User talk:Jacurek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Jacurek! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing!  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on History of Jews in Poland. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, your edits are unsubstantiated. We presume good faith, but you should at least know what you are writing about, especially ina field that is particularly well-documented.Galassi 21:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please take a break. Whatever you are trying to accomplish, you are going about it the wrong way. First of all, going back to your version (reverting) more than 3 times in a 24 period is a break of the rules and may result in being blocked from editing for a period of time. Second, the article you are trying to change has seen a lot of work and is in a sense an elaborate compromise. It was written by people from all sides of the issue, and this is the concensus version that has been arrived at. You cannot just march in and replace it with your own, "true" version. This is not the Wikipedia way.

Let me put it another way. Many people around the world feel that Poland and Poles share at least a part of the responsibility for the Holocaust. You may strongly disagree with this, but this cannot change the fact that they feel this way. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and hence in some sense incorporates all (or almost all) views, it must incorporate that view as well. Learn to accept this, if you want to join this community for the longer term. Balcer 21:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you make any more reversions to History of Jews in Poland without providing reliable sources for your edits, I will report you for violating the Three-revert rule. You may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel that you have left me no alternative than to report you for repeatedly violating the Three-revert rule. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Jacurek reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ). — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at History of Jews in Poland. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Jews in Poland

Your recent edit to History of Jews in Poland inserted the sentence "With some exceptions, Poles did not cooperate with the Germans in the destruction of Jewish community and many protected their Jewish compatriots putting their own lives on the balance of risk."

You identified this site as the source for the statement.

That page has links to 10 research papers. Could you please point out exactly where support for that statement can be found?

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying Paulsson. It seems he is best known as Gunnar S. Paulsson, and that is the name under which his book was published. (I don't know why his newspaper column was printed under the obscure name Steven Paulson.) See my comments at Talk:History of Jews in Poland#Steven Paulsson. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your edits to History of Jews in Poland:

Your recent edit to History of Jews in Poland (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a hosting or shared IP address to add email addresses, phone numbers, YouTube, Geocities, Myspace, Facebook, blog, forum, or other such free-hosting website links to a non-talk page. Please note that such links are generally to be avoided. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II 07:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Hello Jacurek! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with us.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish population on the territories annexed by the Soviets in September 1939

Hi Jacurek. I have no doubt that some Jews in those territories welcomed the Soviets, for a variety of reasons. Some may have been pro-Soviet, some may have seen them as the lesser of two evils. And the different attitude toward the Soviets was a cause of friction between non-Jewish and Jewish Poles. The article already made reference to this:

Compared to Poles, significant percentage of Jews where sympathetic to the Soviets; while Poles saw Soviets as invaders, many Jews saw them for what they claimed to be - protectors from the Nazis. That led to growing tensions between Polish and Jewish communities in those regions.

But I think the sentences you added went much further. You wrote that many Jews "greeted Russian forces joyfully" and mentioned "Jewish over joy at the Red Army’s arrival". That's much stronger language than the sentence above. You added that "To the Poles, in contrast to the Jews, the Soviet Union was a traditional enemy." Did "the Jews" all fail to see the Soviet Union as an enemy? Note how the sentence quoted above (the one already in the article) uses phrases like "significant percentage of Jews" and "many Jews" instead of "the Jews", which suggests "all the Jews".

The article would be much better if it had more sources, but Wikipedia's policy on sources says that "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." I think that the type of strong language that you used qualify as "exceptional claims" and they need reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

I'm not questioning your grandfather's memory of what happened, but personal accounts aren't considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOR

Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOR and WP:RS before making any changes. Regards. M0RD00R 20:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 20:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources

Hi. Thank you for your on-going valuable contributions to History of Jews in Poland. Please take a little time and read WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources, Wikipedia policies concerning references for articles.

Nobody is questioning the veracity of your contributions, but you should provide references for your additions — in the encyclopedia article, as opposed to the edit summary. Otherwise, your contributions may be considered original research: "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories."

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you refer to some books on the matter? I think that you will find, if my memory serve me, Anatol Lieven's The Baltic Revolution, in the section on Lithuania. (The book mainly deals with society and politics post-1990, but it has significant background on the WWII years. Dogru144 21:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, checking the amazon.com page for the book, I see that the book is not mainly re 1990+, but rather that it deals with life back to ancient times. Check out the book. I agree with User:Malik Shabazz and others: you really ought to abide by wikipedia protocols, such as verifiability and reliability. Dogru144 21:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Jews

• nationality or ethnicity?
• With all due respect to Warsaw, Kraków and Wilno Jews were important culturally and Łódź ones - economically.Xx236 11:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have quoted a number of names and facts on the Talk page. I prefer to not edit the article myself, because of my poor English.Xx236 07:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)