Talk:Żeligowski's Mutiny

message: I wonder if Żeligowski's Mutiny wouldn't be more appopriate?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a big differnce as for me - it is rather emotional "tone" aspect, rather than changing something factual. Zeligowski's invasion would be more accurate, especialy as we knot, that mutinity was staged.--Lokyz 19:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources I have refer to it as a mutiny (of course, staged). Mutiny is a subset of rebellion, so it would seem more accurate. Unless you can show that invasion is more prelevant in the context, I think a mutiny would be better (and the article of course mentions in lead it was staged).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just kidding:) I've already told, both names suit me.--Lokyz 20:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. In that case, there is only a technical issue: should we use 's or not? I.e. Żeligowski's Mutiny or Żeligowski Mutiny?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Officially, Żeligowski has mutinied and rebelled against his superiors in the Polish army.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Officially or supposedly, yes, but the reality of what really was happening might be a better title. How do your English sources name the event? Dr. Dan 00:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: While secondary citations are acceptable on Wikipedia, I am more then happy to provide interesting readers with primary refs (unfortunatly I cannot verify them, as they are in Lithuanian). Bojtár is citining the following work: A. J. Greimas, Antanas Smetona ir kas toliau (Antanas Smetona and what is next), Naujoji Viltis, Chicago, 1988/21, 32-40.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure Andrzej Sapkowski did also write about Zeligowski's grand son in his novel - a sure funny one to read. As for the Greimas text i do have it, will provide it as it was written. Sorry, but I had to  correct your typoses, because you do not seem to be familiar with Lithuanian spelling. I might send you a few books o help you solve that problem, if you'd provide me with your address.--Lokyz 18:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sigh. Lokyz, if you are not serious about improving the article and plan to reply to my academic citations with novels, may I remind you Wikipedia is not a discussion forum?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Lokyz, by failing to recognize the diffrence between fiction and academic works, as well as the genre of political satire, you only further show that you misunderstand the purpose of this project. In any case, it's EOT for me.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By failing to understand the ironic position of  the Polish prominent writers towards this quite clear issue of international law violation and even failing to present a proper name of publication you were referring to. Ah whatewer. Failure after failure inspite of Polish Imperial Ncylopedia.--Lokyz 19:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Polish prominent writers :D Sure, Sapkowski is indeed an example of modern mainstream political thought. The way he described the nuances of the Orkish-Elven relations is truly excellent. //Halibutt 20:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No This one wasn't about Wiedzmin. And you've just violated two of WP: policies.  
You still have 23 hrs to provide an exact citation, or I'll remove the para completely. Cheers.
--Lokyz 20:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Greimas

message: Could the editor Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus kindly remove the non- English "Wilno" and replace it with Vilnius the accepted English toponym for the city on English WP? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of Polish Toponyms on English WP

message: This article lacks the perspective that the "mutiny" was bogus. If one goes to the article on the Gleiwitz incident one will easily see that the actions of the Nazis were to create a pretext for aggression. No attempt to soft pedal or weasel the facts. Due to the nature of the events that occured here, it would be much more accurate and informative to emphasise that the "mutiny" was a staged mutiny, rather than to say the mutiny was staged. To do otherwise would be either misleading or an unfamiliarity with the English language in conveying the facts properly. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if we can link the false flag article from this one as we did in the Gleiwitz incident. Comments? PS. I have no problems with your latest rephrasing - I just want the date to be included in the lead.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  02:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We probably can link the false flag article here somehow. Anyway I'm satisfied with the lead for now. The Puppet state issue is not resolved yet, however. Regarding times and dates, sometimes they give the leads too much clutter and TMI, especially if it is later elucidated in the article, and we're not dealing with a stub. I just removed 10:00pm and 7:22am from the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln article lead, and expect flak there too. Here, it's a small issue and I don't really care, if you insist. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lopsided

message: For the benefit of some editors who have difficulty with the nuances of the English language, I suggest they consult with an English dictionary before they consider certain terminology to be "unencyclopedic". Bogus... aptly applies to the nature of the mutiny. Since staged... does not describe the true nature of the mutiny, I'm substituting "Sham" in it's place. See... for definition. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus 

message: This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class review