert war. If he doesn't take it, he can be blocked, the war is over for some time. If he does, the war is over for some time but without punishments. Both parties tried to use the talk page, after all. But Donnog should have given up the revert war because he could have known that he's in the minority (1 vs 2) and it was impossible for him to "win" this way, due to 3RR, only by discussion. On this unspoken right, namely to have the version that more approve of, Lysy insisted (which is understandable) but still tried to discuss things. With all due respect, I think the blocks should be undone. Sciurinæ 22:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Since I did not see any uncivility (incivil is a bastardization), nor any disruption, after reading the Steinbach matter, this "Block" strikes me as borderline censorship, or a weird type of punishment. It should be removed, and an apology forthcoming as well. Dr. Dan 23:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I will post my thought on this soon at WP:AN as soon as I am able to write them. I hope it will be soon. --Irpen 00:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have took my liberty to Unblock you, per discussion on this talk page abakharev 05:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I greatly appreciate the comforting support I immediately received for my unblock request from Dr. Dan, Irpen, and Sciurinæ (in alphabetic order). I hope you're not members of the Polish Cabal, guys ;-) --Lysy^talk 10:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply to a message from my talk page

Hi, do you think I deserve your apology for accusing me of incivility and of disrupting the Wikipedia [17] ? If you do I'd appreciate it, otherwise I'd like to know what in my behaviour was uncivil. Thanks. --Lysy^talk 21:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't always agree today with what I did yesterday. In this case, I withdraw that you were incivil and disruptive, but I do maintain that you were revert warring, as was Donnog. It was probably not a good idea, in hindsight, to block you, and I have placed a message to that effect in your block log. Stifle (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This user is one of several nationalist POV pushers and revert warriors who seriously disrupt and damage Wikipedia, and should be blocked indefinitely. Donnog 22:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Donnog, that I do not agree with your POV does not mean that you have to exercise personal attacks on me. Please consider this. --Lysy^talk 22:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, I think you might be interesyed in this. --Irpen 04:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Spotkanie

Lysy, niemieccy wikipedyści planują w te wakacje spotkanie na Uznamie. Byłem na poprzednim i muszę powiedzieć że warto. Miałbyś ochotę się pojawić? Pozdr. //Halibutt 10:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please let me deal with trolls first

Lysy, may I ask you for a short break in UA-zation article's discussions and extensive edits. I would really like to discuss and develop this with you and many others, but with disruption and pestering introduced and reintroduced by Mbuk who keeps doing it even this very minute, I would like to deal with this nuisance first. I need a short time to address his and AndriyK disruption to the Arbitrators and I would be happy to get back to the article.

You must admit that it is not a terribly bad article and with all the tags added by those fellow, the reader is warned anyway of whatever problems you see in it. TIA, --Irpen 21:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I need a wikibreak anyway. --Lysy^talk 21:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time away from your wikibreak to correct my typo. Dr. Dan 04:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Some old move question

Hi, I see you moved Nida, Lithuania to Nida (town) a year ago. Is there a policy that prefers (town) over , Lithuania? Just wondering. Renata 18:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for helping out with Juodkrante. I know you also have a pic from Hill of Witches from Juodkrante. Could you upload it also? Thanks! Renata 20:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I am a professional spy powered by Google :) I found some travel website where you had written about Juodkrante and uploaded a pic from the hill. Truth to tell, there is not much else that could be written about the village without an entire book devoted to it. Unless I could dig out some info on recent cultural events... but I doubt it. Renata 22:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Poland/New article announcements

Please remember about Portal:Poland/New article announcements. It saves me a lot of trouble.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Będe o tym męczył...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

English speakers

Hi Lysy. Yes of course there are people of all nationalities using the English Wiki – particularly since English has become the international language in our era. However, supposedly we are writing an English-language encyclopedia, which would perforce be pitched to an English-speaking audience, i.e. primarily to native English speakers.

Sca 22:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it may be a "delusion," but not one without logic. I personally never use the Polish Wiki for the simple reason that I don't speak Polish. (When I was in Warsaw, I got tired of having to point to things I wanted at the meat market and showing with my hands how much I wanted.) But, a non-native English speaker, however "fluent" his English, inevitably will encounter difficulties, impreciseness and lack of context and nuance on an English-language site.

Perhaps the debate is: Are we writing an encyclopedia to inform people, or is Wikipedia an international forum for the expression of opinion and points of view? Don't misunderstand me – I read The Economist and sometimes stay up until midnight to watch BBC News, to get a more global POV. I don't subscribe to informational autarky. But what is Wikipedia, really?

Sca 00:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

Where can i read about Язычіе and maybe learn it? Thanks! -- 82.209.211.99 20:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe start by looking at Енциклопедія українознавства ? --Lysy^talk 21:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Extinct people living in Sudovia?

Hi Lysy, I think you mixed up ancient tribes with currently living people. What are your sources for such edits? Should Sudovians start celebrating Haloween in August? :))) Dead people rising from the graves... Not intended as an angry joke, but as a funny joke. Please answer on discussion page of the article. Juraune 07:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Polish september campaign

Kurt Leyman did not necessarily have evil intends changing Polish with a capital letter to "polish". For a native German speaker, like him, writing adjectives with a capital letter is rather strange and his knowledge of English and wikipedia is probably limited. He used this edit to place a comment on a prior edit in the edit description. Wandalstouring 12:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this. I'm only concerned when some editors (I do not mean Kurt Leyman) tend to write "polish" and e.g. "German" at the same time (but not the other way round). I'm a careless typist myself and I assume it's a pure coincidence, but still keep an eye on this as some in the past did this purposefully. --Lysy^talk 12:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Djiękuje

Thanks for deleting that stupid anon. comment on Grass-talk page. Sca 16:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Request

Lysy, would you be kind enought to forward this to aeropagitica — when I try to place it on his talk page I find I am blocked.

Thanks!

Sca 21:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

When I try to do a minor edit on the Günter Grass talk page, I get the following blocking message:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by (aeropagitica) for the following reason (see our blocking policy): vandalism. Your IP address is 207.200.116.138.

In my two years on Wikipedia, I have never vandalized anything. I did not delete anything from the Günter Grass talk page.

Not being a techie, I don't understand this business about my IP address or about being a "sock," whatever that is. And I find it extremely FRUSTRATING to encounter this problem every now and then on Wiki.

Can you PLEASE do something about this problem?

Thank you very much!

Sca 21:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did managed to send him an email, so I guess you don't need to do this. Sca 22:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away. --Lysy^talk 13:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Torridon

Hope you agree with my actions on Torridon and related pages - see Talk:Torridon Finavon 01:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure I do. Thanks for letting me know. --Lysy^talk 13:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

MedCab case

Hi, I am going to be the mediator for the Armia Krajowa MedCab case and the discussion is going to start on the talk page. Thanks, Addhoc 12:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ack. --Lysy^talk 13:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Accidental revert

I had to revert your last edit at AK b'cause you accidentaly (I assume) reverted my previous major edit.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

My mistake indeed. All I intended to do was to shorten some cited urls. I'll wait and do it later in order to avoid further damage. --Lysy^talk 20:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't preserve your edits, I was tired, and you have a better grasp of how to shorten the cites. Btw, in other news, here you say you've moved the discussion, but it's not there...?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, it was not worth it; I will redo my edits one day, when the article is more peaceful. As to the discussion move, I think it is there. Check it out: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution. --Lysy^talk 22:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Missed you

Really, Lysy, where were you? Anyway, just to let you know how much I value and appreciate your mediation efforts, new articles, new pictures, and in general you being here, I award you this Dove of Peace. Please keep it up, and hope one day neighbors could find something to agree on. Renata 15:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I feel so flattered :-) --Lysy^talk 15:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bold rename

to a reasonalbe name of EcCL :) Juraune 07:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip...

...on WP:NC(GN).

I have also proposed limits at Talk:Names of European cities in different languages. Please comment and tell others. -  AjaxSmack  05:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:References

Well, basically cite.php does not support two reference sections on one page. I am assuming Pmanderson will want to eliminate cite.php from his version based on his comments... if not, and if he does not improve it, I will delete his proposal as inactive and incomplete in a few days.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Vote against censorship!

Toghether with transnistrian EvilAlex I created the article Heaven of Transnistria, about Tiraspol's regime propaganda. It was nominated for deletion. Please help voting against deletion[18]. Wikipedia is full with Tiraspol's propaganda, let us have at least an article which explain it--MariusM 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

RE:WP:NC(GN)

Thanks, I like it, and agree with its current content, this is the sort of policy that is missing on Wikipedia. Fad (ix) 20:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Copernicus

Don't even think about it. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       23:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Gucevičius

Sorry for my bad sense of houmour:) No, of course I was not serious in the name part. Nationality part is once again the most serious.--Lokyz 08:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Done, removed sorry, won't do this again:)--Lokyz 11:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Food

Actually I've never had bigos in Lithuania or at a Lithuanian-American household, despite the fact that (as I'm sure you can tell from my maiden name Novickas), the family is Polish-Lithuanian. So don't know about the sauerkraut - do with it as you wish. Novickas 18:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's probably an equivalent stew in every country made with all kinds of ingredients that, as Mark Twain says in Huck Finn, get to swap around over time and taste better. I could see why the EU would disapprove of it. In our family it's called ježinka and it can be great or awful. But what about the article as a whole? BTW there is now a talk page Talk:Lithuanian_cuisineNovickas 19:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil

Cynical comments like "How constructive" could be interpreted as uncivil. The reason I put Polish-Soviet War up for FAR is that it is undergoing an edit war, and does not meet the stable criterium. Please refrain from making uncivil comments in the future. Errabee 22:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

May I also remind you of assuming good faith? I said the situation was getting ridiculous, and it was (still is). It has nothing to do with any PoV of mine whatsoever. Again, I ask of you to remain civil. Errabee 22:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I find the comment "How constructive" to be so cynical, that it borders on being uncivil. Errabee 23:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I saw a totally different thing. I saw references unfavourable to Poland being removed (big surprise, how's that for a cynical comment?). Errabee 23:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't think you have been uncivil, and I tend to agree with your reasoning, I think that the article can only benefit from more exposure to WP:FAR. And to avoid any misunderstandings, I'd recommend you refactor your comment on the Russian portal.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That is certainly a more constructive way to approach the problem. Errabee 23:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 7 October, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Łazienki Palace, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Polish Nationalism

Yes, and your Polish nationalism is proven by the fact, that you confuse the 320.000 supposed Poles in Germany, who are mostly emigrated Upper Silesians and holders of German passes with "Poles", and that you estimates are too low concering inner-Poland Germans, who number 300,000 presently. The Free Sorbian State is just a farce, a small initiative tried by a handful of supporters. Most Sorbians feel absolutely at home inside Germany and are culturally very German. THat you twist historical facts, tells all to me. Describing a hundred-man attempt as "all Sorbs" and acting as if 300,000 German Upper Silesians are merely 150,000. That's falsification. And you have spread your nationalistic Polish errors throughout wikipedia, sadly.Smith2006 23:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

masuria-canoeing.com

co prawda strona www.masuria-canoing.com jest komercyjna , ale skoro Pan uważa ,że mało na niej informacji dla turystów tych niekomercyjnych proszę skasować ... i tak anglików na mazurach jest niewielu ... a informacji w necie po angielsku tak dużo ...na stronie jest wiele informacji o mazurach, trasach kajakowych, noclegach itd... pozdrawiam

Neumark

Dzień dobry, Lysy! If you have time, could you offer your opinion on my suggestion at Talk:Neumark (region)? Also, I know you and Smith2006 are in a dispute right now, but would you mind rephrasing some of your text here? I hope you were directing your complaints at the government of Germany and not the nation itself; your phrasing seemed out-of-character to me. Cheers, Olessi 01:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. Olessi 22:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Traditional minorities

No, Germany does not have seats in parliament for Poles, nor for French, Spanish, Turks, Arabs, Chinese. Those are all minorities in Germany. But the Germans in Poland, who are still discriminated by those who aggressively annexed their homeland and drove out their family members from 1945 to 1950, are more numerous than the Polish-government census, which is not even recognized by the European Union. I have nothing against Sorbs having a separate Free State within Germany, but it's also a fact, that they are a 10,000s minority rather than a a 100,000s. The 60,000 Germans of Belgium don't have their own province either, they are part of the Liège Province. Justly so. Minority rights and protection of language and culture yes, but separate entities cannot be demanded. Will you finally give Oppeln region a freestate position within a Polish federacy? Poland has many obligations towards the victims of its nationalist and communist actions after 1945. Responsibilities too. But don't you think Warsaw pays a zloty for the German Linguistic Centre, for German Education, for German Cultural Heritage in Oppeln and Allenstein! No, that's rather reserved for "Greater Poland" itself. Not even the Kashubians get the recognition they should get and the cultural support. It's Polonization all the way, which is why still more than 200,000 Polish citizens of German descent (pre-1946 German nationality) are afraid to register with the government as "German nationality". You may not know, but respect Poland very much, especially its history (even though it was Catholic POland which created the first Protestant state in East Prussia)! I demand the same respect from others. And Polish nationalism as to the so-called "Recovered Territories" has no right at all in a civilized Europe, while German patriottism should be increased, given the damaged self-esteem of many politically correct Germans.Smith2006 08:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how German education is being funded in Poland but I expect it is from public funds. Do you know of anything that proofs otherwise ? It is paid for by the German Foreign Office since 1990. Poland refuses to fund German-speaking education for Germans in Silesia. I agree with you that talking about the "Recovered Territories" today would be crazy, as it was mostly the political concept of the communist regime, but this belongs to the history. I am upset by all this Polish-German pushing and name changing on English wiki. I would prefer very much that instead of trying to prove that "we are better than you", both Poles and Germans would recognize their common heritage as something to be proud of. Especially that there were different waves of German colonization, and not all of them should be perceived as negative by Poles. I agree with you. Apart from the Prussian Germanization policies of the 19th century and the Nazi agression, all "waves" (in fact steady influx) of German settlers were in fact caused by invitations by the Pomeranian dukes, Polish kings and Silesian Piasts themselves. That is by the heroes of Polish history themselves who appreciated the Germans (who came from then "over"-populated areas) for their ability to cultivate lands with their own and new techniques which brought in more taxes and more self-sufficiency for Poland along with better international contacts (Low German was a universal language from Reval to Dunkirk and London). Not in vain did the Danzigers remain faithful to the Polish. And the Kreis Heiligenbeil and Ermland Germans all were faithful subjects to Poland as long as their minority rights were not threatened and the post-1789 nationalism did not arise (nationalism is a consequence of the French Revolution and the rise of the bourgeoisie and the abolition of organic monarchies of the Middle Ages). Unfortunately all the clearer view is eclipsed by Nazism experience and later hatred that was only further developed and supported (without much difficulties of course) by the communist regime. That is very true. I am also pro-reconciliation, but while Germany offers bilingual government services to even guest-working Poles now, Poland refuses to offer anything to Germans, despite the huge investments of Siemens AG in Gleiwitz and Katowice. The Hetze against the past of Donald Tusk's father who served in the Wehrmacht shows how scrupulous some are. (I am not a Liberal like Tusk, rather a conservative Catholic like the Kasczysnki brothers, but not pro-Pan Slavism or -Germanism for that.) Why aren't there yet bilingual street signs in those regions criminally annexed after 1945 and ethnically cleansed from Germans? Where are the old street names of Breslau? Who built Breslau and made it into the city it was? Poles after 1945? Germany has always acknowledged (apart from 1933-1945) that e.g. East Prussia was Prussian, and even built Heimatmuseen for the Old Prussian culture. Why don't they call the Jahrhunderthalle the Jahrhunderthalle or Hala ...., but still Hala Ludowa? When will there be apologies and invitation for reconciliation visits to the millions of elderly eastern Germans who were driven out of their homes in 1945-1950? No, I am not speaking of the Erika Steinbach Rumia situation, even though the expulsion from Germans from Pomerelia was criminal too as they had an historical presence there since the Middle Ages. Modern Germany is funding Jewish initiatives, French minority rights for a handful (litterally) of historical French in Saarlouis, building houses and schools for the Sorbs of the Oberlausitz. But Poland (and France) are doing nothing but dominate and forcefully destroy the culture and language of the Germans inside their borders. A sad thing, especially historio-culturally speaking. As said, I am not a German myself, nor do I have German ancestors. In fact, my grandfather was a Communist (pro-Stalin) during the war who managed to save Jews and western Allied pilots in dangerous efforts. But I can see from two sides. I don't claim Posen Province or Pomerelia should be part of Germany, I don't claim Suwalki for East Prussia. I merely claim human treatment and respect for German culture, which was one of the core civilizations from which our European identity sprang. Even the Polish identity (given the fact that many Poles in Wielkopolska have some German blood and influence)! Borders are not absolute!Smith2006 09:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Street names etc.

Now, what we do not agree on is the view on the modern situation. Bilingual government services for Poles in Germany are fiction as far as I know. "Poland refuses to offer anything to Germans" seems weasel talk to me. There are many things that Poland offered, e.g. the investment opportunities for German companies like Siemens A.G. Do you think that German companies invest in Poland because they love Poles so much ? No, they do it because there are offered better conditions.

Of course. But Siemens could also have invested in the Czech Republic or Slovakia. And they did not invest in Lublin, but in Gleiwitz/Gliwice.

The attempt to use Donald Tusk father's Wehrmacht story against him was certainly tasteless, but we don't know who eventually got points for that. Actually many people voted for Tusk because of this. Also the same person (Jacek Kurski) who tried the trick in Tusk later demanded that Günter Grass honorary citizenship of Gdańsk is revoked because of his SS past. There was an opinion survey conducted on this and you might be surprised but the vast majority of Poles supported Grass, despite his hiding his SS service, and dismissed Kurski's idea. As for bilingual street names in Wrocław, why would you like to see that ? How about Adolf Hitler Strasse ?

Of course not. Don't be ridiculous. I would like the pre-1933 names instituted in small font underneath the Polish names. So no AH-Strasse, but Ringstraße or Hauptstraße or Markstraße.

You ask who built Breslau. Why don't you think who destroyed it in 1945 and who rebuilt it later. The town was almost completely ruined by Germans and Soviets. I think Hala Ludowa was renamed along with the "Recovered Territories" ideology, but now the old name "Hala Stulecia" is being increasingly used[5]. Anyway, similar renaming is a rather normal practice not only in Poland.

Yes, of course. But you admit Breslau was built into the prosperous Medieval City it was by Germans, he?

Germans changed the names of most of the towns and villages in Masuren to German already in 1930s. Also streets in Polish towns were immediately renamed whenever Germans entered there. Who named Łódź Litzmannstadt ? Or does Karl Marx Stadt ring a bell ? The same happened in Polish towns after WW2. The names of all the pre-war streets named e.g. after Piłsudski were changed and many streets were named after communist leaders.

Litzmannstadt is a Nazi name for Lodz, not the German name. The German name before 1939 was Lodsch, and that's how it's referred by still. Likewise the Masurian villages and their Rings of Expellees only use the pre-1938 names for their towns, not the Germanized ones 1938-1945. Note that. Of course all inhabitants at that time already were Germans, even those linguistically Slavic considered themselves Germans, which the ballot in 1920 decided for-good.

As for modern Germany policies, I still think that Poland has much more liberal policies towards its ethnic minorities than Germany. How many Polish language school are there in Germany per Polish person ? Compare this to over 300 German lecture language schools in Poland for 150,000 Germans. I know that you believe there are more Germans in Poland, and this is because you probably would like to count Silesians as Germans (while they usually do not feel Germans and did not declare themselves as such).

The Sorbians have schools of their own. But the Poles in the Ruhr-area are often German Silesians of origin, otherwise they would not have been able to immigrate prior to 2004. They held German-passes for the German minority, that's the case, nothing else, even if Poland wants to consider them a Polish avant-garde. While the Sorbians are a traditional minority, the Poles are not. If I as a Dutchman come to live in Lodz or Bialystok, I will have to learn Polish and send my children to a Polish school. I won't demand a Dutch school. There can be no comparison between the Sorbians and German Silesians and the one side, and that of Polish immigrants (often not even Polish historically) in the Ruhr-area. The Länder of Germany don't offer Turkish schools either. And justly so.

As for Suwałki, I thought that it was claimed by Lithuanians rather than Germany ? A part of my family originates from Wielkopolska and they used to live there under German rule in the partition times. This makes me also able to somehow relate to the claims that there were no Poles in the territories east of Oder-Neisse.

In the provinces part of Germany in 1932, except for a small German-speaking originally Slavic minority in Masuria and a small Polish minority in Upper Silesia (coincidently in the Oppeln Bezirk), all of these provinces were 100 % German. I am not speaking about the German Empire (1871-1918)! In the Empire you had Kashubians, Polish (many, notably in the Province of Posen and around Katowice), French (Alsace-Lorraine) and a few Lithuanians (Memelland).

As for apologies, this already happened in 1965 when Polish Catholic bishops asked for German forgiveness. Under communist regime the Catholic Church was the only significant representation of the nation in Poland. This was of course immediately criticised by the regime. You can see the memorial (Image:Wroclaw-KardynalKominek.jpg), with the inscription "We forgive and we ask for forgiveness" in Wrocław.

I know, but sadly enough many Catholics these days refuse to admit that there were crimes against humanity committed by Poles. And mere forgiveness without regret and without contrition is useless. They would also allow and even accept and demand bilingual street signs in the pre-1937 German provinces (Pomerania, Danzig, Masuria, Silesia, except for Katowice). But they do not. Germans have bilingual street signs in all of the Oberlausitz! Even in towns where virtually no Sorbians live. Please take notice of that. But I am thankful towards the Roman Catholic Bishops of Poland for apologizing. But as we can see: there is no plaque written in German in Breslau, in Ostrow Tomski, where one can easily see all civilians' houses are German-built in modern, mid 20th century German style (sic!), even the church is totally in the style of those in the rest of Germany.Smith2006 08:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

While Breslau was Bohemian, it was already firmly ethnically German in the Middle Ages, at least after 1280. Masuria was only partly Slavic ánd Lutheran. Look, Wloclawek was partly German too, and Bromberg was 90 % too, like was Torún. At least I am happy you agree with me on the bilingual issue in Opole. As to schools: Turks don't have Turkish schools or language classes in Germany either, neither in Holland or in the USA. Modern immigrants will have to assimilate, but traditional minorities have rights, cultural rights. That's the way it is. If you don't like that, complain in Brussels. We can't have people educating children in a foreign language as a small minority. You know of course, that 6 million Turks live in Germany presently, or not? Far fewer Poles.Smith2006 18:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to explain?

This?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of explanation (what aspects) would you expect. As every generalization, this was an exaggeration but there's some truth to it. --Lysy^talk 06:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't you find it a tad offensive, perhaps?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I found it fitting to the tone of the discussion and equally relevant to the article in question. --Lysy^talk 22:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Teutonic Knights

I took out the sentence on what Salza allegedly felt because in the absence of any documentation to that effect nobody knows what he felt. His feelings also are irrelevant in an encyclopedia. Cosal 18:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Break

In fact I have been taking a break for some month now, but this time I decided to take a break from being patient, polite and constructive. As long as I was asking for any reference in the case of Gucewicz I could afford to be patient and ask the same simple question a dozen times in a row. But this time I have been slandered, severely offended and can't stand it any more. Taking a break from the problem would only mean that those whose only reason to be here is to slander my good name will have a free hand to continue their campaign. Sorry, but this won't work. I will demand that MK, EED or any of the Lithuanian editors who spread shameful lies about me provide any evidence - or apologize. I added one more calm comment to M.K's talk page asking to give a single evidence or withdraw his accusations, but I lost any hope and I'm pretty sure that there would be no reaction. This time my good name's at stake and I'm not going to back down before some editor who casts accusations here and there, but does not have the guts to either provide evidence or apologize. //Halibutt 11:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

See? When someone invents some Lithuanian roots for some historical personality, it's all ok. When I do the same and stick with it - I'm a troll. But this time at least the fellow Lithuanians would have an example of behaviour they could list me on RfC for. //Halibutt 11:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more except for the WP:POINT thing. I did not mean to prove anything, although in the end it turned out to be a proof. Anyway, thing is over now and a good coffee did the job, so I won't insist on removing the Lithuanian name altogether. //Halibutt 11:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Solidarity

Would you like to comment on that article?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Babie lato

How would you translate "Babie lato" into English? Sca 21:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Spiegel

Lysy, I've replied to your comments on the Spiegel article on my talk page. --sca^talk

And again! PS: I've added "Nationalism and Historiography" to my Wish List. Sca 20:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you for expressing an interest in my recent RfA. As a followup, I wanted to let you know that unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate that you took the time to monitor the discussion, and I paid close attention to your thoughts, as I find it a valuable thing to understand how I am perceived by others in the Wikipedia community. My current plans are to continue contributing in a positive manner to Wikipedia, and if there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 10:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. As you may have notices I've had problems to decide whether to support or oppose your nom myself, so I'm not surprised no overall consensus was reached. I appreciate that you continue to have a positive attitude. --Lysy^talk 07:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Any comment on new "contributions" ?

So Lysy, what do you think on these: [19] [20] [21] ?? M.K. 12:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm disgusted with all this "who is stronger" approach on Jagiello/Jogaila renaming. The Polish editors are voting for Jagiello while the Lithuanians and Russians support Jogaila. Nothing constructive either way and personally I consider all this pathetic. I'm trying not to get involved. I'd vote for Jagiello of course. --Lysy^talk 17:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you bee a bit more specific about these 3 Halibutt`s "content adjustments" above? And you wrong, Lysy, not only Lithuanians and Russians support Jogaila, not only they... M.K. 21:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't want to be more specific. Anyway, I consider it waste of time and stamina. --Lysy^talk 21:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It is your legitimate right, which will be respected. M.K. 21:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Russophobia

because of Latvia is still unsettled (see talk page) and statement about "Russian Orhtodox Church" Catholic Church "ogniem i meczem" rushed westwards is historical fact not opinion of ROC. `'mikkanarxi 21:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please behave constructively. Your behaviour on this page skirts the definition of trolling. Best, Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

My revert of your revert is trolling ? How would you call your behaviour then ? --Lysy^talk 08:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Boring me with your remarks?

On the Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II page, you wrote "I apologize for boring you with my remarks, which may not seem very productive, but still my 2 cents." I'm not sure if you were addressing that comment at me but, if you were, I wanted you to know that, far from being bored by your remarks, I am very engaged by this discussion and I think we are headed down a road that can be very productive. I see this as taking this series of related articles "to the next level". Perhaps you were just being humble in a self-deprecating sort of way. In any event, I just wanted you to know that, as far as I am concerned, no apologies are necessary for the remarks you are making.

--Richard 21:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

PL-D attitudes

Lysy, according to an AFP story, a recent poll commissioned by the German tabloid Bild am Sonntag found that "despite tense poltical relations, a large majority of Poles have positive thoughts about Germany. Seventy-one percent of Poles view the Germans as good neighbors ... only 14 percent do not, and 15 percent have no opinion" (my translation).

This confirms some things you said to me earlier.

Sca 17:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:

Np. I know, I checked the history. In fact I just reported him for 3RR. He broke the rule almost right after his previous block expired.--Eupator 20:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hows the Water?

How nice of you to jump in on the Bombing of Dresden in World War II article. Now, if you would like to explain your revert, that would be wonderful. I am not "annonymous", and I refuse to believe that, because when I put four tildas after my text and only numbers appear, my opinion is somehow devalued. We have been discussing matters over the Dresden raid for nearly three months. Have a nice day.-72.92.120.106 18:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Should have not requested the attention at RFC then. --Lysy^talk 20:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I wrote on the Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II talk page. It seems pertinent:

Beautiful. We'll just look over edit by edit that I have already explained at great length and run them by you once again to see if they fit into your opinion of events. I consider what you are doing as lacking consideration to my POV. Considering these are edits that I made, considering the fact that I am deleting very little material that you have contributed (I have incorated most, except for obvious POV issues which are fixed) and considering the fact that this is largely a section that you have done squat with, I hardly think this is a fair compromise. Why don't you try to work off of my version for once? I think it is a gross overstatement that you have incorporated my work into your versionIn response to your posting on my talk page, well I suggest you page through the 23523 volumes of talk on the Bombing of Dresden in World War II because its all been done before.72.92.120.106

There is no reason why I should have to go through such rigamarole in light of his obstinence-72.92.120.106 18:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As you say it's all been discussed before, but obviously no consensus has been reached on this, so why are you pushing your POV in the article ? --Lysy^talk 20:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody said I was pushing a pov and the "consensus" involves a discussion between two people, bickering back and forth, myself and Philip Bard Shearer. Do not try to frame this as "me pushing my POV" onto the article any more than it is PBS hawking the article. I really dislike the fact that you're leaping before you've even bothered to look, and you're talking like you know everything that is going on when you haven't a clue. I appreciate you trying to step in to help, but it does none of us any good if you aren't considering the issues at hand and just begin thundering off about why I shouldn't - or he shouldn't - have requested an RFC. Woah there. Secondly, your measures thus far, reverting contributor A's work to contributor B's and demanding that A explain everything (when he has already done this at length with B) shows absolute pre-judgement.--72.92.120.106 21:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Nobody said I was pushing a pov" ? Are you reading at all what people are talking to you ? I did. But what I'm concerned about is your unconstructive edit behaviour (massive edits and wholesale reverts, either ignoring the ongoing discussion or not discussing your edits at all). This will lead you nowhere but only escalate the conflict. I hope you can improve and try to edit controversial articles in a more collaborative fashion. --Lysy^talk 08:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

First you jump into this whole-hog, pretending you know all about the issue at hand. So then I tell you to make your way to the talk page and see for yourself, a little perturbed by your hostility and obvious predisposition. Don't lie to me, I know you didn't read talk or bother to look at the long edit war between me and PBS. "Not discussing my edits at all", eh? Then what is that all over at least three volumes of the talk page? Perhaps you didn't see PBS's obnoxious full rv's for several months, rarely bothering to incorporate anything I have come up with. Until two days ago, I was fully prepared to go back and reintegrate PBS's most recent changes into my version. On the other hand, I clearly explained the errors in his version and he ignored them. You have no argument Lysy. You were hostile towards me to begin with, and at this point, I don't see why I should feel you have a smidgeon of credibility. (regarding this issue, but I'm still willing to talk to you about the Polish Corridor)--72.92.120.106 11:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You are missing my point. But I'm glad the revert war at Bombing of Dresden in World War II stopped. --Lysy^talk 20:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

---

And what are you looking for me to do on the Polish corridor page? I explained my edits, all are with the best intentions and there is no spin, as I would expect from a Polish or German national. Good day to you.--72.92.120.106 18:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the talk page there. Generally, it's a good idea to avoid massive edits of controversial articles and assume a step-by-step approach instead, which makes it possible for the others to voice their objection to individual edits instead of having to revert them en masse. --Lysy^talk 20:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support --Philip Baird Shearer 00:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

award

		The Original Barnstar
		For your hard work and dedication to improving Wikipedia, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this Original Barnstar. Good job! Sharkface217 20:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Your articles dealing with Poland. Sharkface217 20:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC Halibutt

Probably you will be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Halibutt M.K. 23:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

German?

Lysy, do you by any chance read German? There's a very thoughtful collection of essays (including several by Polish historians) on the general subject of forced population transfers at: http://www.zeitgeschichte-online.de/zol/_rainbow/documents/pdf/zfg_01_2003.pdf

Sca 23:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Nixer

I don't really know Nixer, other than he supported me in an RfC. I send an e-mail to MangoJuice about his is block. If you want more info we can talk off-wiki--Caligvla 20:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

the Armenian issue is getting close to a comprimise check it out, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Walton_monarchist89#Straw_poll-Armenia

thanks, --Caligvla 20:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Tone down the warnings a bit

I understand that vandals need to be discouraged but please do not post warnings that say "You have been warned". The vandal in question had not been warned before and getting a first warning like that seems kinda hostile and we should not bite newcomers. Please do try use the {{test1}} to {{test4}} templates more often. Thanks --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 11:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Lysy^talk 12:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Silly? Certainly not.

Hi Lysy, I'm not sure what to make of this edit... Appleseed (Talk) 18:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What would you suggest ? --Lysy^talk 18:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow. Appleseed (Talk) 18:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I do follow. Weltschmerz? // Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 18:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I can offer two alternative explanations to Appleseed:

1. I tried to fill in a red link.
2. Don't bother, it's past and not worth it. I just felt I should be doing something silly myself as well, instead of only watching others. I hope they will not come and block me for that now.
3. Weltschmerz is another good suggestion, it covers both of the above.

--Lysy^talk 19:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you in fact wanted to mock Jewish culture (Gold- is a common prefix in Jewish names), offend all those who perished in their fight against the communists (after all Kaczyński refers to them quite often and you did mention him for a reason) and wanted to make fun of the president of Poland (or was it the prime minister?), which is also a punishable offence (remember the case of the drunkard?). :) Does this qualify as an alternative? //Halibutt 19:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not. I have respect for Jews, Communists, Catholics, Prime Ministers and poultry. I've heard one of the new Polish F16s is going to be named "Fighting Duck". If you'd watched my past edits closer, you'd know by now I'm an enthusiast birder. So all your accusations are totally groundless. --Lysy^talk 20:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. It should be also noted that all three of you are in violation of WP:AGF in asking these questions. --Lysy^talk 20:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think I questioned your good faith. From what I've seen, you're a pretty levelheaded editor, which is why I found the edit sort of puzzling. If this is some sort of WP:POINT thing, then I think it's uncharacteristic for you. But I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Appleseed (Talk) 23:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd sincerely suggest that you choose explanation #2 then. Thanks. --Lysy^talk 23:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Armenia strawpoll

NB This poll has now closed, it being Friday 10th November and about 10.30am where I live. The numbers are as follows:

• Support 6 (although User:Hamparzoum's existence has been disputed by User:Tekleni.
• Neutral 1.
• Oppose 10.

As such, no mandate has appeared for making the requested changes to the article. As previously advertised, Caligvla and I are taking a break from this dispute for a week. After this, the case may be taken to the mediation cabal, although I hope to avoid this eventuality. Walton monarchist89 10:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

AWB

Hi Lysy, thank you for cleaning up articles about Slovak towns. It is an excellent idea. Those articles really needed some cleanup. But I would like also to ask you whether you put an empty line after every headline (e.g. here) by purpose or by mistake. What purpose is this excess white space supposed to serve? Thanks in advance. Tankred 23:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Baltic pipeline

Dzien dobry! You might be interested in this (English) article:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,448652,00.html

Sca 17:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/world/europe/19poland.html?_r=1&ref=europe&oref=slogin

Sca 13:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That article again

Hey Lysy, please have another look at Frankfurt (Oder), for the same reasons as before. Sigh. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 10:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Architecture of the Teutonic Order

I was wondering if you were planning on adding any written content to supplement your nice images in the above article? Picture galleries, belong in the commons really. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged the article for deletion, unless you disagree strongly. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Architecture of the Teutonic Order, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Architecture of the Teutonic Order. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Mcginnly | Natter 19:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

I did not thank you...

... for the pic on Juodkrantė. Thanks. Got any other treasures? :) Renata 07:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The old argument

Lysy, one month ago you urged me to get involved in Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II, saying there was a "potentially positive development going on" there. How positive do you think it is now? Just curious.

Cześć! Sca 20:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Krajowcy - Baranauskas

I dropped a question in the talk. Hope you are interested in :) --Beaumont (@) 16:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans

Please check out website. It's a very interesting perspective that I would like to insert into the Expulsions article but I want to get some feedback on it first. I would very much appreciate your opinion of the thesis presented there.

--Richard 09:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've only briefly looked at it, and while I may sympathise with some of the ideas presented there, I'm afraid these views may still be quite controversial, and not mainstream. --Lysy^talk 15:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wesołych Świąt

Darwinek wishes you a Merry Christmas!

Hi Łysy! I just want to say Merry Christmas to you! Have a nice holiday time. - Darwinek 19:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wesołych Boże Narodzenie

--Jadger 20:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Joyeaux Noël, Frohe Weinachten, Wesołych Świąt, Linksmai Kalėdos, Весёпый Рождествόм!

Sca 22:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Krajowcy

Hello and welcome back! I replied to the best of my understanding, but some sources would be nice... Also, laimingų Naujų Metų! :) Renata 16:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thnaks, the same to you

Hehe --Krzysztoflew 22:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)