User talk:Piotrus/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Geography of Poland discussion

Could you take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland#Terminology? Logologist has begun renaming some of the voivodships (Lower Silesia to Dolny Śląsk), but I don't believe a clear consensus has been reached regarding terminology. Olessi 05:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Chickens War, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

My Request for Adminship

Greetings, Piotrus! I wanted to sincerely thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with a final result of 55/14/3. While you voted neutral, I still hope you'll be content with the way I use my newly granted WikiPowers. If you have any questions or input regarding my activities, be they adminly or just a "normal" user's, or if you just want to chat about anything at all, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers! —Nightstallion (?) 07:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Poles - UTF

Now that even English Wikipedia is in UTF-8, maybe you could correct the links in your list of Poles from PSB so that it links to the version with diactrics? It would also make it easier to import to Polish Wikipedia. Ausir 23:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

BIOS - Biological Innovation for Open Society requested move

See Talk:BIOS - Biological Innovation for Open Society. Basically I feel that the redirect rather than the article has the better article name, so I would like to have the redirection reversed. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 10:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Dziadek

Myślę że tak, choć pewnie bardziej przez pryzmat książki (autor wspomnień - bla-bla-bla) niż jako żandarm, policjant itd. Halibu tt 04:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (people)

Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more

A skoro o dziadkach mowa... Jerzy Kaźmirkiewicz Halibu tt 14:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Kategoria

Możesz usunąć kategorię Category:Polish comic book artists? Dubluje się z Category:Polish comics artists.--SylwiaS | talk 23:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Dzięki. Uporządkowałam subkategorie w Category:Polish artists i przepisałam kogo się dało do subkategorii. Straszny bałagan! I bardzo dziwni ludzie. Niektóre artykuły wyglądają na samopromocję.--SylwiaS | talk 01:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I stay prided

I am poses more pride in aided to your interesting history. i expect why my humble and little "grains of sand" served how any remeber or less ligth reference respect at these historical questions.

of all topics why composed,exist one why i am poses much curiosity in confirm,i refer to Polish coastal battery and your actions during polish defensive campaing.

these heavy artillery piece was mentioned for spanish author and refer also about enemy vessels why figthing too.

i this exists,if another little knowed or forget historical sucess between of Polish military history.

more thanks

writer23

Vandalism

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.. This is regarding your edit to the page Benjamin Franklin. - CobaltBlueTony 17:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. Thought maybe you were slipping to the "dark side". ;-) - CobaltBlueTony 17:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Polish naming dispute

Piotrus, we seem to be having some fundamental disagreements on multiple article naming issues, such as at [1] [2], [3], and most especially at Talk:List of Polish monarchs, where you exhibited behavior that I found highly questionable, especially for an administrator. I have spent some time reading through a few of the various naming discussions, and I have to admit a concern about your actions. There seems to be a pattern of you making a proposal, letting people post about it, and then you ignore their concerns and just go ahead and do whatever you proposed, without achieving consensus.

Before taking further action though, I would like to propose a method of dispute resolution.

Some of your ideas are good ones, have merit, and may be worth implementing. Also, please assume good faith on my part -- I am not biased against the Polish language or Polish spelling, and I do my best to incorporate relevant translations and the appropriate diacriticals when I write my own articles. In terms of an article title in an English-language encyclopedia though, I feel strongly that it needs to be something that "most English speakers" could find, understand, pronounce, and easily communicate to other people in a verbal discussion. For example the "Polski Słownik Biograficzny" title, in my opinion, did not meet those criteria. Speaking for myself, even though I am fairly familiar with Polish language and spelling, even I have trouble remembering how to spell it, I am still not certain how to pronounce it, and if I were trying to verbally describe to someone what page they should link to, it would be very difficult with the Polish title, unless of course they spoke Polish. It is my opinion that your familiarity with the Polish language may be clouding your judgment as to what "common English" means.

Having said the above, I do agree with you about guidelines. And I agree that I would like to see something consistent, which is supported by consensus, even if the consensus disagrees with my own opinion! I am a big fan of consistency.

Would you join me in trying to resolve this matter? I suggest that we set up a page or section somewhere with a specific wording for a policy or guideline change, and then we make it as visible as possible. I would join you in finding places to invite comment, both via RfC and by personally inviting the various Wikipedians who have participated in these discussions in the past. You and those who support your side could make your case, and the opposing opinions could also be heard, and then we will see if we can reach a consensus solution, which will be written into the official guideline pages. If you truly believe that your way is the best way, then we should put it to the community at large and let you make your case. I give you my word that I am willing to go along with consensus, if you are. Elonka 04:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC) (feel free to reply here on your own page, I'll set up a watch for the discussion)

Piotrus, from my own perspective, I am quite .. I don't know even how to described it in English. The official guideling is about article naming scheme, and is not dealing with the what appears in article itself. So it was always acceptable to have it Boleslaw I of Poland and then in side the article, simply Boleslaw I the Brave (or whatever). the (naming and titles) naming conventions was always very clear about that. I wish I was tracking the discussion - it must be I was busy with other things on the time, but I strongly oppose your page moves. Szopen 08:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Tuchel heath

I thought this was a myth. This isn't my area of expertise, so would you mind looking into it? Appleseed (Talk) 16:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Katowice

Hey! Napiszę po polsku, bo z angielskim mam "jeszcze trochę" problemów. Wybacz, że usunełem zdjęcie z artykułu Katowice - poprostu chciałem, aby strona wyglądała jak najlepiej. A teraz zdjęcia nachodzą na siebie i pozostaje pustka między zdaniami. No trudno...
A tak po za tym - też chcę aby język ANGIELSKI panował na świecie :-) (hehehe). Jak by co to "narazie" jeśli piszesz coś do mnie na dyskusję to polecam język polski (narazie). W razie czego jestem głównie na pl.Wiki. Pozdrawiam --LUCPOL 16:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Już trochę artykuł poprawiłem. Zdjęcia już na siebie nie nachodzą bo dodałem tekstu. Wszystkie zdjęcia są już w commons, ale atrakcyjność artykułu polega między innymi na...mediach. Proponuję zostawić te zdjęcia tak jak są, a jedynie dodawać stopniowo tekst. Wtedy będzie w pozio :-)
...choć, jeśli usuniesz z artykułu zdjęcie "przekopanego" katowickiego ronda to będzie super (ta grafika jest w commons, więc się nie musisz martwić, że się straci). Pozdrawiam --LUCPOL 17:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Categories/list tool?

I replied on my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Józef Hauke-Bosak

I'm not sure why you think that stubs don't need to be in decent English and to be presented clearly. The article is still in rather fractured English, and I've replaced the template until I or someone else can clean it up. Please don't remove it until the work has been done. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Piast

I don't think Piast or his father Chościsko were (legendary) rulers of Poland. According to the story, Piast deposed Popiel and made his son Siemowit ruler, but did not rule himself. Just wanted to let you know that I'll be removing the cats. Appleseed (Talk) 03:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, we could create a subcat of "Polish people" for legendary Poles. Appleseed (Talk) 03:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Polish Characters

Dear Proconsul Piotrus, please check the Polish characters. They are wrong. Best regards. Gustav Korwin-Szwedowski 05:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Cheers

Hi! I don't mean to intrude, but I noticed you have made some edits to the Cheers article in the past! I've given the article a serious reworking and I hope it can garner your support on it's FAC. Thanks again! Staxringold 01:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

About Polish characters

Dear Proconsul Piotrus, thank you for fix it so quickly. Gustav Korwin-Szwedowski 07:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

request for assistance

hello! I am in a dire need of some detective work ;) ...

I am certain that one of administrators who object against putting marijuana-related information at Polish wikipedia has deleted my translation work at:

pl:Wikipedysta:Devein:Uprawa konopii

(original link: Wikipedysta:Devein:Uprawa konopii )

Which is more strange, he/she erased also the history, so I cannot even prove that my work ever existed.

I've sent similar information to pl:Wikipedysta:TOR , without any response.

I would be very grateful if you could assist in detection of person/persons who deleted my work. Perhaps you can redirect me to persons who have some low-level wikipedia system access.

Thanks,

--Devein 12:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, i found who did it: pl:Wikipedysta:Gdarin. I've filed a request to him for recovery of my article.

Don't you think that I should make a complaint for such "rude" behavior?

Worried about Polish Wikipedia, --Devein 19:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedysta Gdarin nie przyjął mojej argumentacji, odmówił przywrócenia strony.

Nie jestem długo na wikipedii, nie chciałbym z tym narobić może niepotrzebnego rabanu w stylu zgłoszenia do AMA, co mam zrobić innego w takiej sytuacji? Jasno myśląc, uważam że moja argumentacja (w dużej mierze analiza prawna Marka Snowa) jest prawidłowa i Wikipedysta Gdarin powinien ją uznać.

Dzięki za pomoc, --Devein 19:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Trubetskoy, etc

You may want to check my old note on Talk:Trubetskoy. I hoped to make good the article on this family, but was stymied by some nationalist clowns, who maintained that the Trubetskoys have been Belarusian or Polish rather than Russian and so had to give up in disgust. Of course the Trubetskoys were too polonophobic to be classified as Polish nobility. As for the nomenclature, their original name was Trubchevsky, derived from the town Trubchevsk which was their original demesne. Shortly after the Time of Troubles, the family went extinct in Russia, while its last scion, an ardent supporter of Wladyslaw, moved to Poland, converted to Catholicism, while his name Trubchevsky was polonized as Trubecki. Several decades later his grandson returned to Russia, where his Polish surname Trubecki was depolonized as Trubetskoy (Gallic spelling: Troubetzkoy). Hence, we should use Trubchevsky for the period until 1625, Trubecki for the next few decades, and Trubetskoy for the later period. Cheers, Ghirla | talk 17:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Trubetskoy as well as my original message from your talk page, let's hope we can fix this mess after all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Cześć Piotruś

Z tego co wiem jesteś socjologiem. Mam do Ciebie czysto techniczne pytanie. Czy orientujesz może jak można z liczby populacji teoretycznie określić procentowy udział kobiet, mężczyzn i dzieci ? To znaczy chodzi mi o to czy są jakieś statystyczne prawidłowości które mówią że z reguły kobiet jest tyle procent, dzieci tyle procent, mężczyzn tyle i tyle procent. --Molobo 01:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Polański

Shouldn't the article Roman Polanski be moved to Roman Polański?--SylwiaS | talk 18:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just asked there.--SylwiaS | talk 09:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving categories

Hi, I wanted to move some categories but there's no move button. Is that a privileged operation?

Appleseed (Talk) 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Questionable edits

An anon. has been editing things into the "Oda von Haldensleben" and "Dagome iudex" articles that look questionable. Would you care to take a look? logologist|Talk 02:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for your comments! Please check out the FAC for a response to your comment, hopefully turning your conditional support into full-fledged support! :) Staxringold 22:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Added the written source I know you were interested in. Staxringold 23:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Józef Olszyna-Wilczyński, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Russian troll

After vandalizing Belarusian language and History of Belarus article (and totally dirupting editing of these two articles), the Russian troll Kuban Kazak continued his activities on the article about my native town Vorsha ([1]). I would like to ask Wikipedia admins and Wikipedia community members as what I should do in such a situation. Thank you very much. --rydel 14:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wojsko

Talk:Wojsko_Polskie#So_what.3F - AFAIR you are the only admin to take part in the discussion - and the only one to be able to perform the move as suggested at the talk page some... 7 months ago. Halibu tt 12:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Article about MechWarrior: Vengeance

I added few external links to pages where I got informations for the article. Is that what you meant with references? MechWarrior:_Vengeance#External_links Walter Smith 12:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't found any article about a computer game that has cited it's sources. It leads me to assumption that articles about game generally doesn't have this. A reply in article [[2]] seems to corroborate with my assumption. Walter Smith 15:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely sure of that? Try StarCraft, for instance... —Nightstallion (?) 15:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, ok. Article about Starcraft has cited few sources. My problem with sources is that everything I wrote in the article is knowledge gained from playing the game itself (perhaps also from reading of the manual). Should I write that my source is the game and its manual? Walter Smith 16:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

János Kornai

Dear Piotrus!

My name is Tamás Kornai, grandson of János Kornai. I would like to thank you that you maintain that Wikipedia page about my grandfather, we really appreciate that. Please note, that you keep claiming he is also known as Josef Kornai. I can assure you he was never called Josef, neither will be called Josef. József Kornai is a fairly unknown hungarian painter. If you have any comments on it, please write to the mail address kornai[herecomestheat]t-online.hu

Thank you, Tamás Kornai

I guess the source I found was the only example of such a mispelling; in that case you are right we don't have to repeat it here, I was under the impression it is more popular. If you register, I could leave you this msg directly.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Dzielnice Katowic

Zrobiłem już 17 dzielnic (nie licząc twojego Osiedla Tysiąclecia). Narazie wszystkie to stuby. Reszta dzielnic i informacji o dzielnicach w miarę moich możliwości czasowych. Pozdrawiam. --LUCPOL 13:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: email

Thanks for getting back. For sake of continuity, I've placed a response on my user page. logologist|Talk 00:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

matthawkins404@hotmail.com

Request for assistance

Hello, Piotrus. As one of our Polish Wikipedians (I remember your assistance over the article about Witold Lutosławski), please can you look at pl:Grafika:Olivier_messiaen.jpg? It is listed there as in the public domain, but I am absolutely certain it is not. Everywhere I see the image used (here, on the cover of my copy of Jennifer Bate's recording of Livre d'orgue, on the cover of Paul Griffiths' "Olivier Messiaen and the Music of Time") it is always © Malcolm Crowthers. I think the PD assertion must incorrect, but I don't speak Polish, nor do I understand how the Polish Wikipedia deals with such problems. The error encouraged one of our French Wikipedian colleagues to upload it in error to commons, which is how I noticed it. Any chance you could take a look and do something to corrected the PD assertion? Best regards, RobertG ♬ talk 12:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. To be clear: I have sorted the problem on English Wikipedia and on Commons - but the PD tag on Polish Wikipedia really needs to change (either that or the image needs to be removed), because as it stands I'm sure it's a copyvio, and that's where I needed your kind assistance. Regards, RobertG ♬ talk 14:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Jogaila

An apparent Scot, User:Calgacus, has moved Władysław II Jagiełło to Jogaila of Lithuania, as "More sensible, less Polonocentric name." Ditto in Battle of Grunwald. Any thoughts? logologist|Talk 15:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Please go to discussion before reverting other people's work. The name you choose to move this king to is not acceptable on any reasoning. And even if an objective user (well, I'm neither Polish nor Lithuanian at least) such as myself lets it go, you can be sure that Lithuanian users in the future will make you go through the same process again. I regarded and still regard my move as uncontroversial. Maybe you can keep that in mind next time you post obnoxious comments on other people's talk pages, or at least make an attempt at discussion. Thanks. - Calgacus 17:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

History of Poland

FYI, I created three new cats under Category:History of Poland

I created only these for now because their start and end dates are less ambiguous than those of the other periods of Polish history. We can add the other ones later. Appleseed (Talk) 18:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought I posted something somewhere about moving the "history" articles, but I don't think I got any responses (this was a while ago). I'll check to make sure. As for Category:Years in Poland, I think it should be deleted. If some poor soul actually did create categories for the remaining 1000+ years of Polish history that are missing from that category, I think they would be doing WP a disservice. I think it's overkill and inelegant to boot. Would you object to deleting it? Appleseed (Talk) 03:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

When the day comes when we can put even one article in each of those 1000 categories (I shudder to think of it), it will be easy enough to create them. Right now they're just clutter. I think they should meet their maker. :) Appleseed (Talk) 03:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The Sejm and democratic peace theory

The Sejm was originally left out in a simplifying edit by Robdurbar, which omitted almost all of the examples, and all those before 1800. Since the article had started to grow again, I have put it back in.

Ultramarine has come back again, and added his usual list of objections to anything he didn't write or which doesn't advocate the Truth according to UltraPedia. Some people would rather argue than edit. He has made the Sejm one of these complaints . You may wish to comment at Talk:Democratic_peace_theory#Poland-Lithuania.

I would in fact be obliged if you were to read the whole article, and then took a look at the list of objections. In many of them, Ultramarine reads the present article text as saying something I didn't mean it to say, and don't think it does. I am emotionally involved, and my English may have been too colloquial. But this would be more trouble for you. Septentrionalis 17:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sociological view of anti-vaccinationists

I wonder if your colleague might be persuaded? Midgley 01:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Indo-Greek kingdom

Thanks for your (belated) support (and good suggestions) to the Indo-Greek Kingdom article! PHG 05:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

High Medieval Scotland Article

Thank you for your assistance on peer review (the gesture of reconciliation is also appreciated BTW :) ). I have a question though. If the bibliography is renamed "References", then what name does one give to the citations section (also called "references")? - Calgacus 23:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Zarubin i Katyń

Ciekawostka: jest sobie polski artykuł o Wasilim Zarubinie, jednym ze śledczych z Katynia. Jednocześnie jego oficjalna biografia (na stronie rosyjskiego wywiadu!) wspomina, że w początkach 1940 był jednym z oficerów odpowiedzialnych za współpracę z Gestapo... Zastanawiające. Halibu tt 01:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Mój błąd, chyba jednak nie zrozumiałem do końca o co z tym gestapo chodziło. Będę musiał toto jeszcze raz przeczytać. Póki co zajmuję się odczerwienianiem linków z artykułu o Katyń massacre, w szczególności tych związanych z moim hobby - generalicją. Na razie mam już trzech generałów, będzie więcej. Halibu tt 02:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Not that I expected anything more sensible... Halibu tt 11:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

links

Hi, sorry if I goofed. Were you referring to the linked years? They shouldn't be linked unless there's a very good reason to do so, or the date (day) is included. See WP’s policy on this at Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context; see other information at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_linking_convention_currently_ludicrous. Tony 10:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus,

Thanks so very much for supporting the recent FAC of Cheers. It was successful and Cheers has been promoted! I'm looking forward to hopefully getting Cheers on the front page. In the mean time, please accept this Beer as a token of my gratitude.

Cheers! Staxringold 12:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

Could you please take a look at list of charismatic leaders

See Talk:List_of_charismatic_leaders#See_also? thanks. Andries 19:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Greater Poland Uprising

Hi Piotruś, would you mind moving Greater Poland Uprising 1806 to Greater Poland Uprising of 1806? Thanks. Appleseed (Talk) 22:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not "Greater Poland Uprising (1806)"? [Personally, I'd make it "Wielkopolska Uprising (1806)." "Greater Poland" sounds too much like "Greater German Reich," "Greater Austria" and the like.] logologist|Talk 01:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend discussing it at the relevant page and then coming back to me :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Irving's credibility

"are all of his works non-credible?" Yes, all of his works are non-credible. After his neo-Nazi interpretations were challenged, historians investigated his earlier works like Uprising or his account of PQ-17, back to his first publications. In these early works (and earlier still) he falsified, mischaracterised, and habitually grossly mistranslated. When Irving has claimed access to special knowledge, as in Uprising this has been pure fabrication. "has it been confirmed he lied about facts?" Yes. This is unfortunate for the encyclopedist, as Irving's coverage appears to be broad in scope, and his works are readily and freely accessable in English to the internet public, unfortunately he needs to give away his works because they're unmarketable as history. Fifelfoo 23:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

My recommendation regarding using Irving as a citation is: don't. It is bad encyclopedism. It is bad history. It will make historians doubt the value of the article in question. If (and you seem to) you have Polish language, then cite Polish language sources, rather than Irving, even if Irving is the only widely available English language source. Fifelfoo 00:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

For your countless contributions to Wikipedia, I, Appleseed, present you with the Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Your work is very, very much appreciated!

Check your email

--SylwiaS | talk 00:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Nagórski

Moje najnowsze dziecię, tym razem dość dopracowane (choć copyedit potrzebny na gwałt): Jan Nagórski vel Ivan Nagursky. Czy mógłbyś dodać toto do WP:DYK? Chodzi mi o informację o tym, że Jan Nagórski, jeden z pionierów lotnictwa i pierwszy człowiek nad Arktyką, był uważany za zmarłego przez 38 lat, nim okazało się, że żyje sobie spokojnie w Warszawie. Halibu tt 08:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiem że mogę, ostatnio robię to nader często (jak widać na stronie głównej :) ). Tyle że zwyczajnie po nieprzespanej nocy szwankuje mi gramatyka i nie byłem pewien jak to ubrać w słowa. Dzięki za pomoc. Halibu tt 14:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Contempt for edit summaries

Piotrus, such edits are unacceptable. I hope you are aware of WP:RV which reads: Rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint. Reverting a good-faith edit may send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanatory edit summary." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor; do not abuse it. If you use the rollback feature other than against vandalism or for reverting yourself, be sure to explain on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted. I await your apologies. --Ghirla | talk 14:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ponowna próba

Wymazania informacji o zbrodniach popełnionych przez żółnierzy niemieckich podczas Kampanii Wrześniowej, tym razem w artykule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_17th_Infantry_Division --Molobo 22:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Dziękuję za pomoc w dyskusji. Dziękuję również za cytat z Davies'a. --Molobo 15:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nav templates

Sure, I can make templates for Polish September Campaign and Polish Soviet War. I'll let you know when they're more or less ready. Appleseed (Talk) 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Solidarność

Sure, count me in. The word "Solidarity" is one word commonly associated with Poland, yet people know almost nothing about it. Let's try to fix that. To anticipate potential fights, let's decide whether it should be under Solidarity, Solidarność, or maybe even Solidarnosc. Balcer 01:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The movement is best known in English as "Solidarity," its present Wikipedia title, which in this case should serve well. logologist|Talk 04:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Appleseed (Talk) 16:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Polecam

http://www.iskry.com.pl/fragmenty/polacy-kreml.rtf Szczególnie ciekawe jak Rosjanie opisują rzeż Pragi w podręcznikach szkolnych: Rzeź Pragi do dziś dnia jest zresztą tuszowana w rosyjskich podręcznikach historii. W jednym z ostatnich (Moskwa 2000 r., dla klasy X, pióra Buganowa i Zyrianowa) z wielkim zdziwieniem przeczytałem, iż po wzięciu szturmem Pragi „humanitarny (?) stosunek rosyjskiego generała (Suworowa) do pokonanych” doprowadził do rychłej kapitulacji lewobrzeżnej Warszawy. Ponieważ Suworow nie mógł się pogodzić z polityką represji i kontrybucji stosowaną wobec Polaków przez Katarzynę II, popadł w niełaskę i został odwołany do Petersburga. --Molobo 11:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Plakaty marzec 1968

Hej,

czy możesz podać źródło tudzież inne koneczne dane, żeby wrzucić Image:1968_Poland_banners.jpg na Commons, a najlepiej samemu ją tam zuploadować? Trochę wstyd, żeby nie było tej grafiki w polskiej wiki... =} Pozdrawiam. -- kocio 14:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Stefan Batory

To Twoja działka, więc - na wszelki wypadek, jakbyś nie zauważył - daję znać że kompletnie przerobiłem artykuł o Batorym. Z uzyciem EB1911, które pisze o nim w samych superlatywach... Na pewno jest sporo do poprawienia, ale myślę że to dobra podstawa do rozwinięcia, dodania źródeł i... może FAC? Halibu tt 20:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Bah, I'm merely getting warmed up ;) What you see is little more than a translation from the Polish wiki plus some things from the top of my head. This weekend I'm planning to open the books on my shelf and try some more sources. Halibu tt 03:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Anna Jagiellon

Piotr, could you look at Anna Jagiellon at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers)? I really have no idea how to best google her. Maybe you have some good advice?--SylwiaS | talk 21:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

PRL vs. HoP(45-89)

Piotruś, I think there's a very fine distinction between the two, and we would have a lot articles that would belong in both of those cats. I'd think it's best to get rid of the PRL cat.

A more pressing problem, I think, is all those Ruthenian princes and other people in the HoP cat. I've thought about this, and I don't think we should have *any* people in the HoP categories. They should be reachable from the (non-biographical) articles that exist in the HoP categories. For example, Chmielnicki is linked from the Chmielnicki Uprising article, so he doesn't need to be in HoP(1569-1795). What do you think? Appleseed (Talk) 01:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Stalin Society

I did not know they merited a Wikipedia article. Anyway, the group seems marginal, and they are not Russian but British anyway, so their publications do not tell us much about attitudes in Russia. I would prefer that the link be kept out of the article, as there is no reason to promote revisionist websites. Compare with Holocaust (resources) which does not list Holocaust denial sites. If we really must include sites denying the facts of the massacre, they should be clearly identified as such, and not just listed with other legitimate sources. Balcer 01:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Pewien

User używa obrażliwych słów wobec mnie notorycznie. Gdzie mogę to zgłosić ? --Molobo 00:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Sejm and most wars.

I see you altered DPT to say the Sejm vetoed most war proposals. I don't doubt you are right, but it would be nice to have a source: Frost does not discuss enough examples to make a clear statement on the subject. Septentrionalis 03:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Może Ci się przydać

http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/swiat/1,34181,3102075.html Dla przykładu: Kiedy w 1387 r. królowa Jadwiga ostatecznie przyłączyła Ruś Halicką do Polski, siła atrakcyjności polskich przywilejów spowodowała niebawem (za Jagiełły i Warneńczyka) unifikację praw i powstanie szlacheckich sejmików. Nie mam zamiaru idealizować "polskich kresów" - z tej naszej skłonności słusznie lubi się natrząsać francuski historyk i slawista Daniel Beauvois. Lecz przecież niezależnie od stuleci plemiennej wrogości oraz od wytykanego przez Beauvois polskiego kolonializmu poczucie polsko-ruskiej wspólnoty istniało bez mała zawsze. Polskie rody książęce - Sanguszkowie, Puzynowie, Czartoryscy, Czetwertyńscy, Ogińscy - wywodziły się albo od Rurykowiczów, albo od Giedyminowiczów, w obu więc przypadkach mają metryki ruskie lub przynajmniej litewsko-ruskie. Tytulatura władcy panującego w Krakowie bądź w Warszawie brzmiała: "król Polski, wielki książę litewski, ruski", a Paweł Jasienica z myślą o Michale Korybucie Wiśniowieckim ukuł nawet formułę "Ukrainiec na polskim tronie". Cóż zaś mówić o ruskich korzeniach takich rodzin jak Kościuszkowie (od Kost' - Konstanty) czy Mickiewiczowie (od Mitia - Dymitr)? Zaraz po rozbiorach śpiewano na Ukrainie o Szczęsnym Potockim: "Hej, pane Potoćky, wojewodzki synu, / Zaprodaweś Polszu, Łytwu, Ukrainu", a wkrótce po odzyskaniu niepodległości w skautowej piosence "Płonie ognisko i szumią knieje" fraza "o obrońcach naszych polskich granic" brzmiała: "o obrońcach ukrainnych granic"... O tym, gdzie kończy się Polska, a zaczyna Ruś, wyrokować było nie sposób, gdyż zarówno polskie majątki szlacheckie, jak i miasta polsko-żydowskie, a wreszcie i chłopska kolonizacja "mazurska" dochodziły aż za Kijów, podczas gdy osadnictwo ruskie docierało (jako Łemkowszczyzna i Preszowszczyzna) do przedgórza Tatr. Wojny polsko- -ukraińskie XX w. dlatego były tak krwawe, że podziały przechodziły najgłębiej - przez podwórka w jednej wsi, a nawet przez rodziny. Z dwóch braci Szeptyckich Stanisław był generałem Wojska Polskiego, Andrzej zaś metropolitą unickim, duchowym przywódcą Ukraińców walczących z Polakami. Żeby było jeszcze ciekawiej, obaj byli wnukami Aleksandra Fredry. --Molobo 14:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Zur Geschichte der Handelgesellschaften im Mittelatler & Zur Geschichte der Handelgesellschaften im Mittelalter

Hello Piotrus, I suggested the above articles for speed deletion again, since the typos are really implausible. It really doesn't help anyone finding the right article I think! :-) --Deltazero 22:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting

You might want to know that there was a voting started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography_of_Poland#Vote. Halibu tt 00:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:German Wikipedians' notice board

You asked at the Portal page whether something like this exists. It was founded yesterday and is still in its infancy. It is probably not yet suitable to reach a large number of German Wikipedians (not many people know about it yet) and we are still debating our goals. I am trying to make sure the board does not turn into a place to gather a revert warrior army. Do you have any comments or suggestions what we should do to get this right? Kusma (討論) 03:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouraging message! I hope we can create a community that is as nice as yours. Kusma (討論) 04:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Katyn

1.In russia wiki is processing big item abaut this problem.I have put some info in this english site.can you help to find some missteke?

In rusiia wiki is writed that this have find some polish pris.of war not german?jaro.p

2.Sorry for bead english.

a.in russian wiki the number 454 700 polish POV in soviet union. b.in russian wiki "In March 1942, the Poles worked in deployed in area Kozih of Mountains a building platoon № 2005, have found out burial places and have informed on them to Germans, but at that time those have not reacted in any way to this information. " from Ч. Мадайчик "Катынская драма"

Sorry, I don't know how it happened. --Ghirla | talk 17:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Żyrandol

I'm not sure what's wrong, but apparently the period of cooperation with our good old chap seems to have ended again, and again he's entering the path of conflict just for conflict's sake. Strange, I have no idea what happened - though something must've happened for sure, as he's been quite... normal before. Any ideas?

On another note, there are zillions of questions and issues raised by one of our Russian colleagues at the Talk:Katyn massacre. Kudos to the guy, at last someone who raises specific isues rather than general protests. Halibu tt 23:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion

As per your suggestion I have created Portal:Germany/New article announcements. Thanks! Olessi 23:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Grunwald

Ok. Petr, please let me know what is the policy for changing content of articles like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grunwald

The information contained there is not just wrong. It misstates names, titles and other facts, plus it sounds as an insult to the people whose legacy is simply turned upside down. What needs to be done, to make the change happen? Do you guys need signatures of 2-3-4 million people, or what?

What is the procedure? After you receive an alternative article, who examines it and says which one should be published?

A simple example. The name Vytautas has never/ever/ever been mentioned in any of the chronicles. There were two variants Vitovt in Eastern European chronicles, and Vitold in Western European ones. Vytuautas is a transcription from nowadays Lithuanian.

Nobody would ever cared how this duke is called on the Lithuanian pages. But this is an English-language page, and it makes the difference.

And many facts like that. Why my own native city of Slonim was put into Lithuania, while noone ever heard even the Lithuanian language in this city?

Tell me, who people need to appeal to to make changes to such an article. The outrage grows rapidly among many internet users.

Thanks Petr. This article contains so many flaws that it will be difficult to correct everything for me alone. I need some help from other historians, so I will get back to this issue after other concerned people also read this article and make their sugestions.

In the mean time, I still think that this is a litle bit unfair:

- First someone puts a note on such a resource as Wiki - "Max is stupid".

- And I cannot delete this message untill "an agreement/compromise is reached between the parties". This is a bad atitude. Rather there can be at least a note on the article that its content is wtill under discussion. What do you think?

This article is a lie and misinterpretation

Wikipedia Widget PL

Siema jesteś taki dobry w Angelskim Przetłumaczysz to : pl:Wikipedysta:Przemek K/Brudnopis/Wikipedia Widget Co przetłumaczysz ???? w wiki PL Przemek K <[{}]> 21:18, 11 lut 2006 (CET)

Um, używaj :pl: by omijać red linki, plz. Sorki, ale to nie moja specjalność - może ktoś inny się tym zainteresuje. Nie ma na pl odpowiednika Wikipedia:Requests for translations??--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move- Samogitians

Hello Piotr! Would you mind moving Žemaičiai to Samogitians? There are two items in the latter's history, so I can't move it myself. Olessi 21:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No prob! Olessi 22:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

A Word of Apology & A Letter of Thanks

I’m sorry if I sounded rather rude when I wrote my posting on the talk page of Roman Dmowski; I was in a rather cranky mood when I wrote it and I was unnecessarily abrasive. I am very sorry about not getting back to you earlier; I just haven’t checked the talk page for the last two months; and only now I have noticed your comments. I’m such a dork about these things.

Thank very much for checking the Polish article and doing the Google search. Your help is much appreciated. I’m very dubious about that line and I am going to move it to the talk page until it can be verified. Please accept most sincere apologies if I came across as rude, and thank you much for being a most gracious gentlemen.A.S. Brown 17:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Again!

Thank you for your help. I'll check that book you suggessted and if I can the quote, then I will put back in. Thank you again for your help.A.S. Brown 18:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not one of the technically gifted

Dear Piotrus No, I am sorry I don't know to do Google reading. I have lot to learn. Sorry about the bottomposting, my mistake. Thank you again for your help and for your patience with a techno-peasant. Yours SincerelyA.S. Brown 18:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Piotrus Thank you very much. Yours SincerelyA.S. Brown 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

History of Poland (1939–1945)

Please try to talk to Molobo. I repeatedly requested that from you and Halibutt with no result so afr, unfortunately. Too bad that the Polish community refused to do anything at all with the extremist nationalist POV pushers. Is there a chance that this would change? As a counterexample, please take a look how the Ukrainian and Russian wikicommunities reacted to the improper behaviour of their compatriots and compare it to [3]. I hope you will change your mind at some point and will realize that such extremist POV pushers harm rather than help the coverage of Polish topics at Wikipedia. --Irpen 19:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I responded to the message you left at my talk there to preserve a context. --Irpen 22:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The revert war makes me quite sad, especially that both main participants seem to have quite some knowledge on the matter, but got completely blind to what the other guy says. This has gotten out of control. Seing the revert war raging on, I proposed Irpen a way to settle the dispute in a civilized way. Here are the basic steps I propose:

We revert the article to some pre-revert-war version (Piotrus' version of Feb. 1 seems a fine choice)
Then all of the people involved refrain from editing the article on their own. We could even block the article for some time. There were enough reverts there today to ask some admin to revert at random and block the article anyway, so I believe such a solution is in accordance with the rules.
We add the {{maintained| {{user4|Irpen}}<br>{{user4|Halibutt}}<br>{{user4|Piotrus}}<br>{{user4|Molobo}}<br>{{user4|whomever}}}} tag to the talk page, just in case anybody wondered
We prepare a list of issues at the talk page or some temporary sub-page of the article (I could do the basic formatting). Ideally such a list would be broken down onto separate sections: one for a mere list of issues (numbered) that all parties believe should be mentioned in the part in question; one for the various wordings during the revert war, one for discussion on various issues raised, their sources and so on; and one for the proposed compromise wording.
After a compromise is reached on each of the sections, we apply the changes to the main article on a case by case basis.
Then we ask for peer review of the article and move along to other issues.

What do you say? Halibu tt 22:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine, since we (me, Irpen, Molobo and Piotrus) agreed for my solution, I'm starting the formatting of the talk page right away. Could you revert the article to some pre-revert war version and add the {{POV}} tag to the top? I'm not sure it needs to be blocked, for now the {{inuse}} tag would suffice. Halibu tt 22:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

POV-pushing from either side and revert warring is a damage in itself, but as all of the parties involved agreed to settle the dispute in a civilized manner, I think we could live without the block or random revert. However, if the cease fire is broken, I will be the first to report the article. Fine? Halibu tt 22:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

SANGUSZKO

Dear Piotrus: Why Andrey (Ghirlandajo) sais so taxative: (I quote) "Like other princely houses of Poland, its origin has been considered murky"? Gustav Korwin-Szwedowski 02:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Poland/New article announcements

Please, teach me how can do it right. Thank you very much. Gustav Korwin-Szwedowski 08:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Communist time jokes

On the subject of jokes, and speaking as a collector of communist-era jokes, it remained me of another one: Czasy są cieżkie, powiedział żołnierz Armii Czerwonej zdejmując zegar z wieży. :) Kiedyś miałem kolekcję raportów UB o dowcipach w sowieckich czasach. Szkoda że nie zachowałem. Dowcip o zegarkach i Chruszczowie :Chruszczow jechał pociągiem z żoną do NRD, ta znudzona pyta czy już są na miejscu, Chruszczow wyciąga rękę przez okno i po chwili mówi-nie jeszcze jesteśmy w Rosji. Kilka godzin póżniej to samo-i mówi, nie kochanie jesteśmy w Polsce. Wreszcie po następnych kilku godzinach Chruszczow po wyciągnięciu ręki mówi-no żonko jesteśmy w NRD. Ta zdumiona pyta się jak on mógł wiedzieć gdzie jest zaledwie wyciągając. To proste kochanie odpowiada Chruszczow, wiedziałem że jesteśmy w Rosji, gdy zdjęli mi z ręki zegarek, wiedziałem że jestem w Polsce gdy ludzie zaczęli mi pluć na nią, a w NRD gdy zaczęto ją całować. Taka mała anegdota z czasów internacjonalistycznej przyjażni ;)

Pozdrawiam. --Molobo 12:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Earthdawn

Thanks for your excellent contribution to the Races section on Earthdawn that I started! Ryanjunk 21:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your comment on my talk page, I posted it there as well so people will know. "I blanked out the welcome message from my talk page, just seemed silly to keep it around. No messages since then apart from yours. Oh, one brief suggestion about tagging my vandalism reverts properly also. I read since then it's not considered good to do that, but I think it's no great harm for what was on it." Ryanjunk 21:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

False accusations and unwanted fame

Thanks for pointing out that article in the Times that mentions my user name. It is of course complete nonsense.

It's true that I have edited Tony Blair, but only once, and that to revert a small piece of vandalism that others seemed to have missed. Has someone been using my id? (I think not). Has some journalisht got their facts wrong as usual? (I think so).

Your suggestions as to what I should do would be welcome.

Toby Thurston, 16 Feb. Thruston 23:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Kulturkampf

Hello there. I've been watching the revert wars and conflicts at Kulturkampf for quite a while. Yesterday I finally decided to give myself a try at settling the dispute with the good ol' tactics of settle by expansion. Could you take a look at the Polish part of the article and tell me what you think? Cheers! Halibu tt 00:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

1996 U.S. campaign finance scandal

I've checked all the links and everything is A-OK. If you like the article, the administrator just re-added it to the FAC page so you can vote for it if you want. Thanks! --Jayzel68 02:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean. I am not seeing any red links at the top of the campaign finance page. Can you be more specific? Which link is red? --Jayzel68 03:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I figured out what you meant. Sorry, I am still new here :) --Jayzel68 03:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean now, but I have no idea how to fix it. What does "creasted" mean? --Jayzel68 03:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request

If you have time, please take a look at Georg von Boeselager.--Joe 20:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks, but I seriously doubt there is any sense behind it. With Ghirlandajo around and with a vast part of wikipedians considering me to be "a Pole" instead of "a Wikipedian" (as proven by my previous RfA), I seriously doubt such an attempt would pass. Also, I don't think I would like to live through yet another wave of criticism, similar to the last one - not yet, not now. After thinking of it for a while I don't think it's worth it. The community has voiced its dissagreement with my candidacy strongly enough and I see no option but to respect this. Wikivacations seems a much better option than another RfA. Thanks for asking me anyway. Halibu tt 02:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User independent Quebec 2

I object, per se... but I'm not going to delete again and get into a war over it. I thought CSD T1 was supposed to have us delete that... but, do as you will... it's really not that big of a deal. If you know what I mean? So, I'm not going to delete it again or anything... but I'm not going to say they should exist. gren グレン ^? 00:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Solidarity box

Interesting. Thanks for pointing out Polish September Campaign as an example. I'll ponder it for a bit. I was worried about {{ref}} within a template, but I see this works around it. Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Indus Valley Civilization renomination for Featured Article

request for peer review added:-)

History rhymes

Per Wikipedia:NOR, "Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged." The article's title and theme are provided by Mark Twain, the historical references — by respective Wikipedia articles. logologist|Talk 21:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Cat on GDL

Would you reconsider this edit? GDL was not Polish region. The same as Kingdom of Poland was not Lithuanian region. Renata 03:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are doing and completely agree with you. My watchlist was inflated from various attempts to clean up the history cat. Just I think this one is wrong; was added without much thinking (that happens a lot when you are doing some routine stuff). And the (1579-1795) cat would be much better, IMHO. Renata 04:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Renaissance in Poland, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 16:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

HoP

I see that the HoP category has gotten a lot slimmer. Are the one I should thank for that? Also congrats on the Renaissance article. Appleseed (Talk) 20:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Warsaw Uprising

Hi, I was hoping to fix some of the article titles in the Warsaw Uprising series before it goes to FA. Take a look at my discussion with Logologist on his talk page. Appleseed (Talk) 20:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Siemienowicz by Wiśniewski

What's the ground for this: being PD?Wlos 11:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it a bookcover? A far, as I remember, it's an illustration from the inside of the book. Wlos 18:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

George Costakis article

Would you please look at this article. I have written it but it cannot be accessed by the search. The subject is George Costakis. I am linking it to the page 'abstract art'. Can you help ? Thank you. paula clare 10:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, Thank you for the information and help with adding Category . paula clare 22:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your voting!

Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.

If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very much, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar Ribbons - FYI

Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/Ribbons --evrik 21:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about failing to notify you. I got distracted. evrik 22:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair use deletions

Please discuss this issue with the Wikimedia Board of Trustees or Jimbo Wales if you feel that I have been unfair in my deletions. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said, please take this up with Jimbo and the Board. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your comments on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 22:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Geography vote

Hi, do you think it's time to end the geography vote on communes etc? And how should it be done? Could you do that or should I ask someone who didn't vote themselves?

BTW I wasn't around for some time, and I see that you left me a message. Do you still want me to comment or it's not a current topic anymore?--SylwiaS | talk 22:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Rydz-smigly time cover September 11 1939.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Rydz-smigly time cover September 11 1939.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Ta bu shi da yu 13:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:TIME cover 1980 Poland 1101800901 400.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:TIME cover 1980 Poland 1101800901 400.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Ta bu shi da yu 13:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Che Guevara

Hello Piotrus, regarding your objections on the FAC page; I believe all your objections have been addressed. Any more comments would be appreciated. Thank you LordViD 18:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

False Friends of the Slavist

Please have a look at wikibooks:False Friends of the Slavist. With your language skills, you can help us very much there, though there is not too much to be done. See also wikibooks:Talk:False Friends of the Slavist for details on what is still needed. Thanks in advance! --Daniel Bunčić 18:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Polish Gulag

Regarding the history of 1944-1949.Here is an interesting article: [4] Basically during the period of Soviet occupation(44-49) at least 25.000 people perished in Soviet camps alone. --Molobo 23:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

County vs district

Saw your post there. Thanks for the offer. I could use a cookie just now. :) Listen, does that happen often that people launch personal attacks on others just because they don't agree? I'm pretty sure Staffelde meant me with his post and I decided to ignore the implied statements. But BOY!, was I tempted to straighten him out... --Mmounties (Talk) 00:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Szablon

Bardzo chetnie, rozbije go na cztery czesci. (Musze jeszcze zrobic te dwa szablony, o ktore mnie wczesniej prosiles!) Ale jak mam go nazwac? Troche mi sie nie podoba uzywanie polskich nazw na ktore istnieja angielskie odpowiedniki, strasznie jest to koslawe ("Template:Kanclerz's of Poland"). Czy nie lepiej zmienic tytul artykulu Kanclerz na Chancellor (Poland)?

Lubie szablony poniewaz widac wszystkie czerwony linki.

Apropo szablonow, probuje je wszystkie zebrac do kupy w Category:Polish navigational boxes. Czy juz wszystkie znalazlem? Appleseed (Talk) 22:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Social anxiety peer review

Hi, I've made a few more changes. The major change is I expanded the introduction per WP:LEAD but now I think it may be too specific. I've also changed a couple of headers. I'd like to hear your thoughts. Thanks. :) Gflores ^Talk 08:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Imminent renaming of Polish monarchs

Please be aware that User:Francis Schonken is readying to rename Polish kings (Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło). This will be a great setback for the cause of Polish culture in the world. logologist|Talk 10:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Battles and wars

Perhaps, but I don't have the patience to start disputing with Irpen's beliefs right now. I lost patience waiting for him to state any sources some time ago and I'm afraid I would loose my temper as well, which would not be the best solution. Halibu tt 11:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, perhaps you could tell me what would be the best dispute resolution process in case of User:Maria Stella and her crusade at Erika Steinbach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? I recently spent half night rephrasing and sourcing that article to end the, apparently endless, disputes on where the heck was she born. After my edits even Chris23 was satisfied with the compromise and it seemed to me that the matter is closed. And that's when Maria Stella came and basically reverted all of my changes to the disputed version. I have no patience to engage in lengthy chats over her view of history and would like to ask for some external help. However, I'm not sure what would be the best way. Halibu tt 15:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Witch trials

Hi Piotrus,
Please look at the Witch trials and let me know what is happening there. I tried several methods of conflict resolution, but in vain. Thanks. David Cruise 01:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

I'm not sure what you're planning to do with these lists. Leave them as lists of offices? List, within them, all their individual holders?

Some of your English translations of Polish office names are at variance with the English versions in the article on Offices in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Someone moved Jadwiga Angevin to Jadwiga of Poland; I've reverted the move.

User:Halibutt has opened a vote, at Talk:Wielkopolska Uprising, to officially move Wielkopolska Uprising to Greater Poland Uprising. (He writes currently somewhere, I forget where, that he favors authentic spellings of names — except in the case of royal and geographic names! I don't understand the man.) logologist|Talk 05:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Illuminatus

hi, you complained in Wikipedia:Peer review/The Illuminatus! Trilogy/archive1 that there was not enough pics. can you check the article again and see if its ok now? The Illuminatus! Trilogy. thx Zzzzz 21:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

NPA and User:Jadger

Hi again. Just like in the case of Maria Stella I mentioned above, I wonder what to do with this one. There's a pretty offensive comment at User:Jadger's user page and I'm not sure what to do with it. Does it fall under WP:NPA or is it simply me overreacting? In any case I asked the person to remove my name from his user page - to no avail so far. Halibu tt 12:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Halibutt again takes my words out of context, and not being a native english speaker, does not understand the tiny nuances that make up the English language, and so I am not accusing him of anything. I have edited my user page, or as Halibutt puts it the "attack page", but if it were an attack page why would it start with information about myself, if I wanted to attack anything, I would not give away any critical information.

I have however changed my userpage so that Halibutt and others can understand what I am saying, instead of misconstruing it in order to try and get me banned. After all, what good would it be if I am banned? then Halibutt would have basically free reign to do what he wants.

BTW, I love you to Halibutt, I can't stop talking about you to other people as well, cuz ur such a swell guy. xox oxo --Jadger 04:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested

[5] --Molobo 12:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:POLMIL

Hi there! You might want to know that the good ol' Wikipedia:WikiProject Polish Army has been restarted, this time as WP:POLMIL, a part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. As the main tasks of the previous WikiProject have been fulfilled (both Polish-Bolshevik and Polish Defensive wars are now featured), we might want to start yet another quest for some holy grail. Any ideas? Halibu tt 14:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Gosiewski (Korwin)

Gustav Korwin-Szwedowski 04:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you need? Pepsidrinka 04:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the {{helpme}} due to no response. If you still need help with something, you may send me a message on my talk page, or put the helpme tag back on your talk page. Pepsidrinka 04:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

Drogi Proknsul, I asked Halibutt a question on his talk page concerning Wiki "etiquette", and he suggested I let you take a "stab" at it. Any thoughts? Dr. Dan 03:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sociological theory

Greetings, I am contending that Sociological theory should not be a disambiguation page as the concepts are too closely related to justify that. Please comment at Talk:Sociological theory. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Witkacy's images

CCed to Halibutt and Piotrus:
Gentlemen, could you please stop by occasionally at Witkacy's talk to check for new notices from copyright paranoia affected users and their bots. Not that I miss the fellow but many of his images are useful. I happened to have his page in my watchlist from old times and prompted by messages there fixed most of what I could fix. I think it will take you much less time to sort this out since you are much better aware of the copyright law as applied to PL images. Please consider adding his talk to your watchlist if you are interested in helping to keep his images alive against the self-styled wikipedia copyright enforcers and their bots. --Irpen 22:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

History of Poland

Hello again. As can be seen in some of my recent articles, I fell in love with the wikimedia reference system :) I'm currently working on the Soviet part of Polish history 1939-1941 at User:Halibutt/Soviet. I thought you might want to take a look and tell me what's missing... Halibu tt 14:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The only backup on that I got so far was an enigmatic comment by Irpen, who promised to explain his stance a bit in the future. However, I received no comments so far, be them positive or negative. Given the level of touchiness of both the subject and our post-Soviet friends here I'd rather discuss that part before I put it anywhere. Halibu tt 16:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ręce opadają

Tym razem Irpen próbuje w http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_contribution_to_World_War_II przedstawiać Świerczewskiego jako reprezentatywnego wobec Polskiej kontrybucji w II WŚ(a konkretnie jego defiladę w Moskwie). Oczywiście argumenty że jest to człowiek który mordował żołnierzy AK i wprowadzał stalinowskich reżim i jako taki raczej nie powinien służyć jako przykład Polskich żołnierzy w IIWŚ nie trafiają do niego-jego odpowiedzią jest że Polska "cenzuruje historię"(jakaś kolejna nowa teoria z Rosji). Jak chcesz się męczyć to zapraszam...--Molobo 00:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It is sad that Molobo still refuses to use English at Wikipedia. The article's talk provides an explanation. Piotrus, I responded to your request at my talk. Please remember to check there as per the message I wrote at the top of my talk page. --Irpen 00:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I only use Polish on regional and personal pages Irpen-just like you and your collegues use Russian.

--Molobo 00:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"I only use Polish on regional and personal pages". Irrespective of what Irpen does, it is universally considered as extremely rude to discuss other people in a foreign language, no matter where or why. To make things worse, you are constantly getting involved in petty national skirmishes and habitually presume to be speaking on behalf of some ill-defined Polish cause. So, when you resort to discussing your opponents with other Polish editors "behind their backs", people might identify such behaviour with the Polish Wikipedia community at large. Therefore, by doing so, you are actively damaging Poland's reputation.

Unless if it is to discuss other people in a language they do not understand, I am not categorically against using other languages on personal talks or regional projects. That said, I have never seen Wikipedians from other countries use their mother tongue as intensively as Poles do. No matter how you look at it, by using languages other than English you are always shutting somebody out. At best, you imply that a given topic is irrelevant for speakers of other languages - which it may well be, but who is to say? Why not let people decide for themselves? At worst, you indicate that it is "non of their business". This isn't good for the atmosphere on Wikipedia, and it has nothing to do with me being anti-Polish (to counter a predictable response in advance). --Thorsten1 09:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Not long ago Thorsten you agreed to discuss only articles and stop engaging in personal discussions.

--Molobo 12:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This is very much a public issue, not a personal one. Of course, anyone can discuss other people's edits or statements in a language other than English as much as they like. However, other people will tend to form a specific opinion about the personality of anyone who does so. --Thorsten1 19:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Thorsten you should create a seperate wiki where people will write elaborate essays on personalities of other registered users ? It could be interesting experiment. However here please stick to discussing articles rather then people. --Molobo 19:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Photo of AK murderers

Here Piotrus, the people on the photo were involved with following: http://www.ipn.gov.pl/bep_wystawy_lublin_chelm.html To z tego okresu pochodzi słynny dekret o ochronie państwa, na podstawie którego groziła kara śmierci z jedenastu artykułów, w tym za posiadanie radioodbiornika bez zezwolenia. Wyroki śmierci zatwierdzali generałowie: Karol Świerczewski i Michał Rola-Żymierski. Nowa władza całkowicie opierała się na ACz, której liczebność szacuje się w tym czasie na terenie „Polski Lubelskiej” na ok. 2,5 mln żołnierzy. Na podstawie zawartego 26 lipca 1944 r. porozumienia PKWN oddawał obywateli polskich pod jurysdykcję wojskowych władz sowieckich. Swobodnie działały tu sowieckie organa bezpieczeństwa oraz kontrwywiad. Nad wszystkim czuwał pełnomocnik sowieckiego dowództwa gen. Nikołaj Bułganin. Jednocześnie jeszcze w sierpniu został wydany dekret o ustanowieniu Milicji Obywatelskiej oraz dekret o mobilizacji do utworzonego Wojska Polskiego z połączenia armii Berlinga i Armii Ludowej. Obie struktury były kierowane m.in. do zwalczania oporu przeciwko PKWN. --Molobo 02:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC) http://www.zwoje-scrolls.com/zwoje19/text11p.htm STALINOWSKI TERROR KOMUNISTYCZNY W POLSCE

W tzw. Ludowym Wojsku Polskim (LWP), do którego wcielano ludzi z przymusowego poboru, wśród nich żołnierzy AK, rozpoczęło sie polowanie na AKowców. Setki żołnierzy stanęło przed sądami wojennymi, oskarżonych o zdradę lub dezercję, niekiedy zresztą prawdziwą dezercję. Zamek w Lublinie stał się znowu katownią, jaką był za okupacji niemieckiej. Posypały się wyroki śmierci. Zatwierdzali je polscy generałowie - Rola-Żymirski, Berling, Świerczewski, Bukojemski. Zamek w Lublinie stał się katownią, taką jaką był pod okupacją niemiecką. Tracono żołnierzy LWP i AKowców z lasów. Jednym z nich był np. cichociemny Rossiecki, oskarżony o próbę zamachu na Edwarda Osóbkę-Morawskiego. Tylko od połowy listopada do połowy grudnia stracono w Lublinie 35 żołnierzy, byłych AKowców a od stycznia do lipca 1945 - 38.

Wymordowano setki AKowców w Rzeszowskiem, Lubelskiem, Białostockiem. Jeszcze niedawno, w ostatnich latach, odkryto na tych terenach masowe groby. Aresztowano, stracono lub zesłano szereg oficerów AK i przedstawicieli Delegatury Rządu, którzy ujawniali się wobec wkraczającej armii sowieckiej i LWP. W sumie ponad 60 tysięcy Akowców zesłano w głąb Rosji do obozów Gułagu, głównie w okolice Uralu, ale także i na daleką Syberię. Zesłano gen. Kazimierza Tumidajskiego (dowódcę Okręgu Lubelskiego AK), który potem zmarł w obozie w Diagilewie koło Riazania w Rosji. Niektórzy z wywiezionych AKowców, wrócili w roku 1947, inni w 1956, a inni nie wrócili nigdy, zostając na, a właściwie w nieludzkiej ziemi. --Molobo 12:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC) I hope Peter you realise now why photos of such people are highly inproper as representing Polish contribution in WW2 --Molobo 12:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Odrodzenie

It seems the dispute is over a single line. Since you wrote the bulk of the article, can you provide a reference? I hope that will do the trick. Appleseed (Talk) 22:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Renaissance in Poland

Piotrus, I meant no offense by POV tagging the article. I just think that the most useful thing for editors who came to improve the article (besides the article itself is the article history and the article's talk. Silly edit wars fill the histories with pages of empty entries rendering them useless. The edits to the article and the talk in haste render the talk pages nearly as useless. I saw no other way to stop the edit war since Molobo was motivated to revert the corrections others proposed as many times as it would be necessary and with AndriyK's having joined him, the war would have just loomed. I tagged it to simply stop this activity.

Speaking of which reminds me the recent dispute at the History of PL 39-45 article. I warned Halibutt against adding a provocative section before we get it polished specifically posting it to an already contentious article would break the temporary truce we had there and will provoke new reverts both of other stuff and the edit conflicts regarding the new part. I was totally correct. Soon after he posted his draft, Molobo did exactly what I predicted. Now, there will be another bunch of edits in haste by all sides. Why could not it wait? If not in Halibutt's userspace than in a separate article since the topic is totally legitimate for an article on its own. Oh well :(. I am going to get back to History of PL article soon. Too bad if Molobo runs amok all over again. Regards, --Irpen 05:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please reconsider uglifying the Kievan Rus' article by throwing the "fact" templates for every, no matter how widely known, statement. I could easily make your life difficult by going into articles where you wrote something and throw a "fact" template after every sentence. Anyway, please reconsider at least some of your fact templates and go over the ones Molobo edit. You can't in good faith doubt most of this material. Consider readin the Columbia and Britannica articles on the subject if you are interested. --Irpen 20:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

When I tried to use a single, more general template, I was reverted [6]. Now, it is not that I doubt that the information in the article is true, but I want to see academic references for those facts. And by all means, there are many article I worked on - including most of my previous FAs - that do not use inline references and would need those templates too. Eventually all articles should be referenced as good as Katyn massacre. Incidentally, if you look at how that article was developed (for example here) you'll see that I added many fact templates to it, which were eventually repalced by proper citations. I'll certainly NOT mind if you are more active in using this template, on Poland-related (or other) articles. As for Halibutt's addition, I advised him to move it to mainspace (although not necessarily to that section). I think that articles tend to improve much more if they are edited by many people, and controverial articles attract more attention than the others.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If you agree with the info, just want others to follow your style with inline refs, just ask at talk. Templates are uglifying and should be used for really disputable info, not to prompt the styllistical improvemt. People are busy and they add refs only to what's considered not common knowledge. Too bad, but we have our day jobs and a thing called "life". WP is not becoming ideal in any foreseeble future and making articles look ugly does more harm then good. That is unless the statement is disputable in which case the challenge will help correct it.

As for the Halibutt's text now being in the article, it could have been polished in the mainspace but in a separate article. As an article it would have got enough attention anyway. What we got now is extra conflicts in History of PL '39-45. Conflicts aren't always bad, bud with editors trying to "outrun" their opponents and doing edits in haste, ignoring the talk or talking irrelevant or nonsense there, using 3RR as alotment, the trial by fire makes articles worse rather than better. Besides with hundreds of useless edits (or reverts) added within a day or two it would get impossible to sort this all out using the article's history.

The result would be a change of at least somewhat consistent, but perhaps POV-tainted articles, into a total mess of disconnected pieces pasted together with each of them having its own edit war and each of them terribly POV: one in one direction and the other in the opposite direction. This would be an overall loss in article's quality and an unaffordable loss for us. Please note, that this doesn't help even in solve the pre-existing POV problems with the article because discontinued pieces would be even more POV-corrupted. There are some articles, where it is tempting to do some FAST changes and not care. Those, are usually "strong stuff" articles, like -phobia (Russo-, Polono-, Romano-) or -philia (Russification, Polonization, Ukranization, Rumanization). Even in those "strong-stuff" articles itchy edits usually damage rather than improve them. In articles with reasonable amount factual material, especially proofread ones, this just tears them apart. Please try to explain it to your guys. --Irpen 22:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)