Krakowski

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Krakowski! 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 15:43, 18 June 2010 (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

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Hello and welcome Krakowski! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland, joining the project, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with our community.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Saints Peter and Paul Church, Kraków

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Marek Strzała

The article Marek Strzała has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Self-published books, owns a small private business, unreliable references used... seems to fail WP:NOTABILITY

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability of Marek Strzała

I opened a discussion at WT:POLAND. You are welcome to participate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You can also request that the deleted page is restored in your own userspace, where you could work to improve it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Krakow-info

I have proposed the article Krakow-info for deletion. After searching online I can find little but references by travel guides and similar listings. Discussions are normally held for 7 days, and you can find it at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Krakow-info. Let me refer you to WP:GNG and WP:WEB, which point what is it that I feel the website is missing - frankie (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A thought

I would suggest that you may want to focus on writing content about Kraków, rather than about minor websites, which come and go. With all due respect to krakow-info, or magical krakow, their creators, if they care about Krakow, would do better to contribute to Wikipedia, rather then to create their own websites, which will not be featured so prominently in search engines, are not supported, often have ads, and likely will go down in few years, when they give up. Such websites were useful - in 1990s. Now, we have Wikipedia. With regards to the fact that Wikipedia uses them as sources - iti is unfortunate, because they don't appear to be reliable. We should remove those links, replacing them with more reliable references (printed sources, or established websites). PS. See also WP:WEB for what makes a website notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure

Hi Krakowski. I note you have some concerns regarding the above essay. I have been helping build policy, guideline, WikiProject and essay pages for some years now. They are works in progress by their very nature and depend on collaborative involvement. This particular work in progress is intended to be an amalgamation of existing WikiProject essays/advice on how to structure articles on settlements and places. Your contributions are very welcome and encouraged. If there are some aspects of it that concern you, please either directly address them by positive action, raise them on the talkpage or bring them to my attention. The tagging you are engaged in is not helpful, and gives the appearance of being dismissive, even if your attentions are intended to be positive and encouraging. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 16:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Kraków and etymologies

I can recall pondering where etymologies should go. And I think that the etymology section in the Kraków article has moved around a few times. I recall raising the issue myself as I thought it would be useful to have some conformity on where to place an etymology section and offered suggestions for when there is enough material the etymology should be a standalone section placed either before or after the history section, or at the end of the article. The view was that the etymology should be part of the history section, though with the flexibility that if the material does grow, it can be a standalone. Though I don't recall there being any consensus on where such a section should go. The existing advice is in Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements#History, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline#History.

If you feel strongly that the etymology section should be a standalone, and should be the first section, then I would support raising the issue again on relevant WikiProjects so we can move toward getting a broad consensus on this. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 16:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is one discussion - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements#Toponymy. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 17:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Most certainly, I did not mean to upset you with my quick revisions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure, but your new entry caught my attention mainly because of the way you described your revision to Krakow presumably based on Wikipedia guideline even though such working guideline might not actually exist. Your edit summary said: per guidelines Etymology should be in the History section. I looked around and found out that the only reference to what you said leads to an article you created by copy-pasting an odd American model. Please do not remove 'all' warnings from your new article, because you might mislead others into believing that your first draft (including references to Wikipedia guidelines) has a broader community base for any settlement layout, which is incorrect at this stage. You can use 'work in progress' template instead if you want. I don't mind, and good luck with it. -- Krakowski (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. What is happening, though, is I am using consensus gathered from existing essays and my experience as an editor and GA reviewer of settlement articles, and discussions on various talkpages. None of this is my invention. At the moment, in fact, all the words come from existing WikiProject essays. Your involvement in building the essay would be welcomed. Do you have understanding of existing consensus, or experience in building settlement articles, or of reviewing them for GA or FA, or of working on guidelines or WikiProject essays? That would be an asset - though shouldn't be a hindrance if you haven't, as long as you have a collaborative, flexible, communicative and helpful approach to editing. I don't know what sort of editor you are at the moment, but I'm willing to find out. I always enjoy working with others. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 16:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, I appreciate that. I regret that our interaction started on the wrong foot, but I'm afraid you might have taken an unfortunate approach to building your new article irrespective of your prior experience in these matters. In my opinion, copy-pasting what's already written and making it into a new entry is OK only for as long as the scope of the new article remains unchanged, which is not the case here. There's no consensus… not even a word about the prospect of extending UK geography and US history essays into guidelines for all cities in all countries, however, that is what the title of your new article indicates. Would you like to invite WikiProject Cities to a discussion without insisting on changing prominent articles? Krakow is one of the most popular pages within WikiProject Poland. Not a good place to introduce new ideas without consensus. — Krakowski (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked again at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline trying to understand where the edit war over etymology of Kraków originated from. I also noticed that you made a number of improvements to that guideline which I support wholeheartedly (i.e. Notable people with bare lists adding little of value). The fact is, most US cities are hundreds of years younger than their Indo-European counterparts with names requiring little more than a brief note sometimes. Meanwhile, truly old cities have a body of knowledge associated with their founding, often spanning old legends and ancient linguistic traditions, which is the cornerstone of toponymy as science. That is why the US guideline turns out problematic elsewhere. BTW, I'd like to see your essay become more of a guideline eventually. — Krakowski (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:KSA-Krakow.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:KSA-Krakow.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)