User talk:Mynek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Hello Mynek! 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  23:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Kraków pogrom

Please take a look at this discussion, there is a user advocating the version 'five deaths'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.


[edit] Your recent edits

Hi Mynek, User:M0RD00R is expressing concerns about your recent edits to the Kraków pogrom article, he is hoping that you could explain your changes on the talk page, as it seem that the you and he have differing ideas on the subject. Please don't loose your cool, it's only a discussion about the article :) SGGH 15:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

First you say that this article is not about Cichopek, but then you put almost all her academic history (where she graduated, what was her Master Thesis). And this all has nothing to do with source number 6 which I'm citing. I'm citing not her Master Thesis, I'm citing not her book published in Poland, I'm citing her article written while she was working at Michigan Uni. How can you explain that? And all this is done without any discussion whatsoever. But there is more to that. You put one Libionka's opinion on Cichopek, but delete another. Why? Because it does not suit your point of view? M0RD00R 15:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

that new link you added links to an edit change, is there any possible way to link to the article itself? Cheers SGGH 19:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

Hey, I was going to weigh in on the article, and wanted to hear what you felt the major disagreement was. I think I know, but it would help me understand the breadth of the situation if you tell me yourself. You can respond on my Talk Page, where I've set up a section heading specifically for this. Arcayne 19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. I read over the edit history, so I had guessed at your issues of provenance as to her legitimacy as a professional historian. I've offered my 3rd Opinion in the article's Discussion Page. Arcayne 20:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Krakow Pogrom

(You wrote)

In the article you replaced "Another historian, Dr Darisz Libionka" with "Jewish historian, Dr Dariusz Libionka" -> [1] Are you sure? Regards, Mynek 15:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a tricky question… not because of Libionka, but because of the structure of the English grammar. I believe Libionka is Polish to the core, but he devotes his entire career to the history of the Polish Jewry, the Holocaust and all other Jewish-Polish subjects. According to English language, the historian of the Jewish history is a Jewish historian, just like the historian of the Polish history is a Polish history historian, or a Polish historian for short. --Poeticbent  talk  17:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Now I see your point. But wouldn't it be better to say: "Another historian, Dr. Dariusz Libionka from IPN, specializing in the Holocaust ..." ? Regards, Mynek 20:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Libionka deserves to be presented in the best possible light. How about this:

Another historian, Dr Dariusz Libionka from the Center for Holocaust Research Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Polish Academy of Science suggests that the photos showing the coffins were taken in the Spring of the following year and came from ... (etc.) --Poeticbent  talk  21:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Libionka

(You wrote)

Thanks for that. Mynek 10:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. I've managed to improve on it slightly since the last time. Please, take a look.[2] --Poeticbent  talk  23:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Krakow Pogrom

(You wrote)

The changes you've made ->[[3]] are not clear to me. On the one hand you let Cichopek's claims remain in the article ("she also claimed in her book that the New York Times in 1946 had noted a death of a man (Anszel Zucker), and Polska Agencja Prasowa noted a death of another unknown woman (in addition to Róża Berger) and five wounded."). On the othe other you removed Libionka's answer to these claims. In my opinion as long as Cichopek's claims are mentioned in the article, Libionka's answer to her claims should be there as well. Please correct me if I am wrong. Regards, Mynek 10:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, both sides of the historical dialog should be presented with proper weight. I reinserted my own (slightly revised) statement (based on Libionka's quote pasted by me on Talk page [4]) because it was deleted by another user a bit earlier. I was trying to find a middle ground so as to put an end to the edit wars. I'm afraid I might not have succeeded in doing so. But perhaps you will. Best regards, --Poeticbent  talk  13:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's OK. My fault! I didn't notice that you only moved part of the text. Best Regards, Mynek 14:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Happy editing. --Poeticbent  talk  15:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)