User talk:Volunteer Marek/Archives/2010/July

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

WikiProject Economics Newsletter (Issue III)

Positively Economics

The Economics WikiProject Newsletter Issue III (July 2010)

To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. This newletter was delivered to you by User:Jarry1250 at around 19:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Abraham Blum

— Rlevse • Talk

• 18:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Luba Blum-Bielicka

— Rlevse • Talk

• 18:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Response

The users who have provided negative feedback have, in some way, been involved with one another. Alternatively, those users have been involved with/in the particular case, WikiProject, or area directly. Those users felt that the amendment request was being prejudiced. I will not specify the names of these users. The users who have provided positive feedback have been completely uninvolved. Those users felt that it needed to be covered in the latest issue, and the style of writing caught their attention, yet gave them an opportunity to come to their own conclusions. I will not specify the names of these users either. That said, all opinions will still be considered in moving forward, but please appreciate that this does not mean that each opinion is widely held or that each opinion can be actioned in practice. I suspect there would be a greater willingness on the part of each user to post their own opinions on-wiki if particpants conducted themselves appropriately from the outset.

On-wiki, you've twice raised a question as to the identity of the user who made the original suggestion - although I appreciate why you wish to know this information, I will not fulfil this request under any circumstances. That said, I can ascertain that the user was also an uninvolved user, and I have no reason to believe this was bad advice or a bad request (especially given that it was made several days before the particular request for amendment existed). For the sake of transparency, the user was already made aware of the on-wiki discussion (and invited to participate) prior to my second response there; the user appreciated why they were requested to participate but declined. As an uninvolved user myself, I fully respect this wish, and it's not my place to reveal their identity. Still, the user has also been made aware of the fact that I am posting here - this enables the user to fulfil your request, if and whenever the user is ready to do so, though whatever means they wish to do so.

There is nothing more I can (or have left to) say on the matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wielbark

I expanded Wielbark article with historical information. Would welcome gramma or format check. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Village names

Kossert (p. 138) gives some information about the renaming campaign of 1938. While some renamings were done case by case before and after 1933, the main campaign happened after Erich Koch ordered to "erase" any non-German roots in August 1937. A Commission for "Germanizing foreignlanguage toponyms in East Prussia" (Verdeutschung fremsprachiger Ortsnamen in Ostpreussen) at the Prussian Ministry for Science and Education was established, de:Max Hein and several professors of the Königsberg University were members of this commission. In different districts up to 70 percent of all toponyms were affected until 16 July 1938. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, I can't read German, which is why I was asking for an English language source. Please note that I am not questioning the reliability of this German language source - I am simply interested in the topic and want to read something in English (Polish or Russian or Spanish'd be fine too) for my own personal benefit.
talk
) 23:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Katyn

Hey, could you comment on the redirect structure there (in place of Piotrus)? --Illythr (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You can ask this on WikiProject Poland and, I believe, Piotrus, is allowed to reply on the topic there.
talk
) 23:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I've done just that. --Illythr (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Kind words

Thanks for your kind comment on my talk page. It helps; I'm trying to develop the useful boldness. Just met your colleague Piotrus at wikisym conference and had good conversations. Econterms (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Janusz Krupski

Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nsk92 (talk
) 12:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ślężanie

— Rlevse • Talk

• 06:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you help with...

...filling the gaps in this project? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Janusz Krupski

— Rlevse • Talk

• 18:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

definite article and martial law

Actually, normally, when speaking of a particular (state of) martial law it would take the definitive article. I'm not so sure if this would apply to a Wikipedia sub-section heading as Wikipedia has some strange and esoteric rules about that. But whatever.

talk
) 23:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, but when you say a particular event, it would have to be a qualified event:
  • The martial law that was imposed in 1983, or
  • The Polish government's imposition of the martial law of 1983, if and only if there had been martial law imposed by the Polish government in a subsequent year, otherwise it would only need to be:
  • The 1983 imposition of martial law or the Polish government's imposition of martial law.
I'm not a grammar expert, but I'm very confident of this. I was a kid in Chicago (which has a large Polish population) when all this was going on. I remember that this was all over not only the national news, but also the local news, and no reporter ever said, "impose(d) the martial law." It was always, "impose(d) martial law." --Antigrandiose (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, well, you may be right. Still though, consider "US imposed sanctions on Iran" vs. "Iran under the sanctions" and compare with "Jaruzelski imposed martial law in Poland" (which would indeed be correct, so no surprise that no reported would say "imposed the martial law") vs. "Jaruzelski's Poland under the martial law". The "impose" is doing a lot of work there. The heading under discussion is "During (the) martial law" - there's no verb such as "impose" there. I think that makes the difference. But as I said, I have no problem with your changes.
talk
) 00:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I think it would still be Jaruzelski's Poland under martial law. Someone put this on my user page which I think explains the whole thing better:
It is. Martial law is a state of affairs, not a piece of legislation; it no more has a definite article than democracy. One way to check these things is to use Google Books: imposed the martial law has 33 hits (some people will always be off); imposed martial law has 10,000. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
--Antigrandiose (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, there's that "imposed" in there. I agree that "imposed martial law" is correct, rather than "imposed the martial law". But that doesn't mean that "during the martial law" is incorrect and "during martial law" is correct. Maybe. But not so sure. "Sickness" is a state of affairs. But, under some circumstances, it is entirely correct to say "during the sickness", rather then "during sickness", when you're talking about a particular sickness and it is understood from the text what sickness is being referred too. Likewise whether it is "Jaruzelski's Poland under martial law" or "Jaruzelski's Poland under the martial law" would depend on the context.
talk
) 02:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, "democracy" might not have a definitive article (actually, sometimes it does) but "the monarchy" often does.
talk
) 02:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that "Jaruzelski's Poland under the martial law" would only sound correct if it were further qualified with "of 1983", and "of 1983" would be unnecessary since Jaruzelski only imposed martial law in 1983 and not in any subsequent years. This might be a topic that requires the attention of an expert. Maybe this discussion should be moved to either the Janusz Krupski talk page or the Martial law talk page for clarification. By the way, nice article. --Antigrandiose (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, at this point I don't feel qualified to judge and someone with an expertise in grammar is required. At the same time, overall it's a very very minor point in the article (and thanks for the compliment) and I'm only pursuing this out of personal curiosity.
talk
) 02:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Taken by Force (book)

For your information, there is currently a discussion of this article at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Question 2 regarding primary sources. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes_(3rd_nomination)#Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes exists

neutral notification. Collect (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop wasting our time

You waste my time by an argument which is, again, largely verbal, and which would - if accepted - make my case on a moot issue stronger. If the University of Hawaii is being ranked against, not the University of California, but Berkeley and UCLA and UC Davis, it will be even lower in the deeply crowded list.

You waste Wikipedia's time and resources by this campaign of scoring points in the squabbles of the past (not that you are the only one).

If all you want is to play Front Line with the Marxizants, there are better places to do it, which are not trying to do something else.

In any case, please stay off my talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who brought this up with the implication that being a professor at a respectable university could make someone "fringe". In the process you made derogatory remarks about the institution and displayed your own profound ignorance of the US university system (only "50 state universities"). Then you made WP:POINT edits to MY edits - editing other editor's edits IS generally considered disruptive. I was only asking you, politely, not to do it [1]. Politeness is over. Don't pull crap like that again. Do not edit my edits. If you want me not to comment on your talk page, I'll be happy to honor that request. But if you make such a request, please don't then come to MY talk page and make personal attacks, which is what the remainder of the post above consists of.
talk
) 00:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Comfort yourself with falsehoods as you wish. I never said Rummel was fringe (indeed, I have cited him, with due caution); rather you made two assertions he was not, based on unsubstantiated claims of fact about the University of Hawaii.
  • You claimed and did not substantiate that UH was "top 30", whatever that means.
  • You claimed and did not substantiate that UH was widely respected.
  • This logic also lacks a valid
    middle term; there have been emeriti from unquestionably widely respected universities who have taken fringe positions; that's one of the things tenure permits. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
    00:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself here. Do not edit my talk page comments again.

talk
) 01:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for intervening; I still think your comment on my page was obnoxious but perhaps that's just the stress dealing with the two warring Truths. I am obliged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of ORP Rybitwa

Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk
) 20:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats fine

Thats fine, but much of the text is NOT COPYVIOLATED... but yeah i'll go with it. --TIAYN (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Volunteer Marek. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
And, by the way, please let me know if this is not clear. Did I mention how much I appreciate your willingness to help out? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for ORP Rybitwa