This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Witam! http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granatowa_policja Ten artykuł to moje dzieło. Czy możesz pomóc mi go przetłumaczyć na angielski??? MarvinSS 17:23, 16 STYCZNIA 2008

Dlaczego, czy myślisz że obecny angielski Blue Police artykuł jest nieprawidłowy jak jest napisany? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Przepraszam. Dzienki. Dr. Dan (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment at Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Sca (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Laimingų naujųjų metų! Novickas (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a proposed move of Scottish kings at Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland that I thought I'd bring to your attention. I think you have had things to say on this subject in the past. Probably won't be successful, but that's wiki for you. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Temple of Music requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wtfdontkill (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Dan. I think you are a good looking guy. Your user name is interesting. Anyway, why did you oppose the FA nomination? I think the biography of Józef Piłsudski is fine. What are your views? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In historic posters More are to be found here[1] --Molobo (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As you probably have heard, a few days ago a cement brick shattered a window at the Jewish Reconstructionist Congregation in Evanston in the suburbs of the great city of Chicago. This shameful event was reported to police by a synagogue employee, and some Northwestern students said the vandalism definitely constituted a hate crime. We do not know if it was done by single individual or a group. Anyway, are you familiar with this incident? How did this came about? We are not familiar with the incident ourselves, and this is why I asked. Tymek (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry I missed it. Did you ever follow up on the Polish neo-Nazi, who made the February 2, 2008, Chicago Sun-Times front page? The guy who vandalized Westlawn Cemetery? I remember you commenting that it didn't interest you. Also something about your not wanting to discuss non-Wikpedia related matters on the talk pages. Why the sudden change of heart? Dr. Dan (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there has not been a change of heart. I have asked you not to write about non-Wikipedia related matters to me, while I have never gotten a similar message from you. See the difference? Tymek (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't mind. Thanks for explaining the difference. Any follow up on Wdzienkonski? Dr. Dan (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh you are welcome. Since you do not contribute any articles and limit your Wikipedia activities to asking questions, I wanted to explain this obvious fact to you. You do not have to thank me. Tymek (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Do not contribute" and "limit your WP activities to asking questions"? That's not nice. Sorry, but I have a life. I try to do my little part from time to time. Actually, I'm not looking for barnstars or regaining my adolescence either. I've decided not to change my user name to Dr. Dan aka Pontifex maximus or pose in a żupan afterall. All thanks to you. I think this dialogue started with you asking me some questions. Didn't it? Unanswered for the most part too. As for thanking you, I was raised to be polite to friendly people, and you're my friend. Aren't you? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Tymek, I posted this on your talk page three days ago. Since you erased it, I wanted to remind you of a similar incident in case you forgot:

Tymek, I'm sure it was with great dissapointment that you, like myself a Chicago resident, read the inch black headline, in yesterday's Chicago Sun-Times. The article states that according to police, Polish immigrant, Mariusz Wdzienkonski, confessed to the anti-Semitic desecration of Chicago's Jewish Westlawn Cemetery last month. Included on the front page is his colored Mug Shot over a foot high. The article further states that he was involved in Neo-Nazi groups in Poland prior to emigrating to the United States. Are you familiar with any such groups, and how they came about? What was particularly sad was the association and admiration of Hitler that the article claimed was part and parcel of his activities. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Dr. Dan (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As much as we don't see eye to eye, I do think you did a good job npoving the caption here. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how often we see eye to eye on many other issues too. Poking each other in the eye, will only leave us blind if it continues. Please understand that I respect that you should want to protect what is dear to you. Kindly understand that if you were in my position you would do the same. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

May I ask "what is dear to you"? Understanding each other's biases can be quite helpful; I find that the most difficult part of Wikipedia experience is dealing with editors who don't acknowledge they have any bias. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A few things come to mind. Presenting facts in an unbiased and neutral fashion. Applying the same standards to all articles, subjects, and editors. Curbing censorship. Not making lists of editors' activities with whom I don't "see eye to eye". Ignoring unacceptable behavior or edits by those with whom I do see "eye to eye". Dr. Dan (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, hope all is well. Since you are among the most knowledgable wikipedians on this topic and have more objectivity than most contributors, I wondered if you had any thoughts on the discussion going on at Talk:History_of_Poland_(1939–1945)#Removal_of_Soviet_picture. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering, does your automated archive bot still work? M.K. (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Good question? Wondering about that myself. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I could try to fix it one day, if you like. M.K. (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do, or anyone else is welcome to help. Also what was the problem that caused the glitch? Dr. Dan (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that user, who ran bot, is not active. Will try to repair. M.K. (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I finished the work; hope it works, M.K. (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Hope I can return the favor some time. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No problems, M.K. (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy Easter to all! Dr. Dan (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[2].--Molobo (talk) 05:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Then you have my sincere congratulations. Btw, what is the equivalent to a Bachelor Degree, in Poland? Dr. Dan (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[3]--Molobo (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, then I imagine by your earlier comments that you proceeded beyond the Licencjat stage. Right? Dr. Dan (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also you scared me with this link:[4]. If the information is accurate as presented, I may have to change my user name to Magister Dan. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Dr Dan, thank you that you supported my in A.K Talk. And Can I wrote in polish for You?:) Alden or talk with Alden 09:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Dan, I'd like to remind you that - particularly with relation to this - sarcastic remarks like this are not appreciated. Please consider reverting yourself and moderating yourself better in the future, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that you considered my remarks to be sarcastic. Let's explore it a little further (that is, the AK's significance and contributions in defeating the Axis), particularly Japan. Btw, did you consider Molobo's preceeding remarks to me to be sarcastic also? If so, did you express your concern regarding this on his talk page? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I note that on this page, you took out as nonsensical and then restored a statement that John Paul II spoke at Auschwitz to 1.1 million people, "90% of them Jews". This does seem pretty unlikely. Is there a source for this statement somewhere? Or did you restore it by accident? Brianyoumans (talk) 09:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, accidentally. Thanks Dr. Dan (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of courtesy, I'm informing you that a discussion of your edits has been brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Discussion_concerning_Dr._Dan. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the courtesy. I might not have been aware of this discussion otherwise. In the future I will definitely inform the party with whom I have an issue, or intend to file a complaint against, as this would not only be courteous but appropriate and fair. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, generally my view on this is inclusive and multiculturalist, particularly since many of these towns/regions/countries do have a very rich multicultural history. As a result I got no problem with other-lang names in the leads of articles, unlike apparently some other editors who take the very presence of Polish words in "their" articles as a grave personal (and national) insult. More so, I think that in many cases these other-lang names are very important to the topic. So I don't have much of the problem with what's been put into Lublin. As you may have noticed, I've actually put the Lithuanian name of the town BACK INTO the article.

Of course there are some reasonable limits to this (and Lublin's sort of stretching them) as it wouldn't make sense to add in any ol' name into the lead or two list too many of them. Likewise I would and do object to bad faith edits based on some kind of reciprocal mentality.

I don't see how this kind of attitude can cause an "open season on the names of Polish and Lithuanian geographical toponyms" unless it's done in bad faith, nor do I understand what this 'can of worms' you refer to is exactly supposed to be.

Cheers.radek (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said there's reasonable limits to this. The situation with Poland and Lithuania is obviously different than Lithuania and Russia, or Poland and Sweden (are Swedes really interested in this?) because, once upon a time, there existed this entity called the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - a voluntary union of the two. There's also extensive cultural linkages between the two countries/regions. Many Poles have Lithuanian ancestry and vice versa. Etc. Yiddish names in the leads of articles on Polish cities that once had substantial Jewish population, and that some Jewish people still feel a strong connection too are fine, if somebody really wants to put them in. Again, with good faith.radek (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a kind of a can from which worms come out of only if they are forcefully shaken out, by someone with bad faith. As I said, the situation with Poland and Lithuania is in general different. (Also in some instances I'm fine with, say, "Breslau" in "Wroclaw" because it's appropriate). If you don't see the difference then I'm not sure there is a point in discussing this further.radek (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Except, AFAIK, no one's tried to put "Generalgouvernement" in the lead of the article on Poland. Yet. And "Breslau" in "Wroclaw" has been sitting there all pretty and stable for quite some time (in fact since pretty much the beginning). Note also that some of these other potential "problems" you've brought up, like Yiddish names in Polish city names or Lithuanian in Lublin, I don't have much of a problem with. The problem is different - in this particular instance related to Polish and Lithuanian places. And it's hard to avoid a feeling that it's one sided.

In fact, the inclusive approach amounts to AGF (with the understanding that sometimes that assumption is unwarranted), while the exclusive approach you advocate seems to me to assume bad faith on the part of anyone who puts a other-lang name in the lead. It's contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Is the inclusive, multicultural approach going to be perfect? Of course not. Is it going to be foolproof and trollproof? No, just like the guideline AGF isn't. But it is the proper way to proceed, particularly (again) given the multicultural history of the places and regions under discussion.radek (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'll respond here instead of on your talk page (as we have been doing up to now). Comparing Breslau in the lead of "Wroclaw" to placing "Generalgouvernement" in the lead of Poland is like comparing a tree to a turtle. And when someone does put "Generalgouvernement" into the lead (like you AFAIK not yet), we'll have go along with your theory of "inclusivity", in the spirit of what AGF in Wikipedia is all about. You may remember that someone actually had the temerity to list Hans Frank under the leaders of Poland. I deleted it. You might consider removing Gotenhafen out of the lead of Gdynia. Or else placing "Litzmannstadt" in the lead of Łódź. In the article, yes, in the lead, no. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for not responding to your inquiry before this discussion was closed, but I will do so here.

The inquiry centred on my statement that I was "an uninvolved editor in these particular issues". I was referring to the immediate issues that resulted in the request. I was not involved in any of the edits in question, was not previously aware of them, and had not been consulted concerning them. How I found out about the discussion was through the notice on Matthead's user talk page, which I had on my watchlist from my previous interactions with that editor.

You may not have encountered disruptive editing on Matthead's part, but I certainly have. I don't really care two figs one way or the other for the substance of Matthead's argument that "West Germany" is an invalid country name or that "West German" is an invalid nationality. I don't really have an opinion on how to approach that issue. But what I blocked him for was systematically blanking category pages that referred to "West Germany" or "West German", when several of these categories had been formally discussed at WP:CFD and the consensus was to keep them in their current form. That's disruptive editing whether your position on the substantive question is defensible or not. I don't know if you were implying that it was me who had tried to "ram my POV down his throat", but I can assure you that my actions were to protect decisions made by consensus, and not in any way by me.

Hopefully that answers your question. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My point was simply that you were "not an uninvolved editor" concerning Matthead. Perhaps semantically (concerning the AE), but not in reality by any stretch of the imagination. Regarding the rest of your above edit, no I was not implying anything about "you" ramming "your" POV down his throat, etc., only that you were not an "uninvolved" editor. That would be someone who truly was observing the AE from the sidelines without any previous interaction with the parties involved (let alone have actually blocked them). That's how I see it. As for my own involvement in the matter, it was predicated on the fact that the same little group of editors, acting in collusion, are continually attempting to ban, block, or otherwise censor people with whom they have disagreements. Cloaking themselves in self righteous pompousness, and the "Rules" (usually twisted beyond recognition), oblivious to the fact they are equally if not often more guilty of the offenses that they repeatedly bring up in these forums, with a great deal of malice I might add, are fooling less and less people as time goes on. Hope that clears the air. Best wishes, Dr. Dan (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC). p.s. I too could "give two figs one way or another" about the "West German" matter, passports, et al.

No, I agree that I am not "uninvolved" in the broader sense. I meant only with respect to the immediate issue. Sorry if that was unclear.

And I agree that both "sides" are at fault here, which is why I agreed that in this case Radek should be subject to a parallel restriction. If I can ever be of help to you when you run into problems in this area, I'd be glad to help since, as I said, I'm not really strongly opinionated on the substance of the disputes. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks back, and I appreciate the clarification and trouble you took to contact me. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article J.P. Borden, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Good faith search (including book search that covered various registers) finds no significant coverage of the individual. The incident is mentioned (in passing), and the names of people associated with it also, but I didn't see anything that went beyond the most trivial mention.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod)) notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Bongomatic 14:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have sent you an email. Regards, Novickas (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this! Gwen Gale (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the copy-edit. But can I ask you not to edit the article until I remove the "under construction" banner? It just creates edit conflicts and headaches trying to reinsert the changes. Thanks, Renata (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine, will do. But I don't completely understand this part of the template: "You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well". Dr. Dan (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, my bad. I chose the wrong template; I was thinking of ((inuse)). Renata (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

An RfC has opened about this issue at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II#RfC: Nazi atrocities in Warsaw. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr. Dan (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a simple answer to your question, because I do not believe that "nationality" is an objective category. Basically, it is a matter of cultural self-identification rather than of scientific distinction. Personally, I think that the only acceptable answer is Bogart's in Casablanca.

So, for Jews in Vilna, the answer must be specific to the individual. For some, it would be appropriate to put "Jewish" as their nationality, while for others "Lithuanian" or "Russian" would be better. In the case of Trotsky, which first caught your attention, it is clear that he did nor identify as a Jew, and the insistence on this label would seem to result from either antisemitic or Jewish chauvinist prejudice. I'm not sure that "Ukrainian" is appropriate either, since Uktaine was not independent at the timne of his birth and he never considered himself a Ukrainian. Nor, as far as I know, did he speak Ukrainian. What is certain is that it is inappropriate to categorise him as a Jew by nationality. RolandR 08:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I find your interpretations interesting (especially Bogie's). Concerning Ukrainian "independence", however, it's a little puzzling. It would be hard to argue that Poles did not exist as a nationality, despite over 120 years of not existing as an "independent" country during the partitions. What's your spin on that conundrum? Dr. Dan (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It would certainly be appropriate to categorise as Polish or Ukrainian anyone who so described themselves, irrespective of the existence (or not) of a nation state. I was talking specifically about Trotsky, who identified neither as a Jew nor as a Ukrainian. I would categorise him as Russian, but I'm not going to argue with those who describe him as Ukrainian. To list his nationality as Jewish, however, is definitely incorrect, and reflects an agenda-driven analysis. RolandR 17:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Trotsky is a non-issue for me at this moment. The main issue that I called you upon, for an opinion, were the Jews of Vilnius, the city often referred to as the "Jerusalem of Lithuania", and to whether during the Russian occupation, 1795-1918, or Polish occupation 1922-1939, they were no longer Lithuanian Jews (Litvaks). As to the concept of "self-identification", it becomes murky when someone like Idi Amin Dada calls himself the "King of Scotland" or on another day might decide that he's actually Swedish. But I suppose my true peeve regarding the matter is not so much what one considers themself as to what others consider them to be in order to pursue an agenda. Similar to your point regarding Trotsky. In Lithuania, as in many small countries, many of it's inhabitants (especially Jews) were multi-lingual. I am continually "informed" by certain editors on WP that Vilnius was the "least Lithuanian" of Lithuanian cities at the end of the 19th century (49% Jewish, 49% Polish, 2% Lithuanian, yada,yada) based on census' taken by authorities who were administrating the area. In my youth, I came to know many Jewish merchants on Maxwell Street who could speak Lithuanian, as well as Polish, Russian and Yiddish (of the Litvish dialect). Those merchants who could do so did not emigrate from Romania or Yemen. Those merchants who could do so had emigrated from Lithuania, then part of the Russian Empire, where they had lived for several centuries. Anyway, it was concerning this question that I contacted you for an opinion rather, than Trotsky. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dr.Dan, would you please explain this? [5] You wrote there is a "new consensus" however I'm not able to locate it on the talk page. Loosmark (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi back, I noticed that you highlighted the Russian version, but not the Yiddish version. Any particular reason? I think the "new consensus" was more or less "hammered" out at the Talk:Paneriai page by the various parties who have been most involved in these matters concerning Poland, Lithuania, and the PLC. Obviously if you disagree, you can take the matter up again. I think if you read the recent edits at the talk pages of user: Jacurek and user: Mikej007 you might get a better feel for what's been transpiring. Best Dr. Dan (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok i've read that discussion however this consensus seems to be for Polish, Lithuanian and Yiddish names and not to introduce cyrilic into Warsaw lead throught the back door. Loosmark (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What backdoor? Dr. Dan (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand under what logic did you add Варшава. Do 10% of english sources use that name? Me thinks not. Is there a Russian minority living in Warsaw? Not that i'm aware of. Loosmark (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, there is no Russian name for Warsaw. The Russian language simply uses the Polish name (perforce transliterated into Russian alphabet when written down). Such situations are actually quite common. Thus Chicago has a huge Polish community, yet there is no Polish name for Chicago, as in the Polish language the English name is used (in fact notice no Szikago used anywhere in Polish, natural though that transliteration may seem). It would be quite ridiculous to have in the lead of our Chicago article the text: Chicago (Polish: Chicago), wouldn't you say, despite the huge role of Chicago in Polish culture and history?

I suppose then that most languages, when confronted with a foreign name, simply try to reproduce its pronounciation as faithfully as possible. They only give the city a distinct, new name in the language once demands of common usage require it. In light of this, it clearly follows that just because every Polish city in the Russian partition had its name written in Cyrylic alphabet in Russian official documents, this does not mean at all that this was the city's Russian name. So please, hold off a bit on any campaign to add Cyrylic-transliterated names in the leads of hundreds of articles about Polish cities that used to be part of the Russian empire. 99.236.70.174 (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm? Let's see. Knowing a little about Chicago and it's Polonia, I'm not sure I agree with everything you're espousing. Yes, no "Szikago" but as I remember growing up there was quite a bit of "Czikago" as in..."Temu co zmarl w Kanadzie pan OCytko wydawca z Czykago ma wystawic pomnik, juz oglaszaja zbiorki na meczennika emigranckiej sprawy. Zginal smiercia chwalebna, na polu emigranckiej walki o prawa Czlowieka i Polaka na ziemi Ameryki Polnocnej." You'll find quite a bit of this variation for Chicago, in Polish, if you bother to explore it. Then there's the question of Vilnius and whether the chicken or the egg came first. Is "Wilno" an example of "giving the city a distinct, new name in the language once demands of common usage required it?" Is Wilno derived from the Lithuanian name or did the Lithuanian name come from the Polish? You tell us ..." More importantly, there is no Russian name for Warsaw. The Russian language simply uses the Polish name (perforce transliterated into Russian alphabet when written down)..." You might recall then that there is no Russian name for Vilnius. The Russian language simply uses the Lithuanian name (perforce transliterated into Russian alphabet when written down) i.e., Вильнюс. Of course when both the Germans and Russians took into consideration the feelings of the Lithuanian people, they made adjustments to their previous nomenclature. Naturally, that required intelligence and pragmatism. Perhaps one day Poles will refer to the city as Vilnius or Wilnius (notating that they once had an archaic spelling of the city no longer in use). Anyway, you'll find the application of Cyrillic in many of English Wikipedia's articles. It's educational information, and it's for the [6] "convenience" of the readers. And whether one likes it or not Warsaw was a part of Russia, Russian was the "official language" (an earlier argument of my Polish colleagues, but one often touted for Wilno usage), and it's as good of a reason to adding Yiddish to these cities, if "historical" reasons are valid. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to put "Czykago" in the Chicago article lead so what exactly is your point there? Loosmark (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, perhaps if you read the dialog you'd understand my point regarding "Czikago". And who said anything about putting it anywhere? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've read the dialog 3 times already and i still don't get it. Loosmark (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say too bad because it's really pretty simple, but since English is not your primary language, let me help you. Read the sentence in Polish that starts ..."Temu co zmarl w Kanadzie..." followed with my response..."You'll find quite a bit of this variation for Chicago, in Polish, if you bother to explore it." Hope that helped. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

And may i ask how is that important for what is in the Warsaw lead? Loosmark (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you should ask the anonymous editor 99.236.70.174 that question. He brought it up, remember? Btw, you could answer some of the questions I posed to you. You know, the unanswered ones. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Which questions? I think i've answered everything you've asked me. Loosmark (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible rule 1: Wikipedia article about every single piece of territory that the Russian state has any historical connection to (it was occupied by Russian trooops, dominated by Russian traders) shall have its cyrillic transliteration given prominently in the lead. This would include Warsaw obviously, but also Berlin, Anchorage, California, Budapest, Vienna, just for starters. Plainly ridiculous and completely untenable. Yet this edit can only be justified by such a rule.

Possible rule 2: Wikipedia article will only use the Russian name in the lead for a placename outside Russia proper if that name can be demonstrated to be in significant use in English language publications. Thus Modlin can and should have the Russian name Novogeorgievsk given, Dęblin should have Ivangorod in the lead. But you will not find any English language publications using Варшава to refer to Warsaw, now would you? I didn't think so.

Which approach makes more sense? Please make your choice and then pursue it with consistency. Do not experiment with Wikipedia, disrupt it, or make edits only to prove a point in some dispute. 99.236.70.174 (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't really enjoy carrying on a dialog with anonymous contributors. Mainly, because they usually are established editors playing games, especially when they like to pontificate about rules and policies on Wikipedia. Tell you what, if you think Warsaw and Fort Ross, and their histories, are equatable, I might make an exception and go on with this. Besides, you never did respond to my "Czikagoski" perspective. Right now the Mötley Crüe song, from their "Dr. Feelgood" album, comes to mind. Bye. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

In the above exchange concerning Warsaw, I was asked why I added the Cyrillic Russian version of the city's name. Here's the diff...[7]. I responded..."Hi back, I noticed that you highlighted the Russian version, but not the Yiddish version." In a nutshell, you found the Russian version objectionable, but not the Yiddish one. Any particular reason? The question, I believe, remains unanswered. Perhaps I missed it. I'd still like Loosmark to explain why, however? Dr. Dan (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were able to find the answer to that alone but alas.. anyway before the Nazis wipped them out during the WW2 around 10% of the popullation of Warsaw was Jewish. Loosmark (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

A user requested informal mediation for the current dispute at the Paneriai page. Please go here to take part. Please note that in the event you refuse, the end result of this dispute may be penalties for both sides for disruption. Please take part in informal mediation. -- Raziel  teatime  19:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Raziel, thank you for your invitation. Thank you especially for the work (which is time consuming and not easy to do), in creating the format. But if you ever heard of the phrase..."What if someone throws a party and nobody came", comes to mind. First, I think a consensus has been reached. Hopefully it will hold. Secondly it (the consensus), came about before you opened the "informal mediation." So it seems kind of moot. Out of curiosity, what qualifications do you feel you possess that would enable you to mediate the dispute, that I thought has already been resolved? Also have you read the all of the relevant material that has led up to the dispute in its entirety? Let me ask two more things, have you read or been apprised of the recent snide remarks and attacks against me that have been brought into the debate? It might be helpful to look into it. I haven't seen anyone chastising anyone for this behavior. And finally..."in the event you refuse, the end result of this dispute may be penalties for both sides for disruption"...strikes me as a very weird statement, almost surrealistic, but not Stalinesque, or Gestapo-like. In those type of inquests, neither a request nor a subpeona were invoked. To be respectful to you, and to your efforts, I will simply say that my earlier positions have been stated clearly. I have decided to agree to this new consensus. Further rehashing and recapitulation of this now would be a waste of everybody's time. Hopefully, the consensus will hold. Best wishes, Dr. Dan (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I made that last statement because there was a good amount of edit warring and personal attacks coming from both sides, and if an admin were to step in he or she could and may have blocked you and the others for violating wiki policy and decided for themselves whther the name belonged in the article or not. Also, I am not going to do anything about the previous personal attacks since they were coming from both sides, and getting people blocked for them would not help resolve this dipute at all. I would like to note, though, that any more personal attacks from either side are not advised at this point. I'll be sure to let everyone know at the MedCab page about this as well. -- Raziel  teatime  17:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Raziel, "both sides"? Regarding violations of WP:PA policy, this: [8] is a clear recent (emphasis on recent) example from my perspective. Here's [9] another one. Even though this slur [10] came five minutes after the last one, by the same editor, I suppose one could claim that there's too much ambiguity to say it was about me. Would you be so kind as showing me one from your perspective? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that all three of those were personal attacks towards you and perhaps user:Lokyz as well (although I think the last two are somewhat irrelevant to the dispute at Paneriai), and I do not condone those actions. However, I also do not condone this: [11] from you either. -- Raziel  teatime  19:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a little troubling that you would even slightly compare [12] to those other three clear violations of WP:PA. I would hate to come to a premature conclusion that there is some bias on your part. That now will remain to be seen. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, in regards to your query of my qualifications as a mediator, I will be honest with you and state that I am an inexpierenced mediator, and have no real qualificcations for mediation. I have only taken on one other case before this one, which involved a dispute at an article for an online game called Beyond Protocol. The case page for that is here. I think I was handling it well until life started interfering and I had left Wikipedia for a few months. The dispute was resolved, but I still think I could have handled it better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onewhohascomebefore (talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty regarding your qualifications to mediate the dispute. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think my pointing out of your personal attack makes me all the more neutral. After all, how would it look if I ignored that statement you made regarding User:Radeksz and only pointed out personal attacks made by him and others? -- Raziel  teatime  19:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Whoa! What personal attack? Break it [13] down for everyone. What personal attack? Dr. Dan (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You are essentialy calling him a hypocrite and accusing him of having WP:COI issues, even when he repeadetly cited WP:PLACE as a reason for adding the alternate name to the article. As for the alleged blind revert [14], he gave his reason for reverting your edit in his edit summary, so I don't see how that was a "blind revert". -- Raziel  teatime  20:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I get it, he calls me a troll, not "essentially" mind you, but very distinctly. You interpret my advice to him as "essentially" calling him a hypocrite. Are we comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges? Your spin on it is interesting. So is your interpretation of the term "blind" revert. Who claimed that? Btw, his revert at Lithuanization had nothing to do with geographical names. In that case, Radeksz preferred to revert me without discussing it at the talk page. Which I think was his bone of contention at the Paneriai talk page. Incidentally do you have any knowledge regarding the Selonians, Jotvingians, Nadruvians and Curonians. Or the Old Prussians? Read up on them and you'll see that my edit at the article was about as OR as claiming the sun rises in the east, and sets in the west. Hopefully the more you familiarize yourself with everything going down, you'll find that my colleague Radeksz has many issues pertaining to my edits. Not just these examples, but in many other areas too. I do hope he takes your advice concerning WP:PA though. Your advice to him was undoubtedly better than my advice to him. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies. I thought you meant that he reverted your edit without giving a reason. In any case, I still view your comments as a personal attack, but we'll agree to disagree. It doesn't really matter at this point anyway. -- Raziel  teatime  19:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"It doesn't really matter at this point anyway." Why's that? Dr. Dan (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Because that was part of the discussion prior to mediation, and I think that focusing on them now won't help resolve the dispute. I do expect those who were making personal attacks to apologize, but that can wait. -- Raziel  teatime  19:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I found Your question about Blondi's age. I've checked it and You were right. She was prob. born in 1941 cos Bormann gave her to Hitler in 1941 when she was a young bitch. I've changed it (and a few other thing in the article) - I hope did not make too many grammar errors there.

Sorry - I've got some personal question: have You ever lived in Britain (some spa town) or in Spain (ca 2005-2006). I've prob. mistaken You with somebody I had met near some Moorish castle in Spain (he was going to be a teacher in Masuria, Poland and he knew quite a lot about history). Sorry for that stupid question; I'm just curious (especially when I looked at your picture) and You don't have to answer it :). V1^t 23:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Patrząc na twoja zdjęcia, myślę, że niektóre przypuszczenia są prawdopodobnie poprawne. Best wishes. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, I do not much like you but hey, that's life. How about instead of this endless bickering we try to do something productive together. I notice that's there's A LOT of Lithuanian places that are still red-wiki linked. To pick a random example, Adutiškis. I'm bringing this up now because recently I was trying to write an article and had trouble finding anything about Onuškis (which I stubbed - but it took me like an hour and a half to figure out what the non-Yiddish name of this place was). So instead of fighting about alternative names and so on, why not we try to knock out as many of those red wiki links as we can, even if it's just stubs. Seriously, the time that's been devoted to fighting over Paneriai and Ponary could've been better used to create articles on the multitude of Lithuanian places that are missing - I'm speaking as an economist here, I hate this kind of inefficiency. For myself, I promise not to bring the issue of alternative names up in any new articles that are created through this collaboration (should you agree. If I'm on my own here, I'll do it my own way), and will leave that up to the mediation case when and if it ever concludes.

So how about some help here? Something simple. A list of all Lithuanian places which are mentioned somewhere but which are still red. Help me out.radek (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz, I'll consider your proposition after the Eastern European mailing list matter is resolved. In the meantime there are plenty of red-wiki linked Polish matters that you can work on. Btw, I still think you owe me an apology [15]. Anyway I hope you don't really think that the best way to create a working relationship with someone is to open with a line like..."Dr. Dan, I do not much like you..." For the record, I do not dislike you. O.K.? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought you might be interested in turning over a new leaf but apparently not.radek (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz, please take the trouble to read my response once more before jumping to any conclusions. In regards to "turning over a new leaf", it is my hope that you will follow your own advice after having read some of the evidence being presented at your case. All of your repetition of asking others to assume good faith in the past has been brought into question by the matter now being investigated. As I mentioned earlier, when the smoke clears we can consider the best way to proceed; if you care to, or are able to do so. Again, unlike yourself, I do not have any personal animosity towards you, nor do I dislike you. I think enough said. Maybe we can even become "chums". Good luck. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Russian bashing continues at the circus unabated, and not reprimanded. What's up with that? Dr. Dan (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This was to be expected. Sadly.-- Lokyz (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading on my real project here. "Largest" of the Baltic states. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  03:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the great article. Is this somehow being disputed by someone again? You probably know that I added this information to the Baltic States article recently, but haven't checked whether it's been reverted. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia article on Pyrrhic Victory for information. A Pyrrhic victory is one that comes at a great cost to the attacker. For example, the Battle of Bunker Hill was a pyrrhic victory for the British, since they won the battle, but were drained of men. In the Battle of Westerplatte, the Germans lost 200-400 men while the Poles lost 13 men. As the Germans paid an extremely heavy price while inflicting fewer casualties than they sustained, than this could be considered a Pyrrhic victory. (unsigned)

If, per definition, a pyrrhic victory is a victory with devastating cost to the victor, the Battle of Westerplatte, seems to be a poor example. I think your statistics are those stemming out of the People's Republic of Poland. I believe the German official KIA are around 50-55, with a proportion of those being the result of friendly fire from the Schleswig-Holstein. If I'm mistaken, I am interested in getting the actual facts straight concerning the matter. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

German official KIA? You probably mean the Nazi official KIA, and everybody knows that the Nazis were notorious liars. It's quite disgusting that you'd rather believe them than the other sources. Loosmark (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think by now the German statistics regarding their casualties in the Second World War are hardly questioned for their accuracy or objectivity. I also think they would be in a better position to state what they were in this "battle" than statistics coming out of the People's Republic of Poland. Or do you believe they were less notorious liars? Loosmark,sorry that trying to get to the bottom of this and making the article more accurate disgusts you. Politics aside, as I stated before, I am only interested in getting the actual facts straight concerning the matter. Thanks again. BTW, this is an open question to anyone with information concerning the issue. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think by now the German statistics regarding their casualties in the Second World War are hardly questioned for their accuracy or objectivity. huh!?
Or do you believe they were less notorious liars? Indeed, I think the Nazis were the worst, personally I don't trust any stats they come up with.
I am only interested in getting the actual facts straight concerning the matter. I am sure you do Dr. Dan. Loosmark (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You're correct Loosmark, I am only interested in getting the actual facts straightened out regarding the casualties. Without Godwin's Law entering into the discussion. Anyway I do standby my reluctance to accept the People's Republic of Poland statistics as reliable. Do you accept them as reliable? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Godwin's Law obviously doesn't apply where there are, you know, actual Nazis involved. Are you planning on showing up on the talk page for Adolf Hitler and chastising everyone there for Godwin's Law violations?radek (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it puzzling that every time I reffer to the Nazi by the word Nazi there is always some drama, Godwin's Laws and what not. How am i supposed to call them then? The reality of the matter is that the Nazis expected an easy victory at Westernplatte but then suffered far greater losses than expected. Since that didn't feel too well into their concept of "ubermensch" it's more than likely that they doctored the stats a little bit. IMO people who were capable of this [16] were quite capable of everything. But to answer your question, lets put it this way: if I have to choose between the Nazi stats and the stats of the People's Republic of Poland I'd pick the later 24 hours per day and 7 days per week. Loosmark (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Always picking communist sources. That explains a lot. -- Matthead  Discuß   03:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked by the manipulation of what I said by Matthead. I said I would pick the source of the People's Republic of Poland over a Nazi source, not that I would "always pick a communist source" as you try to imply. Loosmark (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you guys really don't get along, do you? -- Rue Ryuzaki  jam  18:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(od) As an example, accuracy-wise, I would trust German statistics over casualties suffered and inflicted over Soviet statistics regarding casualties suffered and inflicted.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  18:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what is meant by "communist sources" above. For pre 1957 Poland I wouldn't trust those sources anymore than Nazi ones. But after the "thaw" legitimate historical works began coming out and even government publications on areas that didn't directly challenge the "official history" were pretty accurate. So for post 1956/7 the sources have to be evaluated individually (though with a skeptical eye - basically it's important to look at how other, independent, scholars treat them).

On the other hand, Nazi sources are all unreliable if taken at face value. Of course analysis of Nazi era sources in secondary sources can very well be RS.radek (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What was a small issue concerning the term "pyrrhic victory" that was raised concerning the the Battle of Westerplatte, placed by User:Reenem, is being blown way out of proportion. It would be better served being discussed at that article's talk page rather than here. There are actually some threads in place that can be further discussed. Please go there. Thanks to all for your input. Regards, Dr. Dan (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dan - thanks for asking, I always learn something doing these things. Will probably be able to get to those two over the next couple of days. As far as the larger alternate naming issue - that should probably go to the WP:NCGN policy page and might could use a WP:Request for comment (more eyes). Viso gero, Novickas (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Dr Dan - I struck this comment as a portion of it crossed my "inflammatory statement" threshold. The two phrases that I won't permit are "inappropriately backhanded jibe" and "harping". Please feel free to rewrite your comment accordingly. Manning (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(moved from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision

I'm not sure you're in a position to make accusations of others in this regard - at the Samogitia article I see you've repeatedly tried to take a relevant piece of information (the Polish name for the place) out of the article - for what purpose? You can hardly claim that Piotrus' (and multiple other editors') reinserting it is in any way disruptive. I thought your recent attempt to rename Bieszczady to Western Beskids was an honest mistake, but combined with this other thing it makes me wonder if you have some prejudice against Polish names' appearing in WP articles. (I've certainly seen examples of such behaviour by editors of various nationalities.) It really has to stop on all sides.--Kotniski (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I hope you'll forgive my browsing your recent contributions, but it didn't take me long to find this and this, where in both cases you've simply removed morsels of information connected with Poland. Combined with your great interest in this ArbCom case, where you seem to be trying to get as harsh restrictions as possible imposed on Polish editors, I have to wonder whether do you have some kind of ulterior (possibly subconscious) motivation here.--Kotniski (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski, this is not the proper forum to discuss why Samogitia, one of the five ethnographic regions of Lithuania, should require a Polish language version in the lead of that article. I'd be happy to discuss that with you at the article's talk page. Same goes for Kalvarija and Kražiai, and the the proper English name for the Beskids and it's components, too. I am however, in a position to point out that Prokonsul Piotrus' example of how he reaches compromises is not all that it seems. That was the point of my edit. Incidentally, since you've never edited the Kražiai or Kalvarija articles in any capacity whatsoever, what you call "browsing" my recent contributions, is sometimes referred to as stalking. Just to let you know, I don't mind though, I'm use to it. More importantly however, since you seem to be able to follow my contributions in such detail, this remark..."you seem to be trying to get as harsh restrictions as possible imposed on Polish editors"...truly surprises me. Where? When? A "diff" would be most helpful. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, in your comment just above, you seem to be trying to display Piotrus in a bad light over an edit where all he's done is restore some perfectly valid encyclopedic information which you had previously removed (despite several editors' restoring it). If your purpose in doing that was not to argue for harsher restrictions on him, then I can't think what it was. And just to stay off topic for the moment, if you remove information because it's not appropriate in the lead, then please ensure that you preserve it somewhere else in the article (as has now been done properly at Samogitia).--Kotniski (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski this thread is getting way too Kafkaesque, OT, and untrue with remarks like..." where "you seem" to be trying to get as harsh restrictions as possible imposed on Polish editors, I have to "wonder" whether do you have some kind of "ulterior (possibly subconscious) motivation"" ? How about a "diff" please, for where have I "argued for harsher restrictions"? And is there any reason for me not to have a great interest in this ArbCom case? Btw, as far as who "put themselves in a bad light" by their actions, that wouldn't be me, but they themselves. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

And is there any reason for me not to have a great interest in this ArbCom case? Your sudden mega increased interest (numericaly going by numbers of posts it's around 2000%) in the ArbCom case coincides with the proposed more narrower sanctions to some members of the list. Btw good idea you have changed that "surreal" comment, you were starting to use that word too much, it was starting to look bizarre. Loosmark (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Do I have to look in the history and give a diff for the comment we can all see just above? Are you claiming you didn't write it? Are you denying the destructive anti-Polish pattern inherent in the diffs I have provided? They certainly do show you in a bad light, at least on the surface, far more than the diff you cite against Piotrus might be claimed to show him in a bad light. If this is the sort of behaviour that Polish editors encounter on a regular basis, then I'm not surprised they've felt the need to take irregular action to combat it. I'm happy for this OT subthread to be archived, but Dan's original accusation against Piotrus (the one about the "provocative, unnecessary and undue edit") should go with it - it's hard to see any justification for those words when the edit is actually examined. --Kotniski (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Two things. Kotniski, please provide a "diff" for your assertion or retract it. And for the benefit of Loosmark, you, and anyone else concerned (especially members of the committee) my interest in this proceeding is the result of being a target of this mailing list. Some emails in the list specifically mention me. In one or two, the Prokosul specifically mentions a strategy of how to remove me from the project. That's why its of interest to me. Those privy to the emails can confirm this fact if they care to. What would your interest in this proceeding be? And I still believe that his edit [17] was "provocative, unnecessary and undue", and totally so. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the purposes of clarification, Dr. Dan was a "target" of the list in the sense that one member of the list told others to "just ignore him" and then another said "yes, that guy has a PhD in trolling" and then another one said "yes, why bother, just ignore him", and then maybe somebody else said "yeah, why waste your time, ignoring sounds good". Hence it was a huge evil conspiracy to just ignore Dr. Dan's usual "contributions". Understandably, the ignored Dr. Dan is upset.radek (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL, yes I was a target alright, but it hardly upset me. In fact the whole expose of the mailing list, not just emails concerning me, totally disgusted me. Later the duplicity exposed and the shame of it actually occurring disgusted me more. And the attempts to deny it and play more games after the ArbCom case was opened even further disgusted me. So, your emails about some plan to ignore me didn't upset me, they just disgusted me. But your "clarification" of this small part of the mailing list is a step in the right direction. Instead of denying it or claiming that someone falsified the emails concerning Dr. Dan, we have an explanation, a "clarification", of not only what you all were saying about me, but the bonus of what my reaction to them must be. That's nice. If you want to you can clarify the rest of what you all were doing at the mailing list, but not here, do that at the ArbCom before it closes. I might even behoove you. It would be a refreshing change from all of the earlier denials. Btw, I think you forgot to include one rather important email concerning me sent by the Prokonsul to the rest of your cabal (whose existence was consistently denied). Do you care to share that one with everyone, maybe verbatim? As for the rest of your explanation ("clarification"), Radeksz, all I can say is too bad you didn't follow the advice of the "one member of the list" and ignore me. I think as a result of your recent input, I'll take his advice by ignoring you. But before I do, I want to thank you and Loosmark for your contributions to this discussion that Kotniski and I were attempting to have. Maybe it gave some committee members a small insight into what kind of wikipedians you are and how this all came to pass. I don't know if anyone ever said this at the ArbCom, maybe I missed it, but I'll say it on my talk page, Shame on all of you. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, so that's where we disagree. How is adding encyclopedic information to the encyclopedia "provocative"? (Surely continually removing it, as you've been doing, is far more provocative?) "Unnecessary"? (Well, nothing we do here is necessary - but that's hardly an argument to use against someone.) "Undue"? (Don't know what you mean by that, but it seems to occur regularly in your edit summaries where you've removed the Polish names from articles on places in Lithuania - you seem to be waging some sort of campaign here that isn't to do with improving the encyclopedia, much as some of the more extreme Polish editors have been known to do against German names.) --Kotniski (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless some members of the committee (which I doubt) wish to hear more about this topic, Samogitia, etc., I've told you to take it to my talk page already. I believe this is the second time I've made that suggestion. For the last time, I'm respectfully asking you to provide a diff for this statement,"you seem to be trying to get as harsh restrictions as possible imposed on Polish editors" or to retract it. That would be relevant to this proceeding. Otherwise this is a pointless discussion and I will not continue it. Please do not make outlandish accusations if you're unable to back them up. And Kotniski, this tidbit of yours probably sums it up perfectly "If this is the sort of behaviour that Polish editors encounter on a regular basis, then I'm not surprised they've felt the need to take irregular action to combat it." "Irregular action" (your explanation)? You might be surprised that most of us do not feel we're in "combat" and that this project is some kind of battle ground. Obviously we disagree here too. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Next you are going to tell us that you pop up every time there is discussion about sanctioning some Polish editors to prevent battleground. Loosmark (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Not at all Loosmark, just to tell you that you pop up very frequently at these kinds of discussions with very interesting comments. Perhaps they're made with the intention to prevent "flaming" and "battlegrounds"? And what does "sanctioning some Polish editors" have to do with your confusing statement. It doesn't strike me as a "morsel of wiki-wisdom" or any kind of wisdom. Loosmark, if you are unable to follow the conversation or add something substantial to it, I'm asking you respectfully to stay off my talk page. It's those kinds of yuk, yuk, sophomoric remarks that were interwoven into too many of the EEML emails. They no longer interest me at all. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, my confused statement? Considering what you wrote above that's a classical case of the pot calling the kettle black. Loosmark (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, I said "confusing" not "confused". They don't mean the same thing. Other than that, I apologize for all my shortcomings. Just the same you couldn't have been confused about this part, "stay off my talk page". Have a good one. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Dan, I come here in the first place only because the discussion was "transferred" here on your initiative. But since according to your analysis I can't add anything "substantial" and "worthwhile" I'm just gonna say sayonara. Loosmark (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Domo arigato, Dr. Dan (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just stating what seems to me to be the case. If you make an accusation against someone in a discussion about what sanctions should be applied to him, it seems you're trying to get the sanctions increased. If you make regular edits removing Polish names from articles about places in Lithuania, then it seems you're waging some kind of battle against Polish names in Wikipedia (the Bieszczady thing rather reinforces this appearance). If I'm wrong, just tell me the real reason you did these things, and everything will be clear. Anyway, your accusation against Piotrus on the ArbCom page still seems without foundation, so you might consider retracting that.--Kotniski (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski you are mistaken, what seems to you an attempt to get sanctions increased towards anyone was in reality pointing out that the Prokonsul's "diff" [18] (and edit summary), claiming to represent compromise was anything but that. Nothing more, nothing less. Maybe others are in a better position to judge that question than we are. I'm definitely willing to listen to reason and any arguments as to why it wasn't. As to the English language question even when P.K. aka P.P. erred at Talk:Elisabeth of Austria (1436–1505), I too demonstrated that not only can I work with him, but that when he acknowledged an error on his part (and offered a good alternative) [19], I gave him praise and support [20]. On another issue, regarding English on English Wikipedia, you might take a peak at the Elisabeth of Austria (1436–1505) article and it's talk page to get a better understanding for my reasoning for the attempted move regarding the Beskids. I acknowledge the improper action of moving the title without discussion. And again, I apologize for that. It was wrong to do that even though it seemed a no brainer at the time, just changing a non-English title to English, just like moving Elżbieta Rakuszanka to Elisabeth of Austria (1436–1505). It should have been discussed first, my bad. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski, now that we've both decided to either delete the above thread, or just let it die a natural death and get archived (that's my decision, almost hate to look at it until then), I'd like to discuss our disagreement concerning that matter of Samogitia. Would you like to go first? Be my guest. I'm hosting the discussion. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This is completely unacceptable. The case pages are not for interrogating other users. This is your final warning. Continued conduct like this will result in bans of increasing duration from the case pages. KnightLago (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. It has been my experience that parties questioning other parties on talk pages does not lead to anything positive (or substantive). KnightLago (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Whenever we heard that one as kids, it usually meant that the unhappy party was going to take their ball and go home. And probably drink some ovaltine (tea was for grownups). Dr. Dan (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you please copy edit this article in my sandbox? If you going to c/e it please don't forget to add ((inuse)) template, then editing it (by this we will avoid edit conflicts). Thanks, M.K. (talk) 08:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Linksmų Kalėdų ir laimingų Naujųjų Metų! Novickas (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And Best Wishes. Please be sure to turn up the volume. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1qpwag8ddM

Oh, the memories! Minus the tears and nosebleeds! Thanks - Novickas (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Actually, I was thinking more about Humpty-Dumpty. And I thought the musical selection was a good choice. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, so I'm a little slow on the uptake. Enjoy the holidays, Novickas (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Cher Dr. Dan, Merci de votre message. I have read your recent edits on Chopin's article, and am quite satisfied that you gave George Sand's real name. And I am going to jump on the opportunity of your coming upon the scene to bring out a couple of points, three, in fact:

1. Chopin's birthdate: 22 February on a baptismal certificate, with an alleged (but generally considered erroneous) birth date recorded on it, according to a Wikipedian. Now, why is this "alleged" date considered to be *erroneous*? It is the date inscribed on the cenotaph with his heart in the church of Sainte-Croix in Warsaw. We know that Chopin's sister took his heart when she returned to Poland after his burial. When was the cenotaph built? What I am driving at: was she still alive when it was, because, if so, then she would have given the exact details pertaining to the date of his birth.

2. Chopin's nationality: Born in Poland, there is no doubt that he is a Polish citizen, naturellement. However, his father was a French citizen. Now, I have no idea what the law(s) on nationality - different in different countries, even now - were at the time of Chopin's birth.

• Was a French expatriate considered a French citizen?
• If still a French citizen, would the born-out-of-France children of this expatriate French citizen be French?

As the laws of France are now, OUI: Chopin would have both nationalities. But what were the laws in 1810?

• If considered a French citizen because his father was French, then Chopin, once he moved to France, did not need to become a French citizen since he was one by birth.

3. Chopin's French passport: In my opinion, his French passport is no proof of citizenship:

• The one we see in the article was issued for one year in 1837 to allow him to travel outside of France. Chopin was 27 years old, quite well known and well considered because of his artistry: the French would have done anything they could to facilitate his travels, and the only way they could do it was to issue a passport to him.
• The passport issued to Chopin in 1837 does not say that he is a Frenchman, it says that his parents are French (de parents français), which includes his mother, implying she became a French citizen by marrying a Frenchman. Which also could imply that Chopin (and his sisters, by the same token) were French citizens because of the French nationality of their father. However, it does not say de nationalité française; but, again, this was in 1837.

The reason I am bringing this up is because it seems to me that somewhere in the article, it is said that he became a French citizen & the only proof given is the passport. (In fact, if the one issued in 1837 was issued for one year, then he must have had others as he traveled outside of France two or three times.)

Meilleurs vœux pour 2010.

Frania W. (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and trouble to elucidate your thoughts on various matters (birth dates, passports, etc.) concerning Chopin. Unfortunately the issue of his nationality (far too often) seems to raise concerns in some quarters on Wikipedia. It would seem that other than some type of nationalistic xenophobia one should not object to including his connection to France (emigration to France, acquiring French citizenship, primary residency in France), thus making him Polish-French (and of course, his father's heritage). And including that would be appropriate information for the lead. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do fight my own battles (which I call "windmills") at times on Wikipedia, but the (dual) nationality of Chopin is not one I want to go into because I realise that it touches some too deeply. Besides, being French with a Polish name, whichever way I turn, I can claim Chopin! Aurevoir ! Frania W. (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I do understand your dilemma. Unfortunately, many of the people who are "touched too deeply" by such issues are the same ones that are less concerned about "touching other people's sensibilities" as in the Antanas Mackevicius matter [21]. There are plenty of other examples. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Be careful with 3RR! I must go now. Will probably run into each other again at Chopin's page. Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Cher Dr. Dan, I left a comment at Nihil novi's talk page & also something at Chopin's. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Cher Dr. Dan, Yes, I am quite "aware". But I am also aware of what the Code Napoléon stated at time of the birth of Chopin, which touches the Chopin family since his father came from France, and leaves no doubt as to Chopin's French nationality. Unfortunately, it is difficult to find a book to reference this particular point, and what I am saying falls into Wikipedia definition of "original research".

Chopin & his music are so incrusted into the tragedy of Poland that, in my opinion, out of respect for the Poles, the French have been unwilling to claim him as their own. He is always mentioned as "compositeur polonais né d'un père français" (Dictionnaire Petit Robert)... yet, according to the Code Civil: "Tout enfant né d'un Français à l'étranger est Français." But, go say that to the Poles!

Tad Szulc is the writer being quoted in Chopin acquiring French citizenship four years after his arrival in France. These few lines [22] are enough for Wikipedia's requirements. It is obvious that neither Chopin's friends and protectors nor Tad Szulc ever consulted the French Code Civil. Until he met with the French authorities, Chopin himself may have been unaware of the fact that he was French, but the French authorities knew the Code, hence the issuance of a French passport.

In my opinion, Tad Szulc's book is not a good reference (for the nationality part), but it is the only one there is, so it automatically wins out.

Do you "readez" French?

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour Dr. Dan, S'il vous plaît, allez ici [23]. Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Merci. J'ai lu votre lien et le point de prendre bonne note. Le problème est que ceux qui s'opposent à des faits ne traitons pas avec la réalité. Que faire maintenant? Dr. Dan (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Que faire maintenant? Attendre une réaction et si elle se fait attendre, on peut toujours mettre les deux nationalités dans l'introduction de l'article puisque l'on est couvert par Encyclopedia Britannica. Ensuite, si nécessaire, en cas de controverse, on sortira le Code Napoléon ! - the problem being that it may be argued as OR. I am looking for something readable in English that would put an end to the debate. Comme vous vous en doutez, le plus gros problème sera d'éviter une bagarre entre éditeurs. Aurevoir ! --Frania W. (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I wrote earlier, Chopin is the last person I would want to fight an edit war over; in other words, he is not going to be turned into one of my windmills. If I can find it acceptable for en:wiki, the only reference/source I will use is the Code Napoléon and, as I understand the way Wikipedia functions, it has to be a secondary source, not the reading of the code itself (?).

In fact, there should be a calm discussion on Chopin's nationality/nationalities without anyone over-reacting when the word "French" is mentioned. --Frania W. (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your recent contributions to James Strang. Your changes definitely enhanced the readability of that portion of the article, and are much appreciated! - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I placed a longer reply on my talk page. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been meaning to tell you "thanks" for the comment you made about my userboxes. I really like userboxes (you probably couldn't tell that, could you?!?); they are not just informative, but also—to me, at least—miniature works of art that really "spice up" any Userpage. Thanks again for your compliment (and your message in general), and have a great week! - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Great, only that I don't read cyrillic so a translation would be welcome.  Dr. Loosmark  04:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

ok, thanks. I think there is still a small problem with that caricature but it's not really important. About the Soviet leadership, in the 1918-19 time frame the majority was still for spreading the revolution abroad, at least Trocki and Lenin were. IMO we should replace "some" with "most".  Dr. Loosmark  07:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note, that I didn't "note" the Pole's resemblance to Pilsudski, or the ghoulish long, pointed, nails that both parties are using to dig into Belarus. Dan may i ask you what are you talking about? which Pole?  Dr. Loosmark  17:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The representation of Poland in the caricature

. The caricature with the caption "Down with the shameful Riga partition. Long live an independent National Belarus". Dr. Dan (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well nobody said you noted any particular resemblances with anybody so why did you feel a strong need to specify that?  Dr. Loosmark  20:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right nobody noted, other than myself, any particular resemblances. This is why I mentioned "that I didn't note that" in relation to the caricature. There wasn't any "strong need" on my part to do so either. Just a digression regarding many comments made concerning a caricature at the Bialystok pogrom (talk page). User:Malik Shabazz can bring you up to speed on that one. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

oh i see. a digression.  Dr. Loosmark  01:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite right! A digression. Subjective notations are unnecessary and uncalled for. They often get people into trouble. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you stop your anti-Polish POV pushing? thanks.  Dr. Loosmark  04:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Earth to Loosmark. What are you trying to start up again? Just what are you referring to? I'd like to know before you pull the plug [24] Dr. Dan (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok i will explain why was your edit wrong. imagine for a second that the Soviet Union would not have invaded Poland. In that case after the Nazis were toasted the Polish Eastern border would have been restored to the 1939 state. considering that it is wrong to say that the border established with the Riga Treaty lasted till the start of the Second War (which was on 1 September 1939) but actually till the Soviet Invasion (17 September).  Dr. Loosmark  05:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Loosmark, first explaining why my edit was wrong is quite different than accusing me of "anti-Polish POV pushing". Please be so kind as to retract that comment and stop being so defensive. It's really uncalled for. Second, I've read your remark above and I honestly have no idea of what you are trying to say. Usually your English is much better. Please reorganize your thoughts and put them together in a more coherent fashion. It would be better to carry this dialogue over to the talk page of the Peace of Riga article. If you wish to apologize for your uncalled for PA, you can do that here. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

ok, i retractor my comment, it was unfortunate. Dr. Dan I want to give you barnstar for your contributions to wikipedia but I don't know how to do it. Can you please teach me how?  Dr. Loosmark  05:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Re the article - glad you liked the edits - I think it's in pretty reasonable shape now. The lead - perhaps you're right and it's too much info, but we should probably discuss that at article talk. I don't feel strongly about it tho. Later, Novickas (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't even understand it very well.  Dr. Loosmark  03:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What question would that be? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Merci! --Frania W. (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, the conventions are in force everywhere in Europe (and not only in Europe). I believe it was either CIV or COTIF (both are in force), you can easily google it. Anyway, that's why Russian trains from Moscow to Paris passing through Warsaw have "Moskva-Warszawa-Paris" written on their sides rather than "Москва-Варшава-Париж". Polish trains to Moscow also call it Moskva, even though the letter V is not even in Polish alphabet. And yes, Polish coaches to Vilna (no direct rail link) operated by the Polish State Railways go to Vilnius rather than Wilno. Which does not mean that Vilnius is the Polish name for that place. //Halibutt 23:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, however I believe the question was..."Do the train stations and airport schedules in Poland use Vilnius" (rather than Wilno)? Those in Germany use Vilnius, not Wilna. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, they do. Not sure if this link will work for you, if not go to [pkp.pl pkp.pl] and check for yourself. Warszawa-Vilnius through Minsk (not Mińsk). //Halibutt 11:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The link worked. Interesting that you say..."And yes, Polish coaches to Vilna (no direct rail link) operated by the Polish State Railways go to Vilnius rather than Wilno". In any case the issue that started [25] this discussion [26] is your belief that "Wilna" is currently the toponym employed for the city in the German language. As you know today, the Russians use Vilnius (Вильнюс) instead of the former Vilna (Вильна). I think a cursory review of the situation will demonstrate that the Germans have made the same change from "Wilna" to Vilnius. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, check any German language encyclopaedia: even if Vilnius is used, it is immediately followed by deutsch Wilna, polnisch Wilno and so on. //Halibutt 23:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether you noticed, but I replied to your question posed at Talk:Vilnius#German. Knepflerle (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Cher Dr. Dan,

Voilà !

En latin:  :http://diaph16.free.fr/chopin//actenaissancechopin.png

SVP, allez à la discussion sur la page de Chopin.

J'ajoute ce facsimile en note de bas de page à l'introduction de l'article.

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

On March 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Romualdas Marcinkus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

...for that one. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Skäpperöd, no need to apologize. Actually, I stumbled upon the article as a consequence of my interest in the cinema, and some of the works that were produced by UFA, prior to, during, and after the Third Reich in Germany. That being said, somehow the Norkus article was on my watch list and the recent edits made by the anonymous IP were not correct. It's not particularly an important article but deserving of some degree of accuracy. I toned down the "murder" to a more neutral "killed" following the German Wiki example (even though it's splitting hairs). The German article was also edited at the same time, by the same IP, with the same information. It seems that Dr. Loosmark is either stalking you, or me, or both of us [27]. But that's not really important. If I wasn't as busy as I've been lately, I might have worked on the article a little more as it has a lot of superfluous and non-encyclopedic information interspersed within it. Thanks for stopping by, but again apologies are unnecessary. Best. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about!?  Dr. Loosmark  23:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

[28] Dr. Dan (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Dan making bogus accusations of stalking is really disappointing.  Dr. Loosmark  00:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

:D

I occasionally surf this kind of articles, but have not contributed in this area except for Das Erbe. I am sorry for any inconveniences resulting from my distracted rollback accident and the attraction of tags that caused. I provided the ref, there is a lot more in there what you may want to use. Best Skäpperöd (talk) 06:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hitler Youth Quex - while we're on it, will do the movie within the next days... Skäpperöd (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, there is again a section up on human soap production at the Stutthoff page. What are you thoughts on deleting it at this time?--TL36 (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't really have a strong opinion regarding the matter. It's really much ado about nothing. If I'm not mistaken Yad Vashem has concluded that there is very little substance and a lot of propaganda concerning that claim. Rather than having a knee-jerk reaction to your question, I'd suggest allowing those who want to make a case for it, to do so. If in the end there is some kind of a political agenda behind it, I'd be inclined to vote to delete the information. Thank you for your heads-up concerning the question. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen this ? I hope you understand exactly what's written there. In my opinion Jacurek should be blocked for writing this FOREVER. BTW, I'm 100% Polish, but I rather read Wikipedia than edit this. I can't agree with some of your edits, but still I think that doing wrong edits (well, in my opinion wrong) it's not the same like calling someone 'jebanytroll' and 'h zlamany' on Wikipedia ! I'm sad that they are so many Polish NPOV pushers on Wiki. Well, in fact many of them are hardcore nationalists and shouldn't edit Poland/Eastern Europe related articles .. Another sad thing is, that ppl like Jacurek don't understand and don't believe that someone can be Polish and have different (not Polish-nationalistic) point of view. I know I should write it to him but I'm afraid it would be waste of time ... Greetings/Pozdrowienia (81.190.211.58 (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for your note. Yes, unfortunately I have seen the remarks. It's particularly disheartening because I do not harbor an anti-Polish bias. Nor do I have the same feelings towards some of these editors that they have towards me. I find this very childish and actually quite sad. As I've stated before I have a great respect for the people and history of Poland. I cherish the time I spent in Poland, which was considerable. These feelings, however, do not permit me to ignore or allow some to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for propaganda or to falsify historical, political, and geographical facts. Perhaps some of these editors will have a change of heart after some time passes. Again, thanks for writing and allow me to convey my deepest sympathy to you and any other Poles who read this thread over the tragic events that took place outside of Smolensk last week. Best wishes. Dr. Dan (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC) p.s. Proszę pozdrowić łabędzie w Parku Szczytnickiego dla mnie.

de Chopin est écrit en polonais. J'ai déjà laissé un mot à ce sujet au restaurant chaud chez Chopin. Je suis aussi en train de travailler à une traduction, mais n'arrête pas de m'interrompre pour suivre la discussion chez Chopin, où la tambouille commence à brûler...

--Frania W. (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Je suis impatient de Lui. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Je crois que vous ne m'avez pas comprise: la traduction à laquelle je travaille n'est pas de l'album de Chopin ni de sa correspondance, mais d'un truc sur un autre projet, because, la vie existe en dehors de Wikiplanète!

Par contre, il y a dans le livre de la correspondance de Chopin des choses très intéressantes qui mettront certaines pendules à l'heure quand j'aurai le temps de les inclure dans l'article.

Aurevoir, mon cher! --Frania W. (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"Planète Wikipédia". J'aime la catégorisation. Dr. Dan (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Dr. Dan. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18#Richard Tylman, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Kotniski or anybody else wants to censor your arguments. The problem on the Chopin talk was the discussion drifted completely off-topic, because another editor tried to hijack the thread and nothing good was going to come out it. Sometimes it's just better to take a time-out so to say and restore a bit of order. Let's wait and see what the admins say, they have experience with handling such situations and I have maximum confidence in their abilities. (Your comments can easily be restored from history anyway if they decide it's better not to delete.)  Dr. Loosmark  18:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As I stated at the noticeboard, if any of the participants at that thread regarding Chopin want to draw a line through their remarks, that's their business. I do not want my edits removed. When you make a comment, it needs to stay in place. Otherwise, one shouldn't make it in the first place. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Dr. Dan has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Dr. Dan's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Dr. Dan! Peace, Rlevse 00:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Êtes-vous médecin généraliste ou bien spécialiste, par exemple psy, car si cela continue, je vais bien vite avoir besoin d'en consulter un.

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ma chère Frania, je sais exactement ce que vous entendez sur un psy. Malheureusement je ne vais pas entrer dans ma profession sur ces pages, au-delà de ces remarques. J'ai même demandé un avis médical avant, et je ne peux pas les accueillir. Pas ici, pas maintenant. Je suis sûr que vous comprenez. Toutefois, selon la réponse Loosmark concernant son doctorat, je pense qu'il ne sera pas lié par certaines considérations médicales. Je soupçonne que sera également le cas en ce qui concerne ses pouvoirs académiques aussi. Cordialement, Dr. Dan (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Mon cher, ce que je vous demandais était sur un ton "blagueur" et sans attente de réponse. C'était tout simplement le meilleur moyen d'introduire le mot "psy", car je pense que, parfois, ce serait l'autorité idéale pour conduire nos débats!

Toujours cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Je ris parce qu'il était trop proche de la maison de base. Et je ne prendrais pas un de ces gars en tant que patients, malgré le serment d'Hippocrate. Ayant à démêler l'ensemble de leurs complexes porterait atteinte à ma propre santé. Non merci. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

[29] --Frania W. (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Mon cher Docteur, vu le ridicule de la situation, au lieu de prendre mal ce qu'il me disait, j'ai préféré me marrer avec mes petits insectes; mais je doute fort qu'il comprenne la légèreté de mon esprit de papillon. Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If you understand polish (you have declared it) - i'm able to show you point: Nie wiem na jakiej podstawie umieszczasz Mickiewicza wśród polsko-litewskich pisarzy - problem polega na tym, że on nie był Litwinem, tworzył po polsku - ma wkład w polską kulturę a nie w litewską. Na polskiej Wikipedii jest to jednoznacznie opisane, możesz przeczytać. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 15:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, Andrzej, and I do understand Polish. I appreciate and understand your point of view. Lately it has been my impression the the Belarusians consider A.M., to be neither Lithuanian nor Polish, but in fact, Belarusian. To jest sporne sprawy dla różnych ludzi. Lately it's also been in vogue for Belarusians to consider themselves to be the "true" Lithuanians. So consider yourself lucky not to have to fight off a claim from the Belarusians that they are actually Poles instead of Lithuanians. Maybe they don't consider it to be "cool" enough. Don't know, don't care. Soon, I hope to take off on my "dinghy" on a relaxing Great Lakes summer cruise and will probably put all of this stuff on the "back burner". So write if you care to pursue this on the short term. I'm also interested in your spin on the ethnicity of Joseph Pilsudski and his family, which would include Gabriel Narutowicz through marriage. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Shortest jokes "considered to be" the best, I chose not to develop as I was tempted with "Local Interstellar Cloud in the Local Bubble zone", which could explain the catastrophic fallout caused by the recent volcanic eruption in Iceland & the stock market bubble explosion over our galactic financial universe. NASA might be a shoot off NASDAQ. Et savez-vous que la plus appréciées des astrologues en France s'appelle Madame Soleil?

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Et tout ce temps, j'ai pensé qu'il était de Nostradamus. Much clearer now! Dr. Dan (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Bien sûr, Nostradamus, quoiqu'il soit plutôt illisible. Si vous croyez aux balivernes d'astrologues, l'avantage de Madame Soleil [30] est qu'elle était moderne.

--Frania W. (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Since this is not the first time you have done so, I have brought this matter up here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Prokonsul, how nice of you to grace my talk page. Since this is not the first time that you've taken the trouble to attempt to bring me to that forum, block me, censor me, and otherwise "throw me under the bus", I will be delighted to respond to your concerns, shortly. This being a holiday weekend in the United States, I will try to find some time to get to it as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked for a period of 72 hours from editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.  Sandstein  08:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

This block is made as a result of this AE thread. You are also banned from commenting on or otherwise directly interacting with Piotrus (talk · contribs) and Nihil novi (talk · contribs) for three months, except for the purpose of necessary dispute resolution (as determined by uninvolved administrators in their sole judgment).  Sandstein  08:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

[31]radek (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Dan, what's with the renewed campaign to remove information about Polish names from Lithuania-related articles? I know you have some kind of ongoing conflict with Polish editors, but there's no reason why Wikipedia should have to suffer for it. We're trying to provide information here. If you know of any Polish editors actively removing Lithuanian/German/etc. names from articles about Polish places, let me know - I'll be just as strongly opposed to that. But it can't be right to respond to information-destroying actions in one place with similar actions in another place. (Or whatever else your motivation is.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Kot, my perspective regarding this matter is explained in great detail at this talk page. My perspective hasn't changed. If anything "the renewed campaign" was again started by others, like here [32], not by me. If I sometimes have any kind of conflict with any editors, Polish or any other editors, perhaps it's because I resent attempts by anyone to push some nationalist or otherwise biased agenda on English Wikipedia. If removing undue and unnecessary information, particularly in the leads of articles, is considered to be an "information-destroying action", that's your opinion. One you are entitled to, just as I'm entitled to mine. I'd prefer to discuss specific cases at their respective talk page rather than here on mine. If for no other reason, to get a broader interaction of opinion. Specific cases are always going to obtain a consensus before generalizations will. It really boils down to not needing to have "Saksonia" in the lead of Saxony because "August Mocny" came from there, or "Norymberga" in the lead of Nuremberg because "Wit Stosz" worked in Cracow. Perhaps the information belongs on Polish Wikipedia, but not on English Wikipedia. Yes, there have been continual "conflicts" on the project because of an insistence on the part of some people to pepper English Wikipedia with undue and irrelevant "information" under the false pretext that it is relevant "information". As for "Or whatever else your motivation is", what are you suggesting? Dr. Dan (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Not suggesting anything, I just don't know what your motivation is. However, I think you're drawing false analogies - there's a big difference between putting Saksonia in the lead of Saxony and putting Polish names for places in Lithuania (particularly in an article about Poles in Lithuania). Please see my last remark in the previous discussion at the talk page you link to. There is no doubt that some editors go too far in including foreign names for places, but please remember that in many cases this information is relevant and of interest to readers, and in any case, if it's given undue prominence, it can still be moved to somewhere else in the article (like a dedicated section on naming) rather than just unceremoniously removing it completely.--Kotniski (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As somebody who has taken part in the previous discussions on this topic, you may be interested in the current move discussion here. Varsovian (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for digging out the self-reverted edit from the trash, great job. btw I found your claim that, quote: "The bottom line here regardless of all of this OT stuff is that Johann Dzierzon used Johann himself in the first person. The preponderance of reliable sources use Johann. And the majority of the contrary claims come out of Communist Poland." most interesting. I didn't know that Encyclopaedia Britannica and many other reliable sources were published by Communist Poland.  Dr. Loosmark  13:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome. Your self-reverted edit [33] was rather interesting. As for Encyclopedia Britannica, it doesn't represent the majority of the "sources". And most of them representing your position were out of Communist Poland. I notice you didn't bother to answer my questions within my response [34] to your self-reverted edit. Anyway, it's [35] now a moot point. Next case. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not bother to answer your questions within your "response"? You mean the "response" in which you avoided to address your double standards in for example Władysław II Jagiełło article vs Dzierzon and instead started to go on about Henryk Walezy? Two words: pot kettle. btw Encyclopedia Britannica most certainly does not represent most sources, nobody claimed anything of the kind. Other sources were presented and most of them were published in the US.  Dr. Loosmark  15:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't start up with the PAs ("double standards", "pot kettle", etc.), here. It was bad enough when you came up with "... the anti-Polish side was going bananas..." (nice one). I did address about the part concerning Jogaila with, "I didn't have Jogaila in mind at all, since there were plenty of foreigners on the Polish throne". My point was that a "Polonized Lithuanian" is still a Lithuanian. Henry III, or Stephen Báthory, and August II were not Polish either. There are a significant number of other foreigners that were on the Polish throne as well. The more important matter about the sources concerning Johann Dzierzon should be discussed there, rather than here. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

My point was that a "Polonized Lithuanian" is still a Lithuanian. What has that to do with anything? The discussion is what name we use for them. The article about the Polish king Władysław Jagiełło had to be named "Jogaila" because he was Lithuanian (even if it's 100% clear that he is most known for being the Polish king Władysław Jagiełło rather than the Lithuanian Jogaila). Now with the Jan Dzierzon article you turned the whole logic upside down and now it is fine to have the Pole Jan Dzierzon under the German name "Johann". Double standards. Dr. Loosmark  16:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(OD) We don't seem to be making a lot of progress here, perhaps more clarity will be established at this talk page [36]. I hope so. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed we don't seem to. Now, on the Józef Kożdoń you seem to push for my interpretation from the Dzierzon article. You seem to switch your position too many times I don't even know what your position is. Perhaps you should clarify that first.  Dr. Loosmark  16:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand you questioning my sincere welcoming attitude, because my first remark was far too generalised. I was referring to the personal nature of some of the comments (which I am sure you agree are never helpful), not to the constructive ones (though I am still not convinced that one small remark in the lead of an article is worth all this fuss). We are all contributing to the same cause (which is: making all human knowledge available to the whole world, is it not?), and pls believe me: some of that knowledge comes from people who are commonly referred to as elitist snobs, even if they are not.Francesco Malipiero (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective. Allow me to give you a little of mine. Here are two edits that I made that cut to the chase [37] and [38]. I'll grant you they are not completely analogous to the Kerman quote, but sometimes trivia (and attempt to advertise something) are given undue weight or included in this encyclopedia and need to be challenged and removed or rearranged. Occasionally it's worth the fuss. Considering Kerman's essential lack of notability in the larger scheme of things, his comment is another example of that. I'm sure Professor Kerman is a nice man, but long after he is gone, Puccini and Tosca will not be. Despite his making a dismissive "comment" fifty four years ago that seems to be embraced by members of an opera circle, including it in the lead of the Tosca article, is overkill. Plain and simple. And I'm sure you'll agree, that a lot of knowledge comes from people who are not commonly referred to as elitist snobs, because they aren't. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Having read the entire article again for the umptieth time (especially the lead) it is my opinion that the Kerman quote should be a footnote, illustrating the dismissive comments made by some critics. I will also post this opinon on the Tosca talk page.Francesco Malipiero (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

help? You sound rational. What am I missing, what am I doing wrong? I will not post here again unless you ask me to. I just don't understand. Thank you.Wm5200 (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are are doing a great job by bringing up many points that need to be addressed at that article. Certainly you are doing that in an unusual manner, somewhat bordering on sarcasm, but that does not bother me personally. At this point, it shouldn't bother anyone else either. It might bother people with certain other issues, (IMHO). For sometime, that article, being a very poor example of what a Wikipedia article should strive to be or become, has been on my to do list to work on. It needs plenty of work. Some of its "custodians" need to back off and read "own" again. I hope after this beautiful summer is over (at least in my neck of the woods, many have not been so fortunate), with its many diversions, I can work on that article in greater detail. You are always welcome to post here, but I should think you'd have a wider audience at the article's talk page. Best, Dr. Dan (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC) p.s. I'll take a peak at the talk page, in case something is going on there out of the ordinary.

Thank you so much. I've gotten thru. Be warned, I posted the "big five" on the Hitler main sight, I hope that's legal. I was hoping to recruit some new blood. I've got a thought on Karnau, short and uncontroversial, that I'll drop sometime, but that's about it. again, thank you.Wm5200 (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. To be sure, you definitely "are not recruiting new blood" (whatever that means). My interest in the matter is solely to present an accurate, historical, unbiased, neutral article based on factual information. I have no other agenda at that article. Best. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"recruit some new blood" meant to get more people to look at the article, no matter what their bias. I believe we have a culture gap. I look at things from a Chicago suburb, perhaps I am talking to some Brittons. Thanx. Bye.Wm5200 (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a Brit, live in Chicago (not the burbs), may have misread the inference about "blood", my bad. Since the poisoning of the Goebbels' children has always been a travesty from my way of looking at things, I'll be interested to see your spin about Karnau. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What did Hermann Karnau think when he “kicked” the ashes? Did he respectfully say goodbye to the boss? Did he mechanically just do his duty? Did he kick them in rage? I think that "Smokey Joe" Goebbles is the most impressive artifact that I have ever known. Pure evil. I think he should have been put in a glass case at Auschwitz, so jews could spit in his face. And Joe was evil his entire career, he made it happen, as well as being evil at home. Poor Magda, I guess, I don't know the story. My interest is mainly four hours and a couple of hundred yards. Maybe I'll see the headline "Russian historian finds Hitler"s teeth, DNA confirmed", maybe not. Wm5200 (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea what Karnau thought. What I think about Goebbels or Ehrenburg isn't important either. Too much analysis of the events, from a personal perspective, will not improve the article. In that regard, Gwen Gale is correct. In reality the death of Hitler has many unsolved questions and mysteries, wrapped up in many enigmas. Some of them may eventually be sorted out, but that remains to be seen. In the meantime, if you have information that can improve the article, please edit the article accordingly, using bona fide sources. Do try to avoid stories printed by newspapers in their Sunday magazine sections. Some of them have a "Goebbelsian" and "Ehrenburgian" quality to them. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Frania, you made an excellent point yesterday with your factual remark "He (Chopin) initially went there (France) to study for three years, but did not return to Poland, and never attempted to move anywhere else." I was a little tired and it was late so I waited until today to give you some of my thoughts on the matter. I think in all of this nationality "ruckus", one thing that is neglected is that Chopin was above all an artist, and to some degree even a bit of a showman. Like Liberace with his candelabra,

Chopin had no choice in non-electrified 19th century!

but not as gaudy as Lee later became. (Mon Dieu, j'espère que le commentaire ne cause pas de personne à se suicider, ou essayer de me tuer)

More likely the latter!

Although some would like to think that our hero, left Poland-Russia, because of political motivations, and melancholically lamented its fate, let's face it, Poland at that time was not a concentration camp. His parents and sisters remained there and had a rather comfortable life. Like many artists, Chopin sought the limelight and fame, and Paris made Żelazowa Wola become a nostalgic memory. He could have returned for Wigilia anytime he wished. I'm not sure this possibility has been given enough consideration. Fortunately for him, the fame and the limelight was in his father's original homeland, and that made it easier for him to live half of his life there. Not to mention the champagne. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

From the day he was born, he was "l'enfant chéri de tout le monde", and remained so for the rest of his life. He had a happy childhood and, again, left Poland to go study abroad, ending up being France... because he did not like Austria and the Austrians. Here is what he wrote in his "Album in April 1831, while he was in Vienna: "The people here are not my sort; they are kind, but not spontaneously so - they are kind from habit, they do everything too systematically, in a flat mediocre way which gets on my nerves. I wish I could be indifferent to mediocrity."

After 8 September 1831, while in Stuttgart, he writes in his album the oft-quoted "Oh, God, God! Make the earth to tremble and let this generation be engulfed! May the most frightful torments seize the French for not coming to our aid!"

Then on 18 November 1831, two months and ten days later, in a letter to Alfons Kumelski: " [...] I reached Paris quite safely although it cost me a lot, and I am delighted with what I have found. I have the finest musicians and opera in the world. I know Rossini, Cherubini, Paer, etc., and shall perhaps stay here longer than I intended - not because things have been too easy for me but because they may gradually turn out well. [...] You find here the greatest splendour, the greatest filthiness, the greatest virtue and the greatest vice [...] Sometimes on my fifth floor - I'm living at 27 boulevard Poissonnière - you wouldn't believe what a charming place I have - a little room, handsomely furnished in mahogany, with a little balcony on the boulevard from which I can see from Montmartre to the Panthéon and all along the finest districts....[...] I expect to stay here three years [...]"

At the end of a long letter to his friend Tytus written from Paris in December 1831: "Pleyel's pianos are the last word in perfection. Among Poles I see Kunasik, Morawski, Niemojowski, Lebewel and Plichta, besides a vast number of imbeciles..."

Chopin's letters are rarely gloomy, he either writes about music, or about events & people in a very light tone. He can be extremely amusing at times. What I am trying to say is that the Chopin guessed at through his letters & the Chopin described in books often sound like two different individuals. His last letters and the ones of those who wrote to him or about him in 1849 a few weeks before his death are poignant, and he still manages to give a description of Paris that he sees from the five windows of his apartment. He may be a Pole, but he describes Paris like a Parisian who loves his town!

I may have already sent you some of the above quotes, but I have no time to verify if I did or not.

Aurevoir ! --Frania W. (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Very poignant points, and good insight, Frania. Especially..."that the Chopin guessed at through his letters & the Chopin described in books often sound like two different individuals...". And unfortunately many of these posthumous interpretations, wrapped up in nationalist claptrap, are a problem. Ultimately the result is the unbelievable need, by some, to deny his paternal bloodline, and forbid its being presented in anyway other than in some obfuscating and minor manner. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Dan,

"...it was destroyed on 16 May 1871, during the Paris Commune"

vs

"...it was taken down on 16 May 1871..."

Did not it break into zillions of little pieces when it was "taken down"???

http://bjazz.unblog.fr/files/2009/05/disderichutedelacolonnevendome.jpg

in which case, it could not be "re-erected", but "rebuilt".

It reminds me of the story of Humpty Dumpty:

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.

All the king's horses and all the king's men

Couldn't put Humpty together again.

Cordialement,

Frania W.

--Frania W. (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Frania, I won't dispute your facts, only the semantical (sic) considerations. "Re-erected" or "rebuilt" is not worth spending too much time on. In any case, it is my belief after the column was "destroyed" (taken down), sufficient material was saved (the plates) and used in the reconstruction (the better solution?) of the column. As an afterthought most of my edits were "prosaically" based rather than "historically" based. Honestly, I don't know enough about the column to pursue the matter, but I remember having an excellent coffee and cognac nearby. Cordialement aussi. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC) p.s. Comme pour la photographie de la colonne détruite, c'est vraiment un magnifique. Je soupçonne que vous auriez pu prendre une meilleure.

Cher Docteur Dan, ""Re-erected" or "rebuilt" is not worth spending too much time on." Which is the reason I put the matter on your talk page with the HD rhyme, as writing such a comment on the subject talk page would start another revolution! So, contrary to Humpty Dumpty, it was "put together again". Had I been there, I would have taken a closer shot so as to see what the "zillions little pieces" looked like. Hoping my signature shows this time. --Frania W. (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

After this [39], I shall always remember you as the one who "tore it down" - better wording, after all.

--Frania W. (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you. And to think I did it all by my little bitty self without [40] any help from that. Actually it's not an uncommon way to describe such actions in English. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The decree could have been[41], which, if carried out, would have broken the windows of Chopin's former apartment at n° 12.

--Frania W. (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Jusqu'à ce que votre remarque, je fait ne savait pas que Chopin est mort à la place Vendôme. Il est toujours agréable d'apprendre quelque chose de nouveau, surtout quand on se rend compte qu'ils ne le saurons jamais assez. Cordialement. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My dear Frania, whatever you did upstairs prevents our signatures from appearing (probably the // Frania W. (talk)##, etc. above). Anyway this "emigrate" issue deals with nuances in the English language, where arguably "immigrate", "emigrate", "migrate" (maybe even "squatter") could be interchanged, and in the sad times we live in are allowed to pass muster. Like "ain't" and a few choice others. Migrate is for the birds, if you ask me. "Contumely", dead as a door nail, but a great word at that. Thank god for Shakespeare and Hamlet, otherwise "poof", it would be virtually unknown. And let's not get into poof here either, that's not what I had in mind. So then, Nicholas emigrated from France and immigrated to Poland, his son was born in Russia, and later emigrated to France (not actually, because the Code Napoleon wouldn't consider him an immigrant anyway). But France and the French are not worthy of our hero, and therefore he is "not French in any way, shape, or form'. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that I fixed whatever I "did upstairs". Aurevoir. --Frania W. (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You did fix it, merci! Dr. Dan (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I did fix it, but I thought I had seen my signature at one of your comments. How weird!

RE your above comment on Chopin, Frédéric, that is: why did he remain in France if he felt no attachment to that country? He initially went there to study for three years, but did not return to Poland, and never attempted to move anywhere else. He adored Paris and certainly was not unhappy in the springs, summers & autumns he spent at Nohant. If people would only take the time to read his letters, they might see the man as he really was. Aurevoir!

--Frania W. (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

My dear, we are in 100% agreement. Did you really think I changed my position (which is essentially the same as yours)? Maybe I should tone down my sense of humor. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Mon cher, Non, je ne pense pas que vous ayez changé votre position, ce que j'en disais était pour les grandes oreilles qui sont à l'écoute.

I find it un-encyclopedic to do away with half of someone's ancestry in order to make him/her 100 per cent something he was not entirely, specially when that someone chose to live in his father's native land for the second half of his life. What if that someone had been "the greatest good-for-nothing of French-Polish parentage", would there be as much insistence to make him "the greatest Polish (only) good-for-nothing"?

--Frania W. (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Use this whenever you want, if it is of any value. No rush. I’m sick of her. If this is useful and you want more, answer here on your page. I have two Russians coming. Otherwise I’ll leave you alone. Thanks for your time. P.S. Kierzek knows, but he’s busy, too.

The will. Joach p129 has Gertraud Junge testifying on 24 Feb 1954.

Hitler’s dog. Joach text starts on p132, on p134 Gunsche testifies to the actual poisoning. Actually, Joach pretty much backs up everything before, too. I don’t see Haase recommending a method (maybe I missed it), but he is with the dog.

The actual suicide. Joach Text addresses this p153-161.

The actual cremation. Joach text addresses this p197-222, when the Soviets become involved. Beyond this there may be conflict, waiting on info from Soviet/Russian sources.Wm5200 (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to a distraction, I believe I've got my head above water. I've made some posts to Kiersek at his place, anything after Sir sort of applies to you, too. Thanks.Wm5200 (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

[42]. Seriously, enough is enough. Discuss content not editors.radek (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Radeksz, please be so kind as to point out the personal attack within your link. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, this part: please I know you're "reformed", Radeksz. The "please" part appears to intentionally mimic my previous comment (I've mentioned this to you previously - you have a habit of mimicking other people's comments in a way which appears to be rude and derogatory) . The rest of this edit summary unnecessarily personalizes the issue per As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people which is an integral part of Wikipedia:NPA. Now cease.radek (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Very strange, Radeksz, very strange. You recently stated you were "reformed". I reminded you of it in my edit summary. Do you need a link to your making that statement? The "please" part is a simple courtesy in the English language, and you consider that a personal attack? "Mimicking other people"? I don't need a lecture from you on courtesy, personal attacks, and etiquette on Wikipedia. Go fight with someone else, somewhere else. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Your edit summary implied I did something wrong. I did not. Your edit summary made a completely unnecessary reference to me personally, rather than the content of my edit. So let me put this in bold for you and repeat it As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. Please observe.radek (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I was wrong to personalize it. I retract the personalization. Other than that your edit was undue, there was no implication on my part that you did anything wrong within my edit summary. Honestly, It's hard to believe you don't have anything better to do than continue this nonsense here on my talk page tonight. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated. I'll ignore the renewed unnecessary personalization.radek (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a "rant" on my talk page which may interest you, if the "Galetroopers" have not disappeared me. All these years, I thought the nazis were wrong. Anyway, I assume that Kiersek and you can count to "TWO", and will understand. Thanks.Wm5200 (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A Galetrooper named Andonic just deleted three sections in "Death". I have copies. I undid him, am I now in an edit war?Wm5200 (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC) 02:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to cry "wolf". Someone said glitch, not gale, but I lost that, too. I'm not a native of cyberspace. Take paranoia to an alternate universe and pick a fight. Hope I'm not annoying. Thanks.Wm5200 (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

F.Y.I., I have posted some AH death myth stuff at my place, I think I will hang out there more. Should be less O.R. and P.O.V. problems, more control, right? I won’t push this stuff, if someone wants to, they can come and get it. Feel free to delete this whole section, if you want to clean up your place. Thanks. Wm5200 (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

U edit warring here Dan.[[43]]--Jacurek (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no edit warring going on there, just the removal of undue information from the article's lead. Just like when you restored the "important" [44] content into photographs of a neighborhood in the capital of Lithuania, Vilnius, last year. Jacurek, the Polish-Lithuanian War ended a long time ago. Maybe you should stop trying to start it up again. I'm sure you can find something better to do. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

[[45]] [[46]] [[47]] [[48]] [[49]] [[50]] Friendy warning today to play by the rules and do not edit war...--Jacurek (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Play by the rules? You've been playing by the rules? Your little list mentions [51] my edit here. What's your specific issue (problem) with it? Dr. Dan (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but just idly clicking on your edit history brought up this, from just a few days ago. I find this behaviour absolutely cynical - no attempt at all to preserve the information anywhere in the article, even though this is clearly a place with significant Polish history. Sad that a potentially good editor like you should be continuing to let this nationalist obsession get the better of you, after all the discussions on this matter we've had and the solution that I thought we'd reached.--Kotniski (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to apologize for just "idly" clicking on my edit history. In my opinion the Zalavas article is a joke. So are its in other language clones. It's a village. It has less than two hundred people living there. It's relationship to Lenin [52] (since removed) and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact are without merit. I think the Lithuanian article about the village does the subject more justice. I believe I addressed why I thought this by using the analogy to the Hodgenville, Kentucky article. No links there to Antietam or Ford's Theatre. I too thought we had come to a solution. But evidently Jacurek and 124.190.116.230 don't agree with the solution. Thank you though for believing that I can potentially become a good editor. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

All right, you are a good editor (everything else in the edit I linked to was undoubtedly by way of improvement), but you have this unhealthy habit of unthinkingly removing Polish names from articles on places in Lithuania, which really doesn't improve Wikipedia, only presumably makes you feel better for some reason you presumably know better than I do. --Kotniski (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. True, I have some unhealthy habits, but none of them are related to Wikipedia (well, maybe spending too much time on it). When I remove undue information from English Wikipedia, it is not done "unthinkingly", it is always with giving it consideration and some thought. It has nothing to do with improving my disposition. Best wishes. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So you actually thought that the Polish name Żułów should be removed from that article? That makes it worse in my opinion - it just confirms my suspicion that you simply apply the term "undue" automatically to all information about Polish names.--Kotniski (talk) 09:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I thought, and still think, it didn't belong in the lead of the Zalavas article any more than I thought your edit here [53] didn't belong in the Seredžius article. That edit confirmed my suspicions that you think a English speaking reader, clicking onto that article, wants or needs to know what that Lithuanian village's name in the Polish language is. I doubt it very much. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, people do want to know that sort of thing. I've seen talk page messages asking what the former German names of Polish places were; and the fact that all over Wikipedia this sort of information is included in articles, often in leads, is evidence that it's entirely appropriate in Lithuanian place articles as well. Whether the information belongs in the lead is sometimes open to discussion, but the damage that you cause (and you can hardly claim it's accidental, as I've brought it to your attention time and time again) is that when you decide that such information doesn't belong in the lead, you don't move it to a later section of the article, but remove it from the article altogether. --Kotniski (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't know that was my job (moving it to another section). Obviously I don't particularly consider it to be as important information as you do. At least not in English Wikipedia. As for the matter of German place names, I hardly consider that an apple to apple comparison. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh? And why not?--Kotniski (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I've put down some points to be added to the article on Litvin:talk page. Why don't you come up and share your view on which of those should be added to the article. Rasool-3 (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There will be no apology coming from me. I assumed “read and delete”, your policy left that post up far longer than it had to be. For the record, in my world “whore” is a common term which has NOTHING to do with sex. News whore, sales whore, when working I openly refered to MYSELF as a road whore, as well as a land raper. I don’t get the difference between that and cute links to insults, I seem to recall anal retentive somewhere. There are quite a few of these links floating around in Wiki, none by me. The only reason I used whore was the sound connection to horse. I have tried to dispute only one person at Wiki, and I feel that I have reason. I no longer feel welcome to post here, and will not. Wm5200 (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It was rude, and therefore unacceptable. Thanks for removing it. Everyone is welcome to post here. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Bonne Année 2011 !

Bonne Année 2011 ! --Frania W. (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your greeting. That's an awesome picture! Dr. Dan (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! Requesting help with art on Jerzy Robert Nowak. It seems differ a lot from polish version and the art is far from good. It tells that he is polish activist and antisemit but it does not tell that he is professor and what kind of view he represent. In that way, he seems not being reliable source. He is controversial but so is prof. Gross. Best regards, Camdan 16:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Although she prefers champagne

Thanks to all! Wishing you many more years of Wikipedia. Whiskey's a good idea. I'll have a bourbon if you don't mind. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

And I'll stick to champagne. --Frania W. (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In that case, Champagne it is! À votre santé! I have to be careful when discussing champagne on these talk pages. One stalker had the temerity to claim that my relationship with champagne had something to do with cost and expense. No, only its quality is important. The two are not necessarily one and the same. Cordialement! Dr. Dan (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to express my deepest sympathy and condolences to my Russian friends on Wikipedia, and to the great Russian nation and people, as a result of the tragedy committed by evil and deranged people at the Domodevo Airport. I know many others share my sadness. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I do & I join you. --Frania W. (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, Je viens juste de trouver votre note écrite le 5 février à ma page. Vous êtes très amusant! So, there was no consensus to change Napy's title, but je suis sûre que le sujet sera remis sur le tapis d'ici quelque temps. Just waiting for a certain acquaintance of mine to step in, then we'll be waltzing on Chopin's Marche funèbre ! Mon Dieu ! Now, le "moulin" à la mode est *l'eau de Vichy*, or *Vichy sans eau*..., in which you can replace *eau* by *armée*, then you get the picture...

Aurevoir, mon cher !

--Frania W. (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

So, our dog as it turned out had melanoma in one eye and the vet surgeon took it out. From our point of view it coincided strangely with reading the recent Oliver Sacks book which has an extended discussion of same (only about humans; can understand his reluctance to anthropomorphise in print). Anyway, hope you and yours are well and it's good to see you editing - thanks for grammar improvements and wikilinks. Viso gero, Novickas (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. That's an excellent article, btw, and you should have been given kudos for starting it and for your contributions to it a long time ago. Computer problems and some health issues in my family kept me busy and away from greater participation here. Hopefully that's now all vorbei. Sorry about your dog. As an overboard animal lover, it saddens me to hear about it. Hopefully it will help prolong the quality of its life. Best to you too. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

He's doing the Rooster Cogburn thing, frisky way past his due date. Just lacks a cool black eyepatch. Later, Novickas (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Where do you come off insulting me and trying to judge my motives? Have you even bothered to look up my contributions before you try to lump me in with others as some kind of Polish nationalist?

In regards to your question, yes, no sources in English about the Zakopane Style outside of Podhale that I was able to find refer to the town in its Lithuanian form, since most of the scholarship is still written by Poles. Only by looking at sources about Saldutiškis in Lithuanian was I able to confirm that Saldutiškis was in fact Syłgudyszki.--Orestek (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

To be sure, Orestek, I was not insulting you, nor judging your motives. Nor was I "lumping" you with any group. Unfortunately there was a proceeding comment that I responded to that was commingled within my response to you. That might be the cause for your misunderstanding. Just the same I wasn't judging or insulting him either. He and I are old friends going back some time now. Thanks for your note. Dr. Dan (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Dan: Note: I have just gone through the article in recent days for "c editing" work. See what you think. Cheers Kierzek (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Dan: it would be good to have your input as to the lede of the article as that has come up again in discussion by PBS; have a look when you get a chance. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

See [54]. Novickas (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In application and enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, in consequence of this AE request, you are

• banned for three months from making edits related to the topic of Eastern Europe, as described at WP:TBAN, and
• indefinitely banned from editing articles to change, remove or add names (including translations) in a Eastern European language with respect to a subject that the same article already designates with a name in another Eastern European language. This includes names in other pages that are displayed as part of the article, such as categories, images or templates, and it also forbids moving articles that have a name in a Eastern European language to a name in another language. For the purpose of this ban, "Eastern European language" includes German.

You can appeal this ban as described at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, but if you disregard the ban before it is successfully appealed or lifted, you may be blocked without further warning.  Sandstein  07:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to a discussion of Pilsudski dictatorship on the Talk page of the article about Pilsudski.

There is an on-going discussion and edits of this article related to this matter. Your contributions to this discussions and edits will be most appreciated. See the talk page of the Pilsudski article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J%C3%B3zef_Pi%C5%82sudski#Sources_on_Pilsudski_dictatorship:_Britannica_Concise_Encyclopedia.2C_The_Oxford_Companion_to_Military_History.2C_Gale_Encyclopedia_of_Biography.2C_Columbia_Encyclopedia_and_Time_Magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.172.86 (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted your move of Washington Harbour. Did you look at their website? - If Harbor was right, please change consistently, but I think it's fine now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

precise reduction
Thank you for quality contributions, based on historic knowledge and language skills, to articles about people, places, music, wording with precision and reducing excess with a focus on content and accuracy, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (30 April 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Much discussed on the talk page and a move request to Der fliegende Holländer has failed in the past but feel free to start a new move request. Also, do you seriously want to include both in the title? That's a really bad idea. --regentspark (comment) 17:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't notice that a massive recent move request closed as "no consensus" - or do you just not care? [[Talk:Der_fliegende_HollC3%A4nder_The_Flying_Dutchman_%28opera%29#Move_request]] i suggest you move it back. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Missed it. But the German version is more correct. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It was massive, one - Michael Bednarek - switched from oppose to support, based on reading The Grove, which has the German title, naturally. - Elsewhere in Classical music was said that we should not invent titles but take them from standard sources. - I guess another move request in a while might be successful, on those premises. - Thanks for trying, but boldness on TFA day is not well received, remember Solti - or did you miss that also? - By the way, the German Wikipedia has "Der Fliegende Holländer", - I inquired why, guess who answered ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wagner didn't compose The Flying Dutchman, he composed "Der Fliegende Holländer." I know you are very well aware of that. Wikipedia is full of many illogical inconsistencies. Often this is done under the guise of "keeping the English Wikipedia, English". So then, La Boheme should therefore be called what? "The Bohemian" or maybe "The Gypsy Woman"? Then there is the "geographical" maelstrom. Even worse than those issues dealing with the arts. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, sorry to bother you but I am leaving a message because I have seen that you have been previously involved in discussions with user Nihil novi, that are quite similar to the one I am currently having on the Marie Curie talk page. Basically, this is again a silly issue with the lead sentence of the article, with a few editors that seem to be very protective of anyone somehow Polish being called by anything else that only "Polish" in the lead sentence. I do think my views on the issue are the one reflecting the established Wikipedia practice. But since I am currently alone supporting them, it is quite time-consuming for me. So, if you had time to have a look at the discussion on the Marie Curie talk page, that would be interesting :-) Tokidokix (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Dan,

There is a requested move discussion on Talk:Free City of Kraków that I thought you might be interested in.

Genealogizer (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)