User talk:Ttyre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User:Ttyre)

KK Baczyński[edit]

Of course it was Pałac Blanka. I must've been blind, thanks for the correction. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 18:41, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

History of Polish Jewry[edit]

I'd be happy to help as soon as I get home. I'm not a member of the Warsaw Jewish commune myself, but many of my friends are and I guess I have quite a lot of materials on the recent Jewish revival, most notably the re-creation of communes in Warsaw, Gdansk, Bialystok and other places.

I think that after we finish, we could split that article onto two parts: the calender and the description. There are already a lot of pics related to the topic, so we can even think of expanding the article to featured status... --Halibutt 09:49, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Great... I will start adding in the discussion section some outlines for 1945-2005 period. --Ttyre 01:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tnx for the note about the relevant discussiuons. On the bright side, it is not as bad as I had hoped - all interested people are more or less reasonable (i.e. no reverts so far). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism[edit]

I removed the reference because the article is about Anti-Semitism, not Anti-Polonism. Jayjg (talk) 13:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kielce pogrom[edit]

Sorry I was unavailable to respond to you right away. My reply is at the article's Talk page. Thanks. Humus sapiensTalk 22:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

Ttyre, I'm afraid you didn't even look at Talk:History of the Jews in Poland. I did post justification for the NPOV tag. Please see the link I put there. HKT 17:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. I think it's clearer now. HKT 19:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History of the Jews in Poland[edit]

Thank you for the well-reasoned debate, filled with many facts. Your ability to compromise around solutions, provide evidence of your own, and still listen to the evidence of others who you may not agree with was very refreshing. While I don't necessarily agree with all of your perspective, I do think the debate was productive, and the outcome was a higher quality article, so thanks! --Goodoldpolonius2 03:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Statue of Kalisz[edit]

Sure - I assume a type in name? - just give me the direct link. As I need to go for 12h+, you may want to redirect and list on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please delete Statue of Kalisz article - I have made a typo (Statue rather than Statute). I don't want to redirect since I have also created the article with a correct name Statute of Kalisz. Thank you. --Ttyre 13:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't read replies on other people user pages, so if you want to reply to me, leave a copy of the message on my talk page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 30 June 2005 14:30 (UTC)

anti-polonism[edit]

Rozpoczalem zbieranie materialu na rozbudowe artykulu--Witkacy 8 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I'm really exhausted with that talk :) --SylwiaS 18:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe that many, if not most, of these discussions are pointless unless well reseached and well written content is presented. There is so much content to add thus so little time to waste. Looking forward to your Vistula Action article. --Ttyre 22:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vistula action! Now you gave me to think. Vistula action 32000 google hits and Wisła action 36000 google hits. Which one would be better?

Yes, you're perfectly right. I asked for sources many times. And even so I should have never wasted my time for it. However, my grandma was hiding a Jewish girl during the war but she was never judging anyone. It's really hard to see so many people being so easily condemn by some, who never experienced it. --SylwiaS 23:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. And there is a Jewish Polish man that I'm friendly with who was in several camps, including Birkenau and Treblinka, during the war. He's spoken to me at length (on two occasions) about his experiences.
I have tried to avoid discussing sources that we all know are there, so as not to drag on a discussion irrelevant to that talk page. The article doesn't talk at all about Poland during the Holocaust. I'm not eager to continue the discussion. Are you? HKT 05:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
HKT I’m afraid you misunderstood me, as your answer is irrelevant. Also, please, find my reply to your questions about my willingness to drag the discussion any longer in my comment above. --SylwiaS 18:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anti-semitism in Poland[edit]

The article got a VfD tag from me for two reasons. Despite being tagged as a speedy delete candidate, it was not, and lots of silly games were being played with this tag. Second, the article, as you note, has some POV difficulties. Because of the need for some to see it deleted, I simply placed it in the correct venue. I have no interest in the topic myself, but I want due process to be maintained. Denni 00:15, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

There are several reasons I think keeping this article (in rewritten form!) will do more good then harm. 1) It will allow reduction/removal of unecessary material from Anti-Semitism article 2) It will make it easier for us to keep track of this subject, as we won't have to monitor (watchlist) main AS article/talk, but just this one 3) Having a separate article will allow us to *expand* this - with, for example, examples/proof of exaggeration, or counteraguments, or comparisons, etc. 4) Last but not least, by keeping this article we take ammunition away from opponents of Anti-Polonism, by showing that we are consistent and inculsionist - Wiki is not papar and we can have articles on both of those relativly minor (and to some point, connected) phenomenas. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand your position but not share your optimism regarding possibility of substantially dividing/revising/moving any portion of Anti-Semitism article. Please recall a message I left you on June 2, 2005 User_talk:Piotrus#Anti-Semitism_in_Poland. For the reasons I don't fully understand, this article is plagued with gross redundancy accompanied by complete unwillingness of some editors to deal with it. Today, I have asked User_talk:Gzuckier#Numerus_clausus to move portion of his contributions to Numerus clausus article without really expecting much. What I think will happen in case Anti-Semitism in Poland article stays is that we will end-up with 2 different versions of the content in both places + plenty of it in History of the Jews in Poland and History of Poland. Nie chcę krakać but realistically this might be expected. BTW, what a mess with the VfD... --Ttyre 02:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you have submitted Anti-Semitism in Poland article for VfD it has been dramatically changed and is undergoing a revert war. Since a couple of dozen people already have voted on mostly original version of the article can you please revert it to the version at the VfD submission time and lock it? --Ttyre 01:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I will not do this, for a number of reasons. It is entirely normal for articles in VfD to undergo edit changes. Often, very bad articles turn into very good articles as a result. Many people have commented on how this article's topic is a valuable one, it's just the article itself that needs work. Locking it would not allow that work to occur. You yourself expressed considerable discontent at the contents of the original; here is a chance for you to see them improved. Denni 02:35, 2005 July 13 (UTC)


Your Delete and Merge on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland are not compatible per Wikipedia:Guide_to_Votes_for_deletion#Incompatible_votes. Would you consider changing your vote to either Delete or Merge so that there is no incompatibility ? I don't think there's much to merge as long at there's no original content, just copy of another articles' contents there. --Lysy (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right... changed. --Ttyre 19:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure how much longer this will stay on VfD. It could probably come off now, but I don't take any part in maintaining pages on VfD. You may want to post your request directly to the page itself. Denni 18:15, 2005 July 19 (UTC)

A co dokladnie zlego w jego liczeniu? Zapytaj sie go na jego talku, i na stronach dyskusji. W zasadzie przewaga byla na delete, ale nie wiem dokladnie jaka wiekszosc jest ku temu wymagana. Jak zostanie, to ja jestem za tym jak pisalem zreszta, by usunac polski as ze strony o as i przywrocic moja wersje na tamtej stronie. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ttyre, on the list you lited user:4~, who now shows as your name, change him for Ril, it's his username. --SylwiaS 15:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ja sie na tym nie znam. Bez obrazy, ale jak mawiaja - nawarzyles piwo... Nic nie stoi na przeszkodzie bys przeczytal instrukcje o kasowaniu a nawet kandydowal na admina i specjalizowal sie w tym :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had read the guidelines before taking this issue to User:Woohookitty --Ttyre 20:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

numerus clausus whateverus[edit]

No problemus.Gzuckier

Poland thing VFD[edit]

I suspect that ABCD's claim that the result was "keep" is partisan. I am considering raising an RFC on the issue. If I did that, would you second it? ~~~~ 13:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely this vote tabulation should go to RFC, especially after a number of changed decisions by User talk:ABCD. According to my count the number of votes to Delete was 28 (although Mikka voted twice, first for delete than to merge). Also, votes Merge, in this case are in no way to Keep. --Ttyre 23:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anti-Semitism in Poland[edit]

Today I finally got a break from work. I've just done 8 nightshifts in a row! So I've, at last, been able to turn my attention to editing the Anti-Semitism in Poland article. Please let me know your views on the current version. --wayland 14:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Your message[edit]

Thanks for bringing me up to date with status of the vote and debate. --wayland 11:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yitzhak Shamir i odkrycie ze w polskim mleku poza bialkiem zawarty jest antysemityzm[edit]

Popieram, wszystkie antypolskie wypowiedzi powinne byc zawarte w artykulach osob ktore je wyrazily.--Witkacy 20:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adminowanie[edit]

Kurcze, naprawdę nie wiem czy to dobry pomysł. Ale z drugiej strony same komentarze na stronie RfA mogłyby być wystarczającą zachętą... Ciekaw jestem czy dorzucę jeszcze jakąś obelgę do listy z mojej strony użytkownika :) Halibutt 17:32, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

No i się sprawdziło :)

Thanks. WikiThanks.
I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Curious statistics[edit]

Your "curious statistics" are based on an assumption of significance that is not correct. The number of mentions of the word "anti-semitism" in particular Jewish history articles are only an indicator of how much they have been edited from their Jewish Encyclopedia version, since the Jewish Encyclopedia was published in 1906, when the term was not popular. In fact, the Encyclopedia only uses the word anti-semitism in articles about Bulgaria, Algeria, and, Luxmebourg(!), and not at all in its articles about Germany, Spain, etc. As you can tell, very little work has gone into the article on Germany outside of a cut-and-paste from the Nazi article, and I just inserted Spain a day or two ago without real editing (and never touched Besarabia), so they will not mention anti-Semitism -- though you miscounted in the case of Germany, search for "anti-semitic" as well. I would suggest that you actually read the articles on Germany and Spain, you will see that they tell about anti-Jewish persecution, just as much as the articles on Poland and Russia, if not more so, since they have not had the goings-over that the Jewish-Polish article has. In any case, I am not sure what your point is, in any case, what problem are you believing exists? --Goodoldpolonius2 20:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Na podstupah[edit]

It depends on the context. If the sentence speaks about a city, it is normally translated as "on the outskirts of <>" A general-purpose translation would be "on the approaches to <>". mikka (t) 19:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daniel Pipes[edit]

There is effort again to mislead people about Daniel Pipes' Jewish heritage and background. I have no idea why. Can you take a look? Thanks.DannyZz 20:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might be useful, if you still have Richard Pipes's memoirs in front of you, if you could cite direct quotes, although I think it's ridiculous to demand this. john k 01:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting discussions[edit]

  1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt
  2. Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland

I thought you would like to join and vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Jan Potocki (1761-1815).jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Jan Potocki (1761-1815).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warsaw Uprising FAR[edit]

Warsaw Uprising 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.

nadav 05:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your wikisource document is missing source[edit]

Please see Talk:Pinsk_massacre#Morgenthau.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we could use info on specific publication - printed or electronic - that you took it from. Did you copy'n'paste it from electronic source, or reproduced a printed document? I am still not clear :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Richard c Lukas.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Richard c Lukas.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Marek_Jan_Chodakiewicz.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Marek_Jan_Chodakiewicz.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]