User talk:Jacurek/Archive2

Jan T. Gross

Hi, regarding your edit summary where you write "Link attached", what link do you specifically have in mind ? --Lysy^talk 08:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Jews

Hi Jacurek Please do not engage in edit wars, based on what you suppose Majority of Jews did not speak Polish back then They were conscripts, and you can only speculate if they were willing to fight or not. Looking at their behavior during the war, I would have doubts, but I am leaving it to myself. Anyway, you are deleting information that is obvious, please desist. Tymek (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have respect for everybody, and I am expecting the same from you. Please prove that Jews fought in 1939 because they wanted to, not because they were conscripts. I am waiting Tymek (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

One name out of 3 million is impressive and shows that Jews en masse volunteered for the Polish army, only to betray Poland after Sept 17, 1939. Anyway, let's not be kids, and find some impartial admin, who will solve our dispute. I will try to find one, OK I informed Wizardman. Tymek (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I went and protected the page, asking for the two of you to post regarding the matter on the talk page. If there's problems beyond that sentence as well let me know. Wizardman 19:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Gross

Hi, as your English seems better than mine I would like to ask you for help with translating this into English:
Książkę o Jedwabnym ("Sąsiedzi" opublikowaną po angielsku w 2101 r. i przetłumaczoną na polski) uważa Davies za "głęboko niesprawiedliwą" dla Polaków.

Postawiona w niej teza, że to Polacy dokonali masakry ludności żydowskiej, z jednej strony była pożytecznym wstrząsem dla Polaków, by o swojej przeszłości myśleli trochę głębiej, ale jako historia, książka jest nierzetelna. Takich zbrodni, jak ta w Jedwabnym było w Polsce ok. 10 tys., z czego Polacy brali udział w dwóch, lub trzech" - stwierdził.
http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/swiat/1,34265,4854594.html
Could you help me to make it readable for English-speaking people?
Regards - I am available at my discussion page: 84.201.223.19 (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nie jestem pewien czy opinia Davis'a jest tutaj konieczna. Podejrzewam tez ze inni bardzo szybko ja "zlikwiduja".--Jacurek (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Davies jest kimś bardziej wiarygodnym na en wiki niż np. Gontarczyk, Kurtyka itp. W artykule jest mowa o tym, że sąsiedzi wywołali burzliwą dyskusję, niech więc również będzie ref z głosem w tej dyskusji kogoś kto historią Polski zajmuje się profesjonalnie. 84.201.223.19 (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Moge sprobowac dodac to do NOTES jesli chcesz.--Jacurek (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Dodałem jedno zdanie + link do wersji polskiej. 84.201.223.19 (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class
		I, Tymek (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC), am awarding you this Barnstar in appreciation of your excellent work on Poland-related topics, especially on history of Jews in Poland. Thank you for your excellent work, keep it up!

I know, we argued a little, but I do think you are a great contributor. Just think what life would be, if we all had same opinions about the world that surrounds us. Regards. Tymek (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tymek. This is very nice of you.--Jacurek (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Righteous of the nations: Absolute numbers / proportionate numbers

Jacurek This is an encyclopedia allowing a balanced view based on what is verifiable. It is not a vehicle to either attack Poles or promote Poles. For that reason I have not deleted or amended(and have no reason to) the sections telling readers that that Poland had the highest number of awards or the sentence telling readers that Poles faced particularly severe punishments for helping jews. By the same token I don't expect you to delete legitimate changes that show a balanced view. Why would you be afraid of the facts? Do you have an agenda to promote Poles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.31.129 (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

History of Jews in Poland FAR

History of Jews in Poland has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

You may be interested in

The article on Bloody Sunday (1939) and the discussions on talk - since they resulted in the recent edits you noticed on pogrom and such.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked again

It has become apparent that you are a single-purpose account who pushes a POV of "Jewish complicity in Christian Polish deaths" [1] and that you use socks and open proxies to add disruption. You were originally blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring under this username alone. Now that the extent of edit warring has become clear (9 reverts in 20 hours [2]) your block has been extended to 3 months. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below." P. S. Removing the block messages from the page won't help, you know. bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC).

Here are the reasons this account should not have been blocked: 1 - Administrator bishzilla _ROARR!! has been given false information regarding disputed matter. "Jewish complicity in Christian Polish deaths" was never a subject of the dispute which was added by user Irpen here [[3]] and as you can see this was never reverted before or after the edition by me or anybody else. The dispute was between me and user Malik Shabazz on the main reason why Jews left Poland after the war, which according to the information I acquired, Jews left Poland because of the Polish anti-Semitism escalated by participation of some Jews in Communist leadership and Communist Secret Service.[[4]] 2 - My reverts were backed up by links I got the info from : [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] 3 - My second block request is from THE SAME person who requested the first block, user Malik Shabazz who in my opinion takes disputes very personally and is pushing his POV by calling his friends to help in reverts with no references whatsoever. My attempts of discussions with him were ignored, ridiculed (You barking at the wrong tree)[[8]] and I was immediately threatened with block action. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The user has been edit warring from the account and anonymous IP's (up to 9 reverts per 24 hours). The user is indeed an SPA devoted to pushing the info on "Jewish complicity in the suffering of Christian Poles".[9] See his mainspace contributions.

The IP he used has been blocked twice as a proxy [10] and the current block is for 6 months. Jacurek, as a user, got only half of that term.

I suggest that if Jacurek comes back from the block he does some con-controversial editing and be placed on sockpuppetry parole with an indef ban for the next offense. --Irpen 03:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, "Jewish complicity in the suffering of Christian Poles" was NEVER an issue of this dispute so please stop "barking", as your friend Malik Shabazz would say in the same situation. You are trying to mislead the administrators into thinking that they are dealing with some kind of crazy anti-Semitic, nationalistic psycho "my friend" and I'm far from being one. Would anti-Semitic psycho be ever involved in a conversation like this one[[11]] ? You obviously did not, or did not want to understand what my reverts were all about. I was disagreeing with Malik about the reasons Jews left Poland after the war and if Polish anti-Semitism was escalated by Jewish involvement in communism. All my reverts were backed by several sources ignored by him and his friends(you are one of them) whom Malik called to help revert my edits. For you guys it is all personal and all about "Me". Also Irpen, you don't really think that blocking somebody’s account "forever", sock puppetry parole etc. would stop a person from editing do you ?--Jacurek (talk) 06:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of Malik and he never called me in. I was editing this article for over a year (or even more perhaps.) Next, you forget to address the sockpuppetry issue. Why did you edit logged in/out and used an open proxy 199 IP to circumvent 3RR? No one is entitled to 9 reverts per 24 hours. I don't believe in preventing people from editing by blocks. But in exceptional circumstances of fierce revert warriors and open proxy users block may work to get the message through on what behavior is not allowed. --Irpen 06:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The other IP Proxy is shared at the place I visit daily. There is two other people who got involved into conversation after I have shared the issue with them that day. I know they did editing. I personally DID NOT log in and log out just to do the reverts. I may have been logged out on one or two occasions using that Proxy that day but if I was that was not intentional. That is all about that. If you don't know Malik, fair enough, it just looked like that to me. Malik has some personal issues, looks like he always wants to win and to show others how important he is. I don’t think he was even interesting in hearing what I have to say and did not look at the links I have provided. My attempts of conversation with him were replied with "you are barking ...etc". I’m under impression that if for some reason something does not work for him he requests account block right away. Note that the first block of this account was also on his request. Also, Malik did four reverts that day but I guess rules do not apply to him. --Jacurek (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jacurek (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Administrator bishzilla _ROARR!! has been given false information regarding disputed matter. "Jewish complicity in Christian Polish deaths" was never a subject of the dispute which was added by user Irpen here [[12]] and as you can see this was never reverted before or after the edition by me or anybody else. The dispute was between me and user Malik Shabazz on the main reason why Jews left Poland after the war, which according to the information I acquired, Jews left Poland because of the Polish anti-Semitism escalated by participation of some Jews in Communist leadership and Communist Secret Service.[[13]] 2 - My reverts were backed up by links I got the info from : [[14]] [[15]] [[16]] 3 - My second block request is from THE SAME person who requested the first block, user Malik Shabazz who in my opinion takes disputes very personally and is pushing his POV by calling his friends to help in reverts with no references whatsoever. My attempts of discussions with him were ignored, ridiculed (You barking at the wrong tree)[[17]] and I was immediately threatened with block action. The other IP Proxy is shared at the place I visit daily. There is two other people who got involved into conversation after I have shared the issue with them that day. I know they did editing. I personally DID NOT log in and log out just to do the reverts. I may have been logged out on one or two occasions using that Proxy that day but if I was that was not intentional. Also, CVC42 is actually an account of my friend from work (TRUE, not just an exuce) who got involved into Wikipiedia project after I was discussing with her my concerns and my block. I must admit that in some of the CVC42 edits I was personaly involed as well (never used her account alone) but the account is not mine. Should you have any questions please ask. Thanks

Decline reason:

It is highly suspicious that this account, which was already blocked a month ago, and had no acivity during the block, should come to request an unblock on the day that a second account, from the same IP, was blocked. Such behavior would seem to indicate that they either you are User:Cvc42, or if they are truly a second person, they came to edit solely at your behest and to continue the same edit wars and problems you were blocked for originally. It should be noted that Wikipedia rules treat both situations as equally blockable and does not distinguish between one person using two accounts, or two people acting together to dodge the block of the first person. I quote the rules " A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining" Good day. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Porada

Nie edit warruj, nie uzywaj pacynek (socks). Ww. napisano jak mozna sie odwolac jesli oskarzono cie nieslusznie.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

How to request unblocking

Did you not notice the instructions about requesting an unblock? Please just add {{unblock|your reason here}} at the bottom of the page, just as it appears on the page here, curly brackets and all, but with the phrase "your reason here" replaced by the actual reason why you think you should be unblocked. This template will expand to a request, and will put the page in the category Requests for unblock, which will bring a neutral admin here to review the block. I hope this is clear, I don't know how to put it any better. And Irpen, please leave the user alone; consider that he is confined to this page. Coming here to criticize him may be experienced as taunting. bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC).

Thanks, --Jacurek (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Block extensions

For usage of sockpuppetry: see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacurek for details.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. I need a break anyway ... I also notified a person who made the edits in my defense that it was against Wiki policy, so this should not happen again.--Jacurek (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hi Jacurek and welcome back. Hope all is good with you. Tymek (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. Please be very careful and don't repeat the mistakes that led to your last ban. I am afraid that the next one, given community's exhausted patience, would be a permban :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, lesson learned. Thanks for your advices.--Jacurek (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Userpage

You may want to create a userpage, with WP:BABEL information, for example.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

O.K. I will. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Jews and the Polish government

I removed it because it was distorted out of all proportions by a certain user. I'd support restoring it, with the full text of his note that you cited on my talk page, his own words are much clearer than the distortions I removed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving quote

What about moving this to Rescue article? It seems rather fitting somewhere in the middle.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

World War II article

Hi, could you please use edit summaries to explain your changes to this article. Also, changes such as changing the amount of support the Allies provided Poland other than the Saar Offensive from 'little' to 'no' should be discussed on the talk page first. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Moving pictures is easy - just copy and paste them from another article. Wikipedia:Picture tutorial and WP:IMAGE are helpful resources.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, "Picture tutoial" will definitely help.--Jacurek (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: [18] - probably because you add the Table of Content template ({{TOCright}}) at the end? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ya...thanks Piotrus.--Jacurek (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't force image sizes - MOS:IMAGES states that thumbnailed photos should be left at their default size. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

O.K. thanks Nick.--Jacurek (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Walesa

Good job! I have been planning to do it myself, but my time is so hopelessly limited these days. Greetings. Tymek (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

town names

I saw that in several articles replaced German town names with Polish ones. There has been a lot of discussion which form of the names are to apply. The guideline that has been worked out can be read here:

Please have a look at your edits again, and for the time before the towns became Polish, please re-insert the German name and give the Polish name in brackets. Thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry XMAS

Merry XMAS from User:Piotrus. 12:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Bundesarchive captions

I want to inform you that:

• The Bundesarchive mentions clearly that they copy the text descriptions from original archive names and captions. In some cases they use their own version, but they also rely on suggestions. This means that

• A:All photos need to be judged case by case.Caption given by Bundesarchive can be copy of the original archive caption as noted in their explanation.

• B:Bundesarchive pictures can have non-reliable captions.

• C: They are hardly dedicated scholary project to show captions as evidence in support of contested claims.

From Bundesarchive page: http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/index.php?barch_item=en_help#a15 The Federal Archive describes pictures - where available - with the original text. If no original text is available, the picture is described by the archivists of the Federal Archive. In view of the large number of pictures, of course it can come to discrepancies in individual cases. We are always grateful for notes and additions because of this.

I hope this will help you. --Molobo (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Roman Polanski

Wikipedia pages are not designed to chart every single event or occupation a person has ever had, and in this you are correct. They are however supposed to chronicle those things for wish a person is most known . Roman Polanski is well known for being a rapist. There is even a movie about this. There are many other famous people who are also very well know not just for there careers but also for events in their personal lives. One is OJ Simpson. He is very well known for his crimes and this is listed in the very first sentence of his page as well. Would you change that? Will this be changed 30 years from now when people have decided to forget about how much they talk about it now? Polanski is no deferent in that his crime is something he is well known for having done. He is an important and pivitol aspect of his character that still has an influence on his life and the lives of others. I am sure that at some point in his life he held a job other than those listed in the first sentence of his page, or even anywhere on his page, but those things are not as important or relevant to him and how he is known. Being a rapist however, is very relevant to how he is known, and as such should be included in those things for which he is most recognized. I suggest that if you feel this moment is not relevant to the fact that he does not return to the states, was also relevant to the fact that he did not even accept his academy award, and that if he does return to the states he will be arrested then perhaps you do not understand the impact that such an event has on a life. Rape is an event that never leaves a person. They will live with that event for the rest of their lives. It becomes an integral part of who they are and everything they do, regardless of being the rapist or the person being raped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.108.47 (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You can also look at pages for other famous criminals such as Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer, who's professions are not even listed in the first sentence of their articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.108.47 (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Also when you tried to re-edit the page you left out "and" before the last part of the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.108.47 (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)