User talk:Dr. Dan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

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

Grammar

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

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

'Neither' should be followed by 'nor', and 'either' by 'or':

Neither one thing nor the other.

I can neither read nor write.

Either Peter or James.

Note that when the alternatives form the singular subject of a sentence the verb should be in the singular:

Neither Oxford nor Reading has been represented.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your user page

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

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

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

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

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

Le Roy Lancelot

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

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

Interim reply

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

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

Thanks

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

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

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

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

Good Humor

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

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

Molobo's advice

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

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

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

Polnische banditen

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

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

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

Thank you Molobo

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

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

Re:Wow

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

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

Hi!

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

Grunwlad

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

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

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

Grunwald 2

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

Thank you for your reply on my talk-page. Yes, it makes sense to argue like this. But from my point of view, the case of Vitovt is a little bit different. Look at how Vitovt was named in other documents written by European royal houses at that time. Vitovt, Vitold, Witowt. I think that the current Lithuanian transcription of his name brings him too far from the real history. In this case, both you, the Lithuanians, and we, the Belarusians, are at risk to undermine this important part of our history.

Additionally, what a mess will be to call Vytautas in English, and Витовт in Russian - this will be a direct result of your logic.

After all, what would have said poor Vitovt when he learned that he is called Vytautas today. Before the spread of Christianity ancestors of the Belarusians used same pagan names. And now, by using only the Lithuanian version, it makes an impression that we have nothing to do with this part of history. Give me a break, my family comes from Slonim (close to Navagrudak - the first capital of GDL), which is a much more the original Litva (Lithuania) than Kaunas today.Max Kanowski 18:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Geographic names

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

Article

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

Sorry to reply so late but it wasn't until now that I discovered your reply in my archives (User:Halibutt/Archive12). In the future you might want to reply to my comments in my main talk space in order to let me notice your replies much sooner. I don't monitor my archives too often, you know? Anyway, the reason I asked was that I considered your influence valuable but was not sure what Barnstar would fit you the best. Since you have no articles started so far I think that the following would be a decent choice. Halibutt 21:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I, Halibutt, hereby bestow upon you this cute, blueish Exceptional Newcommer Award butterfly for your valuable input to various history-related articles. Keep the good job up!

Polish-Lithuanian War

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

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

20-th century history of PL

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

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

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

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

See Talk:History_of_Poland_(1939–1945)#Urban_has_been_claimed_by_polish_court_as_comperable_to_Goebbels

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

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

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

see History of Poland (1939–1945) and its talk. This article could really use some outside view. Especially from yet an uninvolded editor who is a historian. So far it is just me there and the Poles and Molobo alone is worth the army. If you have time and interest, Zapraszam. --Irpen 04:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Not just him and Poles. A Jew is also there :) Anyway, take a look at Talk:Polish-Lithuanian War Halibutt 18:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Labas

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

"Vitovt Wars"

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

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

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

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

- When I said that no one cares about Samogitia I meant the spelling, not the land, or the people.

- My name is Kanowski, not Kalinowski

- Do not humiliate me through my knowledge of English - I believe I speak English better than you speak Russian. Better correct mistakes of Lithy.

- Do not publicly humiliate me by assumptions/hints about my work in NY that does not require good English. Yes, the majority of clients are Russian-speaking businessmen. We can better compare our income statements in USD: you and me.

- Sorry that I called you a Lithuanian. I guess I mixed your page with someone else's. But still, my guess is that you have some Baltic roots as you are so knowledgeable about Balts and do not want to hear anything about Slavs (btw, Belarusians are half-Slavs, and some scientists claim that they are much more Balts than Slavs).

- Once again - do not get mad at me. Better try to read smth about Belarus and who knows, maybe the Eastern European pages in Wikipedia will become even better.

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

Suggestion

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

Question About Suggestion

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

I favour the inclusion of equivalent names for places, if only as the recording of facts. Recently, I needed to track down the Polish and Lithuanian names for various places including Panevėžys, so it is useful. I realise that this may be tricky given national histories, but any problems or rivalries can be explained (briefly) in the articles. For me the most problematic names are the German equivalents, but these are of historical interest. Please, Dr Dan, replace the Polish names wherever you have removed them, then you are in a stronger position to argue your case elsewhere. And I would support you wherever the names have a historical basis. Folks at 137 18:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Dr. Dan, if you have a problem with my reverts, please voice your concerns on my talk page or the article talk page. I do not regularly monitor your talk page, and today looked at it by chance, certainly not expecting to find any discussion about me. Now, the basic reason I reverted the inclusion of the Lithuanian name for Lublin is because that name is never used in the English language to describe the city. If you do a Google search of English language pages for the Lithuanian name, you get 4 hits, and even these are not actually English pages :). The only valid reason to include a name of the city in a different language in the lead is if there is a high chance that an English speaker will come across that form of the name in an English publication. Thus, there is a very good reason to include the German name Danzig for Gdansk, because in many books about history, as well as books published in the past, that name will be used.

As for including Polish names for Lithuanian cities, I do not particularly care about the issue, which in my opinion should anyway be left to Lithuanian editors as the most interested party. Still, Polish names for those cities can be found in at least some English language publications, and the Polish language was after all at one time in wide use in Lithuania (even today 7% of its population is ethnically Polish). So I can see some grounds for an argument that including a Polish name is valid. Still, if some Lithuanians have an averse reaction to such practice, who am I to go against their feelings?Balcer 00:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Don't worry, now that I have actually written something here, I have put your talk page on my list of watched pages, at least for a while. I do not have adverse reactions to any languages, I just want Wikipedia to keep certain standards and avoid becoming a mess. Can you try to imagine for a moment what would happen if each Wikipedia article about a city would attempt to list its names in the languages of all countries which could claim some kind of historical connection? Just one quick example: Munich is obviously of great importance to the Czechs, given the Munich agreement of 1938 which led to the demise of prewar Czechoslovakia. Do you think it would be reasonable to add the Czech name cs:Mnichov in the lead of the Munich article? Go ahead, give it a try, and see what kind of reaction you will get. On second thought, maybe that's not such a good idea: you would get reverted within minutes without any discussion and gain a quick reputation as a nationalist troll.

I am sad to report that I have no influence over Molobo. Please discuss your grievances with him directly, and don't drag anybody else into it. As I already said, I have no interest in the naming of cities in Lithuania and I will make no more comments on the issue. Balcer 03:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing. Please read carefully the guideline page: Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I think your recent edits may fall into that category. Balcer 03:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

My bad Neudeck

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

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

Simple request

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

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

or

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

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

I say that removing the Polish names from Lithuanian cities would be easier and make more sense, than solution #2. As I have argued all along, if someone needs to know that Rzym is the Polish equivalent of Rome or Roma, they can go to the English or Italian article, and then go to the Polish link and find out what it is. In short, it is not necessary for the article on Bogota Colombia, to have its Icelandic name included in its heading. If we can agree on solution #1, I will begin a fair and consistent editting of these cities and towns. If we can not agree on solution #1, for "historical" reasons pertaining to the extinct Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, then some sort of balance needs to be employed for the same "historical" reasons toward Polish cities and towns. Does this seem consistent and serious enough? Dr. Dan 00:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

On the whole, I agree with you. Indeed, including the Polish name in the lead of articles about even the tiniest cities in Lithuania is of no use to the general Wikipedia reader, and positively harmful in that it encourages bickering and edit wars. If a name in a different language has a historical significance, it can be mentioned in the history section of the article, upon proper justification. The only exception to this rule I would allow would be for cases where widespread use of the name in English works can be shown, or if other standard references refer to it. For example, the fact that Encyclopedia Britannica gives the Polish and former Russian names for Vilnius seems to suggest that those names should be included in the Wikipedia article as well. Also, if a city has a significant minority using a given language, the name in that languge can be given (examples: Sejny, Puńsk).

Anyway, if you have opted for #1, please make no more edits favouring #2. This would seem to me to be a form of trolling and against Wikipedia guidelines.

So, you can go ahead and start removing Polish names as far as I am concerned. To be fair though, you might consider removing Lithuanian names from articles about cities in Poland as well. There are not that many cases of this of course, but fair is fair (you can start with Suwałki,Augustów,Białystok,Gołdap) Balcer 01:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Exactly right! Polish name is listed for Lviv nut not for Kiev which was a subject of a considerable debate. --Irpen 03:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

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

17th German Infantry Division

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

Corrections

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

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

Victories and defeats

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

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

Halibutt 21:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

This is very similar to a Battle of Volodarka, where Soviets failed to break Polish defences, only to be able to do that a week later. This is enough for the article to call it a "Polish victory" and even my smal "disputed" note at the outcome was zealously and persistently removed. Go read talk for more. --Irpen 23:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, you forgot to mention that we're still waiting for sources to back up your, somewhat controversial, views on Volodarka. You should rephrase your comment to If you want to change the outcome in Wikipedia of any battle involving Poland at any historic period, be sure to check with the sources and not your own common sense'.

As to the size of the battle it does not really matter. The Battle of the Little Bighorn was in fact a skirmish without much notability and, despite being a decisive Indian victory, did not affect their fate. Which however does not change the fact that it was a victory of the Indians - and is described as such by every single source I know. Same for most battles of the Russian Civil War, American Civil War, Boer War, Crimean War, and so on. Perhaps a distinction between battles and skirmishes should be made in wikipedia based on the number of troops on both sides, but this would border original research as no such distinction is commonly made in historiography.

Every battle has got a logic of its own as each side has got its own aims to achieve during every battle. If the aims are indeed achieved - it's a victory of one of the sides. If neither of the sides manages to achieve what it wants - or both sides achieve their goals, then the result is inconclusive. I'd oppose combining all battles of any war into one article just to make a single conclusion that all were lost or wan, basing on the result of the entire campaign. Sure, the Soviets lost at the borders, but then won the war. Does it mean that they won all the battles of WWII? Similarly, the Poles won at Volodarka, but lost the following week north of Kiev. Does it mean that the Bolsheviks won all battles of the campaign? Nope. Should we reword the article on Battle of Balaclava to say that it was a British-French victory because in the end they managed to break the Russian defences? Nope.

The Kiev offensive is a decent example here, I believe. The Poles tried to secure a significant part of Ukraine and prepare for a possible thrust towards Kiev. At the same time, at the tactical level, the Poles hoped to outflank the Bolshevist forces there and destroy them in a single battle, in order to lessen the pressure in the north, in Belarus. However, while Poles managed to capture even more land than they were hoping for (including the city of Kiev itself), the Russians simply withdrew, so the Polish offensive was only partially a success. After the Russian counter-attack, their aims were similar. They hoped to get the Ukraine back and outflank the two Polish armies there in order to destroy the Polish southern flank thus forcing them to withdraw on the northern front as well. And again, the Bolsheviks were able to retake much of the previously lost territory, but did not destroy a single Polish division. So, all in all, both sides achieved half of their objectives. The result, from a purely military perspective, was as if the offensive and counter-offensive never happened. Of course, the campaign had also political implications and politically it was a complete defeat for the Poles. However, the battles are about warfare and not politics.

And, contrary to what Irpen suggests, this has nothing to do with anyone's nationality, such logic works for every single battle or military operation in the history of mankind. Make a list of goals, sum them up, check against sources - and you're there. Halibutt 02:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Which doesn't change the fact that you've been asked to provide some backup to your claims - yet you failed. Anyway...

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

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

Tauragė

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

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

Pls see the response to your question in my talk page. --Lysy^talk 18:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that for the moment at least the Polish name is no longer in the lead, so I suppose the issue is resolved. Balcer 22:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Obviously all sources have their issues and biases, and no encyclopedia is holy writ (if it were, what would we need Wikipedia for). At the same time, in case of disputes, it can be useful to see what other major references say on the subject, especially an important English-language encyclopedia like Columbia.

As I said before, I really don't have any particular interest in this debate, given that I know very little about the history of Lithuania and its cities. The main reason I got dragged into this was your edit on the Lublin page. Now that we have that settled (fingers crossed), allow me to drop out of this discussion.

A bit of personal advice: looking at your edits, I see a certain pattern of getting involved in long discussions with other editors over controversial issues. While that is definitely a part of the Wikipedia experience, another very enjoyable part is actually creating new content. I personally find that is usually more fun, and gives one a feeling of creating something useful (though of course some disputes are almost too tempting to pass by). At the end of the day, if you really want to advance the cause of Lithuania (or humanity, or anything), help write great articles, and do not fight over the presence/absence of this or that word, in the name of consistency. I admit that I myself often get caught up in these ridiculous fights, but every once in a while I try to take a deep breath, rethink what I am doing, and try to squeeze in a constructive edit somewhere. Balcer 05:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Yakovlev

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

Very Unhappy Dr Dan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, feel free to ask me specific questions and I'm sure we could find some solution. //Halibutt 12:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Not stalking

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

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

What is it, a day of compliments ? ;-) I've respondend on my talk page if you'd care for a gentle chat there ?

As for 80% of Taurage being destroyed by the Nazis, I've not claimed it's been on June 22, but that the town was captured on that day. But then why would the Nazis destroy it later ? Doesn't make sense, and I've also not found any second source to confirm the 80% damage (the first source was some web site anyway - not very reliable IMO). I don't insist on this as I'd have removed it myself now, on the second thought. --Lysy^talk 20:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Jerries applied all kinds of destruction to various places during the war. Some places were destroyed as part of the warfare, others were destroyed as part of anti-partisan actions (hundreds of villages), as reprisal (Oradour sur Glane comes to mind), for no serious reason at all (Warsaw)... So the town could've been destroyed in several stages. This is but an assumption though this site also mentions 80%. Halibutt 00:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

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

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

Battle of Grunwald

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

Jogaila

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

Edyta Stein

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

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

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

Polglish

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

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

Dan, there is a clear difference between an article's talk page in English Wikipedia, where all Wikipedians meet and, at least in theory, should be able to understand everyone, and someone's personal talk page. As I said numerous times, I don't mind if anyone contacts me personally in any language I know. Any language at my talk page please :)

In fact during my failed RfA I was advised by certain Ghirlandajo not to use Polish anywhere and I initially obeyed, chatting on my own talk page with Polish or Spanish folks in English for some time. However, I found that quite impractical. After all people can always ask me for a translation. //Halibutt 05:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Pan Halibutt, please understand that the use of English in English Wikipedia is not so impractical as you might think. You and Molobo are the only pans who prefer to converse in Polish here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really. As a matter of fact most of our small Polish club here (including Dr Dan :) ) use Polish from time to time. And I see no problem with that. If you do - just ask for translation. There's plenty of Polish speakers to translate someone's personal chatter to you. If you want me to, I could even translate my own words to Russian, that wouldn't be too much of a problem.

Dan, as to your latest comment at my talk page, I'm really glad that there are still people to use the honorificative forms (forgive me my latin) in Polish. People often forget what they mean, which BTW is a result of 50 years of communism. I even met people who used the pan form in a Russian way, that is as a rather derogatory description. Sad but true... //Halibutt 16:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Pan, Pani

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

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

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

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

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

Ty (hence the verb tykać). //Halibutt

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

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

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

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

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

            ABRAHAM LINCOLN!

Lincoln in 1847

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

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

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

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

shalom

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

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