User talk:Piotrus/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Sassanid Empire

Hi ! Thnak you for your support. About your objections could you be more specific so I could work on those ?Amir85 06:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

no no ! It wasn't problematic at all, all I'm saying is regarding to your comment "2) add a section on geography and administrative division" you mean I should add a geographical subsection or what ? All the best. Amir85 18:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Louis Faury

I'm very sorry man, I don't have anything on him. Btw, I replied to your last message in the FAC review.UberCryxic 04:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello

You asked my about my numbers on my page about Poles who DIED fighting WITH the Soviets during ww2, after the Soviets hade kicked out the nazies in 1944. If you have a source that says 30 thousand who died and I have have a source that syas 24 thousand it dosent mean that any of them are right or wrong, 6 thousand here 6 thousand there ment nothing to Stalin so we will never know the real number of Poles who died fighting with the Svoiets after the country got liberated. (Deng 14:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

Marszałek sejmu

I responded to your question about "Marszałek sejmu" on the article's discussion page.

I also previously left suggestions regarding titles for the "Warsaw Uprising" articles, I think, at Appleseed's discussion page (or perhaps in an email to him). logologist|Talk 17:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they're on your talk page, Logologist. Appleseed (Talk) 21:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wieluń

Can you move Bombing of Wieluń in World War II to Bombing of Wieluń (it won't let me do it)? I'm not aware of any other time when the town was bombed. Appleseed (Talk) 21:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Article listed for deletion

Hi,

I noticed from the Inclusionist page on Wikimedia that you're an article inclusionist and that you're against censorship, so I was wondering if you would be able to do me a huge favor and possibly vote here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs. I've been working on the article for months, and now they want to delete it. If you could, I would be greatly in your debt.

Best wishes,

Primetime 16:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Warszawa

Ostatnio znów przeglądałem mój zbiór sieciowych varsavianów i na jednej ze stron (bodaj tej - polecam) znalazłem coś nowego: Warschau- Der letzte Blick. Niesamowita rzecz, niemieckie zdjęcia lotnicze mojego miasta, zrobione w ciągu ostatnich dni przed wybuchem powstania. Pół nocy spędziłem wgapiając się w ekran... Halibutt 04:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A skoro już o herbach mowa - ostatnio znów zacząłem się tym nieco bawić (zobacz tutaj. Masz jakieś zamówienia? Halibutt 17:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Epigon

Dorobiłem się epigona :) A nawet plagiatora, bo mam wrażenie, że facet (i to jeden z "naszych") popełnił zwykłe copyvio - i to seryjnie... Image:Irp.jpg, Image:PodlaskieIRP.JPG, Image:PodlaskieIRP.JPG, Image:SmoleńskieIRP.JPG, Image:PodlaskieRP.JPG, Image:CzernihowskieIRP.JPG, Image:WitebskieIRP.JPG, Image:PodolskieIRP.JPG, Image:MińskieIRP.JPG, Image:MścisławskieIRP.JPG, Image:PołockieIRP.JPG, Image:PoznańskieIRP.JPG, Image:RawskieIRP.JPG, Image:Irp1635.jpg, Image:IRP3Narodów.JPG, Image:PolSwedU.JPG, Image:Irp1701.jpg, Image:RP 1686.JPG, Image:RP 1701.JPG, Image:7 yearswar.JPG, Image:UPolSzwedz.JPG, Image:PolRuswar 1792.JPG, Image:PolishRuswar 1792.JPG... Zastanawiam się co z tym fantem zrobić. Z jednej strony facet wyraźnie naruszył licencję GFDL (i był tego świadom, bo zakleił moją informację o moich prawach), a do tego jego mapki są dość niskiej jakości (mówię głównie o stronie technicznej). Z drugiej strony na pewno lepsze to niż moje wiecznie niedokończone mapy, nad którymi wciąż nie mam czasu posiedzieć... Masz jakiś pomysł co z tym fantem zrobić? Halibutt 07:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Poza moimi mapkami i kolorowymi zdjęciami z Time-Life, ów kolega wgrał także na commons coś z Twojej działki (Image:Herb Lis1.jpg i Image:Herb Gryf1.jpg. Widać jego podejście do kwestii praw autorskich jest jeszcze luźniejsze niż moje... Halibutt

Oczywiście napisałem doń i na polskiej wiki i na commons, ale jak dotąd bez odzewu. Prawdę powiedziawszy, z jego strony dyskusji na polskiej wiki wynika, że nie ma on w zwyczaju odpowiadać na komentarze... Halibutt 17:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Wychodzi na to, że nasz Mathiasrex powinien stać się nowym symbolem Matuzalema. Zobacz jaką fotkę własnoręcznie pstryknął: Image:Warsaw1861.JPG (author-Maciej Szczepańczyk-user Mathiasrex). Halibutt 13:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyrillic

BTW, if reading Cyrillic is a problem to you, you might want to install this extension. In a matter of seconds it is able to transliterate whole web pages from cyrillic to international transcryption. You can even create your own custom transcryption scheme that would look almost like Polish. It makes one's life in wikipedia much, much easier ;) Halibutt 17:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Breguet

Proste tłumaczenie licencji z pl.wiki. Ale masz rację, wypadałoby lepiej toto opisać. Myślę, że znajdę odpowiednią ustawę i zrobię szablon podobny do {{PD-Poland}}. A co do PolandGov - czekam na odpowiedź od człowieka z którym rozmawiałem. Skarżył mi się że mają tam teraz straszny bajzel (nic dziwnego, wystarczy włączyć telewizor żeby wiedzieć dlaczego) i że termin oczekiwania na odpowiedź znacznie im się wydłużył. Zobaczymy, jeśli do połowy tygodnia nie odpowiedzą - będę dzwonił dalej. Jakby co - mam jeszcze w zanadrzu telefon do maherów od ADM i AAN w Warszawie, a nuż z nimi uda się dogadać. Halibutt 21:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A skoro o tym mowa, nie znasz kogoś, kto miałby dostęp do któregoś z serwisów prawniczych, w których takie ustawy można znaleźć? Chodzi mi zwłaszcza o ustawę z 1926 o prawie autorskiem i jej tekst ujednolicony z 1935... Halibutt 21:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with section edit buttons at my talk page? I can see them and they work just fine... Halibutt 22:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"Category:Polish rokosz's"

Appleseed points out correctly that "Category:Polish rokosz's," as written, is unsatisfactory. (Actually, it is ungrammatical — a possessive case instead of a plural.) Would you object to changing the category to read: "Category:Polish rebellions"? Within it, the various "rokoszes" would still appear under that name. logologist|Talk 22:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Mikołaj Krzysztof Sapieha

Dear Piotr, I am sorry my only source about Mikołaj Krzysztof Sapieha is Ryszard Jurzak’s Dynastic Genealogy. Gustav Korwin-Szwedowski 06:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Prawa i strona

Dzięki za zgłębianie tematu "ustawy o prawie autorskiem" (przedreformowa polszczyzna zawsze mnie wzruszała :) ). Co do mojej strony - zaiste, były z nią problemy dopóki tego nie naprawiłem, ale teraz wszystko wygląda u mnie normalnie, i w Firefoksie i w IE... Może to kwestia Twojego profilu (User:Piotrus/monobook.css i User:Piotrus/monobook.js)? Halibutt 13:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Pibwl obiecał zająć się tematem. Halibutt 20:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Money

Ponieważ nie ma nigdzie wzmianki o tym, że Wikipedia ma pozwolenie od NBP (i autora projektu graficznego) na powielanie wizerunków banknotów i monet emitownych przez NBP, to znaczy, że wizeruki te łamią prawa autorskie i powinny być skasowane - zgodnie z regulaminem Wikipedii nie ma na nie tutaj miejsca (z polskiej Wiki już wyleciały wizerunki aktualnych polskich pieniędzy - może to się wielu niepodobać, lecz w kwestii praw autorskich na Wikipedii nie ma taryf ulgowych). Aotearoa from Poland 17:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Mylisz się co do licencji do przedstawiania polskich pieniędzy - nie jest to fair use - proponuję Ci wczytać się w informację dotyczącą wykożystania wizerunków polskich banknotów i monet zamieszczoną na stronie Narodowego Banku Polskiego (tekst angielski z tej strony zamieściłem pod każdą ze spornych grafik) - NBP pozwala na wykożystywanie wizerunku pieniędzy przez niego edytowanych wyłącznie pod warunkiem uzyskania zgody od NBP i od autora grafiki danego banknotu czy monety. Bez tych dwóch zgód nie można publikować wizerunków polskich pieniędzy - i nie dotyczy to tylko Polski, ale również całego świata (były już w Polsce sprawy sądowe o wykożystywanie wizerunków pieniędzy bez zgody NBP i sądy zgadzały sie z tym, że jest to naruszenie praw autorskich - tu muszę nadmienić, że wizerunki pieniędzy nie są traktowane jako dokumenty urzędowe, które, zgodnie z polskim prawem autorskim, nie kożystają z ochrony tego prawa). Aotearoa from Poland 07:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeśli uważasz, że można na en-Wiki dawać grafiki bez zgody ich właściciela, to ja nie będę się kłócić - na en-Wiki rzadko edytuję, więc mogę się mylić co do tutejszych zasad (biorąc pod uwagę Twój dorobek powinieneś być ekspertem w tym zakresie). Tagi {{money}} poprzywracałem do wszystkich grafik już wczoraj, lecz pozostawiałem również {{no license}} - moim zdaniem warto do końca wyjaśnić tę kwestię. Jeśli będziesz (lub jesteś) na 100% pewien, że zamieszczanie tych grafik jest jak najbardziej w porządku, to skasuj moje uwagi - ja już czepiać się nie będę. Aotearoa from Poland 17:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Artykuł 4 p. 2 prawa autorskiego jest bardzo często przytaczany w kontekście publikacji urzędowych. Problem polega na tym, że nie wszystko co urzędy publikują jest materiałem lub dokumentem urzędowym (na polskiej Wiki od czasu do czasu ktoś twierdzi, że praktycznie wszystko co wyjdzie z polskich urzędów podlega pod ten punkt prawa autorskiego, co jest nieprawdą). Podobnie ma się sprawa w kwesti wizerunków banknotów. Zgodnie z ustwą o NBP "Znakami pieniężnymi są banknoty (bilety NBP) i monety opiewające na złote i grosze" (art. 7 p.2). Tak więc zgodnie z interpretacją Mieciu K "znaki pieniężne" = "znaki" wymienione w art. 4 p. 2 ustwy o prawie autorskim. Idąc dalej tym tokiem myślenia dojdziemy do wniosku, że skoro "znaki pieniężne" = "znaki" i "znaki pieniężne" nie podlegają ochronie prawnej, to można je dowolnie powielać w dowolnej formie, co by oznaczało, że fałszowanie pieniędzy jest w Polsce legalne. Dochodzimy zatem do absurdu. Nie można uogólniać i przyjmować potoczne znaczenie słów tak jak jest wygodnie - w języku prawniczym każde słowo ma znaczenie i może znaczyć ono co innego niż jego potoczne rozumienie. Dlatego nie ma żadnej równości pomiędzy "znakami pieniężnymi" dokładnie zdefiniowanymi w ustawie o NBP, którymi to są banknoty i monety (a nie ich wizerunki!), a "znakami" z ustawy o prawie autorskim. Jakiś czas temu były informacje w prasie, że NBP procesował się o reklamy z wizerunkiem banknotów i sprawę wygrał - co jednak potwierdza przynależność praw do wizerunków pieniędzy NBP. Aotearoa from Poland 21:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ciągle

Trwają próby wymazania informacji o zbrodniach w Złoczewie dokonanych przez German_17th_Infantry_Division. Jeśli możesz od czasu do czasu zerknąc na ten artykuł byłbym wdzięczny. --Molobo 17:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Nie do wiary! Dr. Dan 18:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Armia Krajowa

Mógłbyś to rozszerzyć tak aby miało bardziej obiektywny charakter ?: [1] Moje edycje sprowadzają różnych ludzi a nie chce z tego artykułu robić kolejnej wojny. --Molobo 14:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ż.

I've noted once that our good old Ż. has his ups and downs. Apparently the sun has entered yet another quadrant recently ([2]). //Halibutt

Piotrus, I am trying to get a clue of what's going on and I will see what I can do. Please note that too many parties started to abuse "fact" and "dubious" tags in order to use them as a weapon in edit wars. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]

One of our common collaborators even used image copyright issues for that lately! See this, this and this.

I thought I would provoke some thoughts on whether we can come up with a set of informal rules that would define legitimate tagging from frivolous one at talk:Cossack but judging by your responses there, I didn't make a very convinsing case. Wel...

In the meanwhile, please take a look at the activity of the usual suspect here at the Polosh contribution to WW2 article. It is kind of upsetting. I spent at least 3 hours yesterday compiling the info from 3 sources and adding it to the article, referencing it and proofreading and copyediting to make text flow smooth and article encyclopedic. I expected Molobo to have some POV issues with my work as he does with the work of most any non-Polish editor, be it a German, Russian or Ukrainian. What was really annoying that the text I carefully crafted was butchered sloppily, producing the version with the sentences broken and disconnected, the whole paragraphs duplicated a huge number of typos and added references being lost. I restored the text's integrity twice today and it took me lots of time to spend on each restoration trying to integrated the info Molobo brought into the normal text flow. After the first time, the article was butchered again and now, that I restored it again, I expect it to be butchecred as soon as Molobo gets online. Please take a look at the article's history and talk. I am not even talking POV issues here. I am talking a disrespectfully sloppy editing over other people's careful work by the user who seems to be working on the complex article sitting on his left hand at the same time and istead of trying to make an article better, tries to "outrun" his opponents by making sure that as much POV material is quickly inserted as possible disregarding the article's stucture, references and other people's work.

Again, even before we get to POV issues, this rush patchwork is got to stop. If I get sufficiently discouraged to do actual work on the PL related articles (because with such reactions it is a waste of time) I will have to restrict my contribution to Polish topics to tagging the inappropraitenesses or the whole articles and explain at talk the reasons to make sure the tag is not removed until the problem is addressed by other editors. As you know yourself, tagging is way easier than trying to contribute to the article and takes much less time.

When that fellow "threatened" us with a leave at his RfC, I felt sorry that this was going to happen. With such a huge number of disruptions, I am starting to rethink this. --Irpen 01:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorring Irpen but what you call butchering was simply restoring NPOV in place of Soviet propaganda descriptions which you filled the article on regular basis despite lenghty explanations as to why your photos are wronged or biased. Also I don't think adding false data on regular basis, again after several remarks about why it is wrong speaks well about your behaviour in the article.

Molobo

As usuall

[8]--Molobo 19:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Intermediate technology

Hi Piotrus,

I notice you've contributed to the Intermediate technology article in the part. You may be interested to know that there is now a WikiProject International development. Cheers, Singkong2005 03:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject International development

Hi Piotrus,

I notice you've contributed to the Intermediate technology article in the past. You may be interested to know that there is now a WikiProject International development. Cheers, Singkong2005 03:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Molobo

That block was indeed in error. I actually got his email, and thought I had already unblocked him. Any idea what I did wrong? --InShaneee 00:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It was reported to me on the Wikipedia Counter-Vandalism IRC channel. --InShaneee 03:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Please no personal attacks

Sorry, but I had to revert the edit [9] as a direct personal attack. I promise to revert similar edits by Ghirlandajo or any other editor the moment I saw them. abakharev 07:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I was out of line here, I apologize. The recent increase of activity (not to use the v... word) by Ghirla on Poland-related page made me slip a little bit. Thanks for reminding me about the that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

See Catherine

ArticleCatherine the Great. Russian users insist on avoiding information on annexation performed by Catherine instead insisting that she "absorbed" lands of Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine etc. --Molobo 13:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Cuban coSSack

Hi Piotrus, our fellow contributor Kuban coSSack talking about dictatorial ruler Lukashenka and today's storming of the October square, when hundreds of special police arrested peaceful demonstrators, totally destoryed the camp, threw empty vodka bottles into the mess and videotaped that for Belarusan state television. Here's Kuban coSSack's comment about this police action and break-up of a peaceful protest, which took place at 3AM so that there would be no witnesses of their activity:

• http://www.br23.net/en/2006/03/24/game-over/#comments
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rydel#.22kuban_coSSack.22

Dear fellow Wikipedians, do you understand that his only purpose of his contributions on articles about Belarus (such as Belarusian language, Belarusian history, Belarus, etc.) is to push Russian imperial POV and lies? Please, see history and talk pages of the Belarus-related articles. --rydel 16:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Honorverse

I hope this page is how I send you a message, and that I'm _NOT_ editing your (or any) page.

1) QUESTION: Are you the person who is doing most of the content on the List of Honorverse Characters page? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Honorverse_characters)

2) COMMENT: Even though it's image links have been broken, I suggest you look at this page of mine: http://www.pihl.us/leif/honorverse/illustratedcharacterlist.htm

3) QUESTION: Schedule permitting, I _MAY_ be interested in helping edit your page. Where would I go to get a primer on the rules, methods, common practices, and such?

4) QUESTION: Would you consider making a alternate set of Book Abbreviations acceptable on the Character list page?

Sincerly yours,

Leif Pihl

Send E-mail response in care of: "becky@pihl.us"

Polishterm

I wonder if using such a template would be overkill, since our version would only have two fields (original Polish, English translation). I suppose we could also add a field with a link to a sound file. Appleseed (Talk) 04:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Apology (copied from my talk page)

Piotrus, what can I tell you? I apologize for editing your comment and antipicating your vote in this way. I have always been an extremely impatient person and, in my own defense, I can only suggest that I am still relatively new and this is the first time I have participated in this process of Featrured Artciles. I do not understand excatly how things work (as I indiciated in my comment on the talk page of the Featured Article page for Philosophy of mind. As to your point about more citations: I'm not sure I agree with your view that something close to every single line in an encyclopedia entry should be refercned and cited. But I will do the best I can to add some more in the manner of your own article. I DO sincerly apologize though and I understand your indignation. I was being selfish and impatiet in a way that is not appropriate to a collabortaive project. I thank you for briniging this to my attention. Sometimes,the only way to learn is by making mistakes.--Lacatosias 09:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The point...

Though my behavior was inexcusable, I have to add that my real point was simply to suggest (for those who do not know me well) that when I say I will do something, I WILL DO IT. I did add those inline citations that you referred to. I'm now in the process of adding many, many more citations. If there is any fact left which is not yet referenced, it WILL BE referenced. Period. --Lacatosias 18:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Fotosy

Jasne. Nie ma sprawy. Lecz nie wiem, o które obrazki ci chodziło. -- Darwinek 18:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

163x Progression Answer

You: Why did you moved to replace the Category:163x with a much more cumbersome and less user-friendly Category:1632-163x alternate history series? Not to mention that this cat does not exist yet? I think we should restore the old cat, it was perfectly fine as it was.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fabartus" Reply:

• 163x=={ FanSpeak, WebHead, KidChat}/, not enclyclopediac and furthermore not proper English. Same thing with '-verse' suffixed 'Buzz=words', these are fine in common coloquialism on the web, but are something that should be included as 'notes' only near the bottom of an article; these things are taking to a higher encl. standard... Something like this should be the target in everyone's eyes.
• More to the point, 163x conveys absolutely zero information to the lay reader, the whole 'purpose' of categories'. This construct, albeit longer, is also a label that will draw attention to the articles while conveying the information 'span of years' + Alt. Hist. = Oh, that's interesting. '163x' conveys instead Oh, look! Some kid has been making a typo with an incomplete label. This enclopedia sure has it's problems.
• Which meaning do you want to convey? I gave my answer last night.

And what's the cost that you're fussed about? An extra few (20? 30?) characters but one time per article page plus my one-time investment to change that last night. Hardly worth the trouble arguing over considering since the prior tag said zip to the outsider.

If you guys had been using the talk pages correctly, this should have been aired out long ago, and someone else would have made my point. But the above's a flawed analysis too. When a new article is started, someone is just going to rip the guts out of the related ones preceding, modify what can be kept and start the new (e.g. 1633) material. He's not going to type categories, just copy them.

But until I stubbed that, you folks didn't even lift a finger to create a 1633 stub!!! Shocking! Totally mind boggling to me, considering how easy it would be to cc the old 1632 (novel) and paste it down!

Moreover, I'm looking forwards... as the stuff in the pipeline hits the stores, and if I can get you guys to actually bring some work onto the table towards Standards Like This then this is a tag we can grow the 163x proiject with knowing a reader/user-noneditor can get useful information from the category.

See talk: 1632 series; and esp. talk:1632 (novel) upshot is I spent whole night seeing everything here related to both Assiti and 163x; it's a wonder I can type as I'm not really awake. I need more than 3 hrs sleep at my age. I'll cc this to the series talk, as that is where it belogs like other series wide issues.

FrankB 21:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

re: yours to My talk on Naming post...

Let's take this to the series talk page where it belongs since we're both apparently around and sortof working. Better yet email me. It'll be faster and not junk up talks. FrankB 21:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Your message

Sorry not to have consulted before doing the move at FrankB's request. My feeling, though, is that the new title is more accurate and more informative (and I've seen many categories with titles as long or longer). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I see you've heard from Mel. He did move the cat but to a different name than asked, and I've already emailed a request with rationales as to why goto the title I used. That will clear up the red links. But he's correct, his is better english, and the matter is trivial - we'll just post the categories on the header of the projects page so people can scoop them off with cut N paste between two windows, hardly difficult. Even with Mel's less instinctive hypenated construct. In the meantime, my latest 'Project Proposal' post has examples of what I mean.

Sorry if you find keyword emphasis annoying. I usually start on the left margin by indicating source, purpose, or both (Some thing explainatory like 'fab says/responds:') and end my post with some text conclusion or other sign off, again in the full left margin. (if you hadn't noticed it yet).

• I must say I'm impressed by your wikiCredentials... you should be organizing and pushing this project, not me! I'd appreciate it if we can exhange some emails. Mine is listed on the header of my talk.

You didn't respond on the talk (Series & Temp Project) about my cite back to you on the categories name... lower down I said we could keep both.

• I've added a lot of project organization stuff (about to save) and a longish list of categories that should be in the projects articles.

Have a more urgent query... How do you manage to be in my home state of Pennsylvania and in Poland at the same time?

I'm good, but not that clever! FrankB 01:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC) re:Talk: 1632 series cat cut...

• If you haven't you've done well at avoiding edit wars. Lucky you! Thought the temp cats were a good idea while we organized this thing. Have you experience putting together a project? That would be a big help.
• How'd the two short cat names strike you as a compromise? FrankB 17:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• See Ans MyTalkFrankB 01:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

re:*If you want to attract 163x-fans, check who edited the article in the past and inform them about your idea, if you want to seek category specialists, try Wikipedia talk:Category and such. I think that Category:1632 series is the best solution, no need for inclusion of '163x' (which I invented, as far as I know :>) or 'alt-hist' parts (just as Star Trek does not include Star Trek sci-fi or such).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

For the moment, I'm assuming that they have things on watch. I'll 'spam' an alert once I know no one is paying attention, or I get to tired to see what needs done next. In the meantime, there's been lots of progress. I believe they're all cat'd properly now, whatever names we end up with, it'll be easy to hop back and forth using the current state.

• You have a point on the '-1632x', and I'll shed no tears on that. So I can blame you for all that extra typing! What's your field of study, computer geeks almost always like long names.
• But '1632 series' doesn't give any clue that it's a book, or that 1632 is a year; moreover you chose a bad example with star trek which is iconic. The alt-hist conforms to the Cat naming conventions better, IMHO. I excepted it so I'm still waiting for a rebuttal on that point. I think it's only fair since you reference the document! :)

... Let me think on it some more. I haven't been to bed trying to move this project set into decent shape. If you have a good eye for spelling gaffs, a good look behind me would be appreciated!

I'll see if I can scare up some copyedit types I know to do the same. I've been imbedding templates to attract help on that as well. We should really keep this on the series talk. Just bottom section post a minor period or some such with a summary message to go see where ever..

Later! FrankB 17:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC) SO what do we do with what's done? Not me! FrankB What form are we not arguing about? More to the point, you do realize that any change is moot as they're already there. Even deleting one will cause more work. Some of them are redundant, but communicate different senses, thus are still useful. So what is the big deal??? The Cats are a one time, one edit in one page need. I fail to understand why this is no more than a matter of taste and style. Are you going to wake up screaming from a nightmare caused by the dream memory you couldn't shake screaming that you forgot the spelling? when you will hardly ever, if ever have to type one on any day going forward? Can we just get some work done instead of quarreling about a negligible preference? I'm sorry you don't approve, but if you haven't gotten the hint, I'm shocked at what I found for the state of this project. You guys started this a year or more ago and just orphaned it in a stub state. Is that because you had too many arguements and couldn't divvy things up, or because no one cared? FrankB 18:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Request:

I ask that you reconsider your vote for abstention in light of the recent revisions that I have made to philosophy of mind. --Lacatosias 09:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Jan Tęczyński (1581-1637)

Could you translate the last missing Polish sentence into English? I can only guess he was voivode of Cracow and something else. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 19:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Much better! Thanks! Kusma (討論) 20:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Battles

Most of the boxes are already in each "Battles of (war)" subcat. For now, I've left the two boxes in Battles of Poland because they still have a lot of red links. Appleseed (Talk) 20:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Flight of the turkey

Hi, Piotrus, thanks for your comments on S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897 on FAC. The article has apparently just been promoted to FA this morning, but I'm going to add a little about the discovery of the Kvitøya camp like you suggested. (Not a whole section, though.) I was rather surprised it took so long before somebody requested it, actually. ;-) I was trying to keep the overall length down, as it was already longer than really appeals to me, but I guess it did leave a bit of a gap, you're quite right. Best, Bishonen talk 09:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC).

Troll User:66.228.120.35 also User:69.57.177.154 ?

Hi. At Talk:Mark_Lawson, you wrote "66.228.120.35 (talk · contribs) is a troll, no doubt about it. Revert on sight". I've noticed that 69.57.177.154 (talk · contribs) makes the same sort of edits, labelling people (mostly or all British) as Jews, without providing any evidence — eg., the latest edit to Trevor Dann. S/he is also a bit "wheely"; see here and here. I've only been editing Wikipedia for a few months, and I'm not completely sure what to do about this. I'd appreciate any suggestions you might have. — Chris Chittleborough 13:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/AIDS

Thankyou for your comments on the AIDS article. You were absolutely correct in the ommission of these two important sections. I hadn't thought to add them in before, probably because I was blinded by the medical aspects. A lot more data about the economic impact of AIDS, has been added in its own section coupled with some nice references. The stigma section has also been expanded upon slightly. What else do you think should be done to improve the article? --Bob 20:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russsian_claims_about_Warsaw_Uprising_1794 The author tries to put information from non-objective source as objective article. The source is from Imperial Russia regarding Polish uprising against its occupation. Imperial Russia was known for fabricating and being source of many antipolish fabrications. Because I didn't want to delete this(no blanking) I moved it to a proper article that would deal with claim. --Molobo 03:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

They must be in love with each other... As to what Molobo written above, I believe we have a serious issue with Russian 19th century sources. The same set of Great Russian links are currently being added to a plethora of articles. Any ideas? //Halibutt 08:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Muscowy-Polish-Lithuanian Union

This will interest you if you remember the discussion: [10] I think you could add this to article quite easly. --Molobo 06:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Just Announced Yesterday

Thought you'd like to know ASAP...

• 1634: The Baltic War is now officially scheduled for hardcover publication in May 2007. You may perform the usual back-calculations to figure out webscription, e-arc and snippet availability.

– The Loyal Minions

Snipped from Erics Site. They're months ahead of schedule per Webers 'schedule' on his web site! B'regards FrankB 19:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles in mess

Please see some recent entries at Talk:Soviet partisan for my view on the problem which is getting worse lately. Improper choice of the articles to add information, similarly to the tag abuse, is the major problem IMO. --Irpen 03:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Crusading again?

Dear prokonsul, if you again liken one of the most active and prolific wikipedians to your worthless pet troll (who you try to represent as a "precious content creator") - we shall have to continue this discussion on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus. Personal attacks and campaigning on talk pages are not likely to earn additional points for the rabid anti-Ghirlandajo crusade which you solemnly launched half a year ago and still pursue with too obvious enthusiasm.

However you may enjoy Molobo's trolling, the things this guy does comply meticulously with the description given in WP:TROLL. As for my harsh treatment of Molobo in Moscow Victory Parade - the article in which he was trolling like hell with your full approbation and connivance - please let us settle the matter between ourselves. I'm afraid it is none of your business to make it a ram weapon in your anti-Ghirlandajo crusade.

As for the ancient slur you keep bringing about on every second page you post, without mentioning that its content has already been examined by the ArbCom, I assure you that such a bad-faith behaviour may entitle me to request for comment as to your continuing pestering and intimidation. I take no interest in Poland-related topics and never edit them, unless attacks by Molobo's gang on Russia-related articles constrain me to respond. Please leave me alone, I don't want to have anything in common with you or your pet trolls. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Interwar polish copyright law

I'm interested kaszanka1 małpa poczta kropka onet kropka pl Mieciu K 23:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC) No dobra 2 mail gplichta@op.pl Mieciu K 23:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Support the PocketPacket!

Hi Piotrus. Thanks for your work on the Giddens article, which i have also contributed to. Sorry i didn't get a chance to do much extra with it recently. Meanwhile ... I created the entry for Pocket packet but it has been nominated for deletion. I am hoping that you might recognize a decent cultural phenomenon when you see one - and if so, you might cast a vote at this page for it to be kept, or else moved to Wikipedia project space (as has been suggested). I don't mind either of those. If you feel able to help, that would be nice, but otherwise don't worry about it! Many thanks. Davidgauntlett 12:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Autumn of Nations and Jan Tęczyński

Thank you for posting the Autumn of Nations article at the Germany portal! It is a good reminder that we need to write some more articles about 1989/1990 in East Germany. I also didn't know that June 4, 1989 was the day Solidarnosc won the elections -- quite an important date, with this and the Tiananmen massacre at the same time.

I come to my other point: Jan Tęczyński is still in Polish and has been listed at WP:PNT (for two weeks already, I forgot to tell you earlier). Could you translate it or maybe redirect it to its only bluelinked entry until it does get translated? Thank you, Kusma (討論) 03:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I see. Maybe it is enough to just link these titles such as podkomorzy and kasztelan etc. and to say "of Krakow" instead of "krakowski" to make it somewhat more comprehensible for {{User pl-0}} people like me (right now, it isn't clear that these are titles if you don't understand them). Or is "kasztelan of Krakow" a bad idea? Kusma (討論) 03:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and do that. As a temporary measure for the disambiguation page, I have put a notice linking to the Offices in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth on it so readers know where to find the information necessary to understand it. Kusma (討論) 03:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Res to talk:Soviet partisan

Piotrus, I suggest you show us all that you are sincere about your ** point (relevance). Please cleanup the stuff Molobo recently added to several articles about the Brest parade and Molotov's quote. He pasted that stuff from the narrower articles to the wider ones. This was a totally unwaranted WP:Point and, from what I know, if I removed it myself, you would have been the first to restore it back. Also, please go over the current masterpiece section entitled "Treatment of Polish citizens by the evil Soviet regime" and keep in the article only as much as it is really proper for its style.

In the meanwhile I will start writing as you encouraged me for the existing articles and we will see later what to do with this stuff, create narrower articles, or keep the info of Rydz' parade and Kiev destruction in History of PL and PSW articles and other similar issues.

And of course "I have nothing but good faith on my mind." This whole mess was prompted, if you remember, by my adding the picture of Lodz liberation to History of PL article. Some of your friends just could not take that the readers of the articles see who kicked Nazis out of Poland. The rest you know well. In adding the pic I had no other intention than illustrating the article with an image of a very relevant event. --Irpen 04:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. And please give a another thought to when to use the tags and when to just ask at talk. This is a huge pain and can be turned very aggravating as you know. I've heard youd past responses that you are sure that you acted rightfully. Just think for a moment before throwing seven tags in one paragraph when you feel like doing it next time. --Irpen 04:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Please let me know which articles (and preferably which edits) do you want me to look over, and if the stuff was pasted, where from.

The article is History of Pl (39-45). The stuff is:

• Parade in brest
• Quotes of Molotov congratulating Nazis
• The whole section especially written anout the evil Soviets (I proposed to paste that to a separate article as early as when it was at Halibutt's userspace while you voiced your preference to test it by fire.

As for that pic, I know you had good intentions and in that particular case others overreacted way to strongly - and when Ghirla joined the outcome was a mess. Happens - and I think we have it fixed somewhat (although the photo issue will not be resolved until we have an article about London victory parade and why Polish forces in the West could not take part in it).

The pic I am talking about is Lodz liberation, not the Red Square parade. Ghirla has nothing to do with that. It was Halibutt and Molobo who were continuously attacking it.

In other news, I can check the English spellings in Davies WERS book you requested, but plese let me know exactly what names (index? page nr?) you want me to look at, so when I go to the library I can do it as quickly as possible.

As far as terminology is conserned, I would like to know how he calls the places included in Template:Campaignbox Polish-Bolshevik War. Also, I am interested whether Davies supports Halibutt's assertion that Poles won the Battle of Wolodarka (sic). So far it's not any historian's assertion but Halibutt's own conclusion from descriptive accounts. I disagree but his assertion was affirmed by a meaningless partisan three vs one vote and I had no more nerve to continue this discussion about nothing. --Irpen 06:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• re: Tnx for the news! I am not that good with bar calculation, so if you can figure out the dates for those, let me know.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Did you get my email with Answer? FrankB 05:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Limes inferior

Hi, I noticed you've done some work on the article Limes inferior. Have you read the book? I'm wondering because there are some quality issues with the article (detailed on Talk:Limes inferior) that I can't correct myself, having never read the book, but which nonetheless make the article read like nonsense to someone who has never read the book. Feel free to drop me a message if you have any questions about my notes on Talk:Limes inferior. -Seth Mahoney 02:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. As a huge fan of dystopias (that just sounds weird), I appreciate your efforts. -Seth Mahoney 02:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I'll take a look next time I'm at the library. By the way, that was some fast translation! I can't even imagine pulling that off with Russian! -Seth Mahoney 02:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I'm a new user, if this is not the right place please delete my comment and if you can let me know where is the best place to ask. I'm interested in reading Limes Inferior in English. Do any of you know whether it has been translated? I cannot find any info neither on wikipedia nor in internet. Thanks for your help.

Hi there, this is a good place to ask (you may also want to register and in the future ask at the article's discussion page). As far as I know, LI has not been translated into English. There is some terrible force working against those who want to translate stuff into English (interestingly, it's relatively much easier to translate stuff from any language, including English, into any non-English language). There must be some conspiracy at work... :> As far as I know, the only English translated piece by Zajdel is a short story that can be found in this book: [11]. If you see any publishers, please complain to them to translate more foreign sci-fi :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

With regards from Tymek

Hi there this is Tymek You have written to me so I am writing back I try to do my best so that whatever is interesting about Poland would be shared with other people on Wikipedia Right now I am working on my project about Polish soccer/football in the late 1930s and that's about it thanks for encouragement Tymek 02:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom email

Sorry about the late reply. I haven't been online lately as much as in the past... I should be getting Wikipedia email. If the feature is not working, try sending it directly to sokolov47@yahoo.com. Let me know if I can be of any help. 172 | Talk 06:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I've taken a look at the Wojciech Jaruzelski article. Perhaps there should be a current event template there? 172 | Talk 06:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Bishopbox

I couldn't tell from your message if you would like a template or a nicer succession box. (The succession boxes on the pl wp are nice, but you have to be careful because if you start changing the size and colors, they won't stack as nicely as the regular succession boxes.) Appleseed (Talk) 14:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Potocki

Hi- I am assuming Potocki because it also has the Latin motto for the Potocki family, but then again, that motto may be shared by other families, just like the crest is - and you are right it may be another A.Potocki I didn't see that list. I will email them in English with pictures and perhaps they will be able to reply, thank you for your help. -- Stbalbach 16:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You'r right

That's logical. Just let me finish the list so it's complete and I'll merge it with the main article.

/Q

Patzer

dziendobry, dodoal pan do listy 1000 polakow Patzera.

nie zamiescil pan artykolu, jesli potrzeba moge podeslac info. polecam polski slownik biograficzny.

pytanie, czemu sluzy lista i skad mial pan imie nazwisko i daty urodzenia i smierci? dziekuje td

A request from a fellow teacher

Hi, I am writing to ask your permission to borrow some of your instructions from your university projects page for an assignment I am putting together for University of Hong Kong students. I will of course cite your contribution, but wanted to check with you first. Kindly let me know. -- LMCinHK 03:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship

A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 13:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Transhumanism problem

Piotrus -- a user with the IP address 204.184.48.113 has been vandalizing the Transhumanism article for some time now. Can you tell me how to get this user blocked or initate this process yourself? Thanks. --StN 19:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Z dziejów sarkazmu i ironii w Polsce

Przy okazji szukania informacji o kaplicy moskiewskiej na Krakowskiem w Warszawie natknąłem się na ten artykulik. Pomyślałem, że Ci się spodoba, zwłaszcza notka Rosenzweiga, Kareiskapitana Cyrkułu Konieckiego :) Swoją drogą ów Rosenzweig byłby kolejnym z moich bohaterów zaraz obok Joselewicza. //Halibutt 23:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A przy okazji Skorpiona - widziałem pełnowymiarową makietę tegoż w hangarze PZL na warszawskim Okęciu. Stoi toto pod ścianą, razem z masą Wilg i innych reliktów, obok kilku prywatnych awionetek. Tyle że na pięć metrów dokoła niego jest czerwona linia na ziemi i ochrona nie pozwala się zbliżyć - ani zrobić zdjęć... //Halibutt 23:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

- ani zrobić zdjęć :( Rzucił się na mnie i niemal wyrwał aparat, jakby to nadal była tajemnica państwowa... Skutek jest taki, że zdjęć nie mam, a dogadywanie się z PZLem to droga przez mękę. Wiem coś o tym, załatwiałem wycieczkę po ich terenie... //Halibutt 04:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

O, a skoro o tym mowa, jakiś czas temu przyjaźniłem się z towarzystwem z warszawskiego MEiL, głównie z chłopakami od konstrukcji płatowców. Opowiadali mi o planach wykonania pełnowymiarowej makiety-nielota Łosia, na podstawie oryginalnych planów. Mówili, że faceci z muzeum lotnictwa w Krakowie już od jakiegoś czasu zbierają fundusze, ale nie wiem na jakim etapie jest cały projekt. Chyba będę się musiał do nich odezwać i zapytać. A nuż udostępniliby jakieś zdjęcia albo plany... //Halibutt 15:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Warto zobaczyć tą dyskusję

[12] --Molobo 11:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Missing landmarks of Warsaw

I was thinking of creating stubs for such buildings, but a list would be too much, as basically all of the city is missing, with some notable exceptions. While a Warsaw-pedia might be a nice idea, it would simply be too much work to do. Imagine a list of thousands of churches, buildings, market halls, squares and so on - each of them notable in itself. As for now I'll do some work on the most urgent ones, for instance the Arsenal. Any other requests? //Halibutt 15:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Warsaw Arsenal done. Will look for some pics now. //Halibutt 17:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't want me to start an article on it, do you... :) After all it was yet another precious pieces of Russian architecture vandalized by the Polish barbarians in 1920's :D ... AAMoF the spot used to be occupied by the Muscovite Chapel, the same where the Shuyski's were buried and the same where the Dominican church was later built. Then in early 19th century Corazzi buily the current palace there, as the seat of the Society of Friends of Sciences. Then the society was closed down by the Russians (after the Uprising), who later rebuilt it in some fancy Byzantine-Muscovite style I'd call gargamellic. The building housed yet another Orthodox church in Warsaw, this one dedicated to certain Tatiana the Roman. However, in mid-twenties it was restored to its original form and given to the Scientific Society of Warsaw. You have a detailed history (as well as some pics) here. The best site to look for Warsaw's monuments and their history, if you'd ask me. Actually the first place I go before going to my parents' working room to check with our collection of varsaviana. //Halibutt 21:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Kusma's RfA

Hello, Piotrus! Thank you for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. If you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 02:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Culture of medieval Poland

Are the galleries really that necessary? They really takes a sizeable amount of space, and most of them do not assert pertinence to the article. Circeus 03:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If they are really that useful, maybe captions would make that more obvious to the reader. Circeus 14:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright paranoia

Please take a look [13]. --Irpen 04:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

DYK

First of all, I don't think it is a good time to move these sections out of the article. However, such a solution has a merit of drawing all our vandals out of a featured article to some other place. Anyway, I'm currently working on preparing the article on Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp (my long-forgotten hommage to my grandpa which I de-stubbed some 2 years ago and have been holding on my to-do list ever since). I've spent last 12 hours or so digging through some 30 books on the Holocaust and I'm not sure I could stand yet another horror. Sorry, but not today. I hope you'll understand. //Halibutt 23:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which, could you take a look at the article and tell me what's missing? Use {{fact}} tags as liberally as you please, I have all the sources (except perhaps two or three) at hand, so finding a decent citation would not be a problem. As a matter of fact, out of some 50 books on the topic published in Poland after 1945 my mom managed to collect some 40 altogether, including two or three published in tiny issues in obscure printing houses shortly after the war :) //Halibutt 03:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said, it still needs some work (I asked Mozzerati to take a look and correct as much as he can) and expansion (see a brief to do list at the talk page). But now to sleep :0 //Halibutt 04:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating it to Good Articles list, hopefully more people will come to take a look at the article and correct it (which I assume is the main purpose of that project). Do you thing the article is ready for standard peer review? I recently dug out some pictures, mostly from American state archives. I also gave the article some finishing touches, but I simply spent too much time on it and don't see what should be added to it any more, so alien input is badly needed. You know, the good old matura syndrome of reading what you have in mind rather than what you actually wrote..

Anyway, Mozzerati suggested that the article could be split onto more sections, which in general seems like a good option, but in practice is completely beyond my possibilities. I simply have no idea what could be split to a separate section. Any ideas? //Halibutt 21:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

History of PL 39-45

Piotrus, I started bringing the contentious article to normalcy. I removed the extensive quotes of Molotov that Molobo pasted from other articles. They simply don't belong to such a wide range article as History of Poland. For similar reasons, I removed the text about the Brest parade and Krivoshein's invitation towards Guderian also pasted by the same editor.

I hope you will help me in keeping them out. If you think they need returned back to the article, then, please help me introduce the info of the Rydz' "liberators" parade in Kiev to another History of PL article. Also, if we go into quoting politicians, we should add Machalski's quote on the parade, as well as Dmowski's quotes about "our duty to absorb other elements" whenever we can, Pilsudski's "Independence first, size later" and Bogdanovich's speech on the destruction of Nevsky cathedral.

I would like to move the "treatment of Polish citizens" section to a separate article. I don't even see it back as a summary, since it can be, and actually is, mentioned in the course of chronological events anyway. History of Country articles should be composed by chronology, that's my firm beleif and that what history book do and what Britannica does. We have separate history books on narrow topics, like "Holocaust in Poland", "Soviet Occupation", etc.

Similarly, the material under such titles belong to separate articles rather than interputing a text flow of the general history article.

Otherwise, we again see a lack of symmetry. "Treatment of minorities" in both interwar and post-war Poland can be made into useful and well-referenced articles and some material is already in Wikipedia. But do you support such separate section in History of PL articles?

Finally, please have some attitude talk with Halibutt. I don't care about his comments calling my edits "vandalism" even followed up that he simply calls them what they are at the article's talk. That just makes himself look ridiculous. But if he keeps reverting me "using popups", we will be heading towards an RfC at some point. I would hate to start a formal action against an undoubtedly prolific contributor. He has his strong sides and his short-temperateness, is perhaps a reflection of how he is in real life as well as, perhaps, the young age. Having said that, I am looking forward to normalization in the Eastern European topics, which with the departure of Molobo and low activity of a couple of other fellows seems possible. --Irpen 23:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I would generally prefer to avoid the use of quotes which express opinions as much as possible (except possibly in biography articles about the author of the quote). Quotes stating facts might be allowed, but even there it is better to just state the fact, and maybe put the quote in the notes to back it up. Pasting in quotes to illustrate a particular POV seems to me a bad practice. This is especially the case when one is quoting politicians, who almost never express neutral, objective truth in public speeches. The Bogdanovich quote is the one that comes to mind here, but of course it is only one example of many.

As for a chronological approach, that might be the ideal but at present the article is not organised chronologically, so doing so would require a total rewrite. Besides, a chronological approach is not a must. Take a look at History of Germany since 1945, which has clear, separate subsections for East Germany and West Germany, and discusses them separately.

How about this compromise. Let's separate out the period before June 1941, and divide it into German occupation and Soviet occupation parts. This makes sense, as the experience of the inhabitants of the two parts was completely different. It also makes sense because the nature of the German occupation also changed after June 1941, when the mass extermination of Jews began. Then, as after June 1941 all of prewar Polish territory ended up under German occupation, we can discuss events in a single flow. Balcer 00:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As for the quotes, I hear you, Balcer. I removed Molotov's and Krivosheiin's quotes again and without Molobo, the chances of them getting restored are small (although non-zero). They are not lost, since they were pasted to several other articles already by now. If you remember, I did agree on the Bogdanovich's quote removal.

As for non-chronological approach, it is usually the result of POV pushing. Someone with an issue or two over something elaborates on an issue close to his heart directly in the History of Country article, and at certain point we end up with section we don't know how to handle without the article's rewrite. Most history articles are chronological. Check the History of Russia series? Check History of Ukraine? For the latter there is no series because I am getting too little help, but I am trying to write a main article little by little strictly in a chronological order. Restoring chronology in History of PL (39-45) will help not only bring it to normalcy but will help it to remain normal for the years to come. The sections can indeed be titled not just by a year but "German occupation", "Soviet occupation", etc. But the basic structure of the article should go by chronology.

If this takes rewriting much of the article, this is for you guys (plus Halibutt) mostly to do. I will be mostly watching. If you ever get to this, please consider, starting the article from September 1939 and add the pre-war events of '39 to the previous article where they structurally fit better. This is a single chain of events of frantic prewar motions by all sides. No need to interrupt it at January 1, 1939. --Irpen 00:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll reply here as this is a 3+ person discussion. I'd also recommend possible movement of this discussion to Talk:History of Poland (1939–1945). Quotes with few exceptiosn belong on Wikiquote. I'd prefer to go for chronology too, but as Balcer points out it would require a complete rewrite of the article. I won't mind, but I am not volunteering to do it anytime soon either.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The article could use a rewrite. Note that at present some section titles and contents resemble that of a separate article. This seems to me a little odd in a history article about such a short time period. There seems to be little unity to the whole thing, which a chronological approach would give. However, I definitely don't have time right now to attempt any drastic changes. The article in the current form is not great, but at least it conveys most of the essential information. Maybe, over the next few months, some of us will find the time to transform it gradually.

Quick note to Irpen: even the History of Ukraine article has section Ukraine between the world wars, and within it subsections Soviet Ukraine,Galicia and Volhynia under Polish rule, Bukovina under Romanian rule and Transcarpathia under Czechoslovakia and Hungary. This is just another example how a chronological approach is not a requirement. Balcer 01:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I know, I added these sections to History of UA but there the situtation is fairly unique as the country was divided between several states and the history of non-Soviet Ukaine was developing with the history of the host-country. Poland, OTOH, in this period was only one.

I am with you Balcer, also, regarding current wierd sectionizing of the 39-45 PL article. The reasons of it I explained above. Someone just has a pet issue with evil Russians and Germans, and Yalta, etc. Those are the reasons. I would rather bring this to normalcy than add "treatment of minorities in interwar Poland" new section to the previous article. I was seriously considering writing it because I lost any chance that this one can be balanced.

Piotrus, I would purge the "treatment..." section out entirely. There is no good need for it at all. Everything can be said in the respective historic subsections. Then, we could safely move the talk section to the separate "treatment". If that get's POV attacked by some, I will live with it. That article by its very nature is almost guaranteed to be not neutral. In fact, I will do just that. With the talk somewhat cleaned up as the huge chunk follows the section, we can move this conversation to talk:History if you want. --Irpen 01:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Until we start rewriting it, I think it is better to have this section then not. After all, it describes how 1/3 of Polish population got murdered - it's rather important for that period of Polish history.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I already removed it and moved the relevant talk. This section was non-existing until Halibutt's recent creativity gust and the article had enough problems. It is a bad idea to have forks. Some material can be added to the flow of other sections, while I think the attrocities are already covered in the article much better than the rest. --Irpen 02:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I can't agree with that. This section is as relevant as the Holocaust one. It may need a NPOVing copyedit, but until the entire article is rewritten it should stay.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I just forgot to split the Holocaust one as well. Corrected now. These are wierd sections for a History of Country articles. Two of them were just written. The third one was there written clearly with an agenda as well. I respect the agenda of the users who write articles on attrocities to their nation, but this material belongs to a proper place and not all over Wikipedia. This would just be a bunch of forks with independent edit conflicts, POV tainted independently and going further rather than towards the main article they are supposed to summarize. You've been around and you know how this happends. Just expand the article but no controvercial sections that simply don't belong to such articles. They were not there until recently anyway. --Irpen 02:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I will unlikely be much around within hours to come (might stop by though) but I think we will handle this just right. Regards to Balcer as well. Please remember to check my talk for response when leaving me a message. --Irpen 02:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to a complete rewrite of the "history of PL 1939-1945" article - I'm sorry to say that but don't count on me too much gentlemen. At least not too soon. It's my favourite part of European history and the one I know about the most. However, my experiences from past conflicts with Zivinbudas, Irpen, Ghirlandajo, Molobo, Nico and all kinds of people who adopt the same attitude towards Wikipedia make me think that my contribution would simply be a major loss of my time. Why spend hours on digging up facts in verifiable, English-language sources if these guys are going to come (and they are, as they always do) and revert on sight or try to push their POV in at all cost, preferably with some "sources" as credible as the one recently presented in the article on Insurrection of Warsaw. It's not worth the effort IMO, especially that after several hours spent on such work these guys are going to abandon the talk page and resort to simple reverts anyway. Not worth my nerves. We recently rewrote a single part of that article - and take a look at what happened, both in the history of the article and at the talk page. Besides, I'd be happy not to enlarge the list of offences I host on my user page - which is not going to happen if I stay on the same articles those guys are interested in I'm afraid. Instead, I'm going to move along.

When it comes to chronological order, I can't say I don't like the current one. The topical order seems just as good - and even better when we write a huge article that's going to be further split anyway. But I won't oppose a complete rewrite to chronological order either. //Halibutt 02:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Dyskusja wykluczająca dyskusję

Rzuć okiem na [[Talk:Marek Edelman]] i doradź, co z tym zrobić. CiaPan 15:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. CiaPan

Admin help needed

Certain User:Xx236 has pointed out recently that the article on Powała of Tczew should in fact be at Powała of Taczew. He was right, but then he went on to the wrong ways: blanked the original article, copypasted it elsewhere and started blanking the redirects instead of fixing them. Could you possibly delete the copypasted article and move it the proper way? //Halibutt 10:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. //Halibutt

Reorganization of Category:World War II ships of Poland

Hello! As a recent editor of World War II Polish ship categories, I wanted to invite you to join in on my cleanup and standardization effort of Category:World War II ships of Poland and its sub categories. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Czeski Cieszyn

Cześć. Mógłbyś zajrzeć na artykuł o Czeskim Cieszynie? Jakiś wandal stale kłócił się ze mną i w końcu dodał tam szablon NPOV. Chciałbym znać twoje zdanie, czy myślisz, że artykuł jest naprawdę nieobjektywny. Dzięki. Jeśli uważasz, że jest objektywny, to poprostu usuń ten szablon. -- Darwinek 20:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

than

Use than for comparisons and then for chronological relationships.

Thanks,

The former 134.250.72.176 04:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Renaming

Piotrus, in view of the ongoing debate about the Polish September Campaign renaming, what would you say about renaming of PMW to the Polish invasion of Russia (1605-1618) or Polish intervention in Russia? I've seen it used in many sources. Please reply at your own talk. I will crosspost the pointer to this message to Balcer and Halibutt. I am interested in their opinion as well. --Irpen 19:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I like Polish September Campaign just fine. Why don't we wait how that debate ends before we condsider moving other articles?

As for other sources using different titles, please keep in mind that Britannica and many other books do not have NPOV as their guiding policy, but Wikipedia does. Hence scholars are allowed to use terms which are inherently POV to make their point, but Wikipedia should steer clear of them. In that light, "war" is a neutral term, "intervention" and "invasion" predispose the reader to a certain moral evaluation of the event and so should be avoided.

To give one quick example, we have Hundred Years War, not English invasion of France or English intervention in France, though both of the latter are of course perfectly accurate and much more descriptive of what actually took place. Balcer 20:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I say the basic way to name the war is by naming it as such. Hence the Polish-Swedish war and not the Deluge, the Polish-Muscovite war and not the Dmitriads and so on. The only problem arrises when there is a significant opposition to renaming one article (PSC) to some other name and the "Country-Country War" scheme would simply not work. That's where we could agree to rename it to some other title. However, contrary to Irpen I don't believe we should start a campaign of changing all the names in wikipedia to fit the new scheme. The Invasion of Poland would be an exception rather than a rule and is a neat solution to avoid naming that article in accordance with the common scheme (that is Polish-German-Soviet-Slovak war), which would produce a monstrosity. If Irpen cares so much about consistency, he should be happy that most of the articles already fit a consistent scheme. //Halibutt 20:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Or is the invasion of Poland should be an exception because Poland was a victim this time and we want the title to reflect that. Unlike when it was the perpetrator. WHat is the English historiography's name for the Polish invasionS of Russia in others' view? --Irpen 21:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think all of this has to be analysed on a case by case basis. Condider: The Deluge (Polish history) vs Polish-Swedish War (1655-1660), Autumn of Nations not Revolutions of 1989 (although this may be actually a wrong choice), January Uprising not Polish Uprising against Russian Empire in 1863, World War I not...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

How about "Polish 1863 Uprising" and "Polish 1830 Uprising"? Granted, both uprisings spilled over into the following year; still, the year is much more informative to a non-Pole than the month. logologist|Talk 03:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The most important issue for me is: is the 'Polish invasion of Muscovy/Russia' the most popular term used in English historiography?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And what is it in your opinion? --Irpen 21:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Polish invasion of Russia: 17 books [14] but some refer to PSW

Polish invasion of Muscovy: 0

Polish-Muscovite War: 1 [15]

Polish-Russian War: quite a few, but most reffering to the Polish-Soviet War [16]

Russian-Polish War: also quite a few [17]

I think that the current title is much more informative (PioM is not used, and PioR can be confusing with PSW). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The confusion can be eliminated by Polish invasion of Russia (1605-1618). At least you can see that this is the most used one. Or you say others are more used. Such title would sure fit to what happend! --Irpen 21:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Honestly I think the entire invasion renaming debate is opening a cans of warms and POV-pushing. I am perfectly happy with the current titles, and unlike some other renaming issue this one seems driven by POV-pushing agenda, not scholarly reasons. Please excuse me, but I don't want to waste more of mine - or yours - time on that issue - we have content to create.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, that's avoidance. Look, the can has many worms and they will keep getting out until we sort this out once and for all. I was pleading at the Polish board about such massacres, martyrdoms and invasions titles (see Wikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board/Archive5#Polish capture of Kiev (1018)) some weaks ago . We should not conviniently put an issue aside under the excuse of being busy with "content creation" and then defend the massacres articles elewhere. Besides, some of the most content creating Polish editors (you and Halibutt) created or contributed to the whole bunch of massacre articles and argued to keep the titles. I will raise this issue again the Polish board. I hope I will get some support this time. --Irpen 23:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, just sit for a minute and think what you're doing. Before you accuse anyone of bad faith or POV-pushing through avoidance, think of your own actions. And then ask yourself why nobody ever tried to propose to rename any article to, say, Russian invasion of Poland[18], Soviet invasion of Poland[19] or Bolshevik invasion of Poland[20], eventhough such names are perfectly known in sources - and in fact give more links than the searches for "Polish invasion of Russia".

If we were to adopt your way of changing all neutral X-Y wars into X's invasions of Y, the struggles for whom invaded which state would never end as it is barely ever as evident as it was in the case of the war of 1939. The war naming scheme is a one size fits most solution. "Invasion of" is not. If the Poles invaded Russia in 1920, then what did the Russians in 1919? And then, shouldn't we adopt the POV of Belarus which was in fact invaded by both Poland and Russia? Or perhaps Ukrainian POV which states clearly that their state was invaded by several Russias (whites and reds at the same time)? Also, following your logic we should split most of the articles we have on 20th century conflicts onto separate parts just to allow for your "invasion" scheme to be sensible. Polish-Ukrainian War would have to be split onto Ukrainian invasion of Poland, Polish invasion of Ukraine, Romanian invasion of Ukraine and Ukrainian invasion of Czechoslovakia. Some would also call the Polish alliance with Petlura a Polish invasion of Ukraine, simultaneous to the Ukrainian invasion of the Ukraine. But let's follow that trail even further. During the same time we also had a French invasion of Russia, American invasion of Russia, British invasion of Russia, Czech invasion of Russia that quickly became the Czechoslovak invasion of Russia. We'd also have a Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian invasions, Russian invasion of Belarus, Belarusian invasion of Russia, Polish invasion of Belarus, Russian invasion of the Caucasus (which in the end should be split onto several country-specific articles, of course). Last but not least we'd have at least four different Russian invasions of Russia and at least two Ukrainian invasions of the Ukraine. Consistency is nice, but your way does not make much sense to me. Sorry. //Halibutt 01:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, that's the music to my ears as we are singing the same tune. Yes, I am also opposing using the strong words in article titles. However, the '39 as well as the 17th century wars stand out as straight-on invasions: one no more than the other and if we allow such names for the articles, both should be renamed. Also, why do we need all this massacres and martyrdoms in the titles? Please see my eariler post and the [[link to my comment in the Polish board. --Irpen 02:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You just can't stick to the topic, can you. Is the article on the war of 1939 named a massacre? Or perhaps the Polish Defensive War has any "martyrdom" in the title? //Halibutt 20:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Your criticism is misplaced. As far as this article goes, I clearly said that it has no more and no less reasons to be invasion-titled than the Polish invasion of Russia (1605-1618). I see it a double standard to promote renaming one and oppose renaming the other. Let's rename them both. The Massacres of Poles articles renaming is a separate question. I want it addressed as well. What's wrong with that? --Irpen 20:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, I think you are mistaken on at least one account: neither me, nor Halibutt (I think?) want to rename any article out there to 'somebody's invasion of something'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Rycina 1752 Palac Branickich.jpg

hello there,

thank you for finding the source of the image. I think many users are probably not quite aware of the Wikipedia:Image use policy, I have posted a request on the Polish users talk page as you have recommended on the Commons, it is the primary responsibility of the user who uploads an image to make sure everything is up to code. If you wish, I can contact you or leave a message with the Polish users noticeboard if I find Polish-related images that are missing sources, instead of posting an immedeate deletion tag. Happy Easter... Gryffindor 18:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Wesołych Świąt! Dr. Dan 03:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Double redirects

How does one "fix double redirects"? logologist|Talk 05:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Red Army

I find your wholesale revert[21] there disturbing. Besides, you entered another paragraph twice in text.[22] Please go over your edit one more time and try to merge info by another editor rather than revert him.

Also, I am really surprised to see you reintroduce the Brest parade to a such broad topic article. We discussed the issue when talking about Victor's parade in Kiev. Would you think info about the Rydz' parade and vandalism in the city should be duplicated in the broad topic articles as well. If so, please do that yourself. The similar article would be History of the Polish Army. I could do that myself, but it would look more convinsing if done by a Polish editor. --Irpen 02:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

As per [23] and our previous dialog: see, that's much better than reverting, while adimtedly took more time. That's exactly what I was saying when calling to revert only when obvious nonsense. I managed to embed at times even Molobo's edits. Please clean up Prometheism from Russophobia, when you have time. --Irpen 06:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar Award

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your particularly fine History-related contributions concerning the Polish-Soviet War I present to you this award.Rosa 05:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoooooo-Weeeeee! Congrats Man! Bottom posting is a pain as you miss so much flying past w/o being able to look! Keep up the good work! FrankB 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If I can trouble you for a little feedback

I got sidetracked into this 'gem' (Ahem) and we haven't touched base for a while. It's not quite a party, but... You are cordially invited to pick on Frank:
(Beats handling problems!<G>)
re: Request some 'peer review' (Talkpage sections detailing concerns)] on new article: Arsenal of Democracy This post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful (spam?) of admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP. (Drop in's welcome too!) Your advice would be valuable and appreciated. Replies on talk link (above) indicated. Thanks! FrankB 20:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• I just ripped this off my talk cleaning up for a WikiDayOff tomarrow, and realized you weren't an invitee on the above. Apologies. I've gotten some good input, but can use more. Bear in mind to go to the talk section link first for the brief, then the article. The issue is really how to design an article covering the topic. This 'draft' just sort of 'happened', as is explained. (btw- if you don't like history, don't bother! <G>)

Best!

• • Thanks for stopping over. I'd thought I'd made things plain when providing the section linked talk navigation. But since it was you asking, I gave a rather lengthy response.

Best regards, FrankB 11:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Just saw how much editing you did! Thanks, but I think a bit premature all things considered. FrankB 14:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Jan Piotr Norblin @ DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Jan Piotr Norblin, 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.

Hobby store

Dear Piotrus: Thanks for your letter. Right now Im too tired (a party and a concert) to look for places on the internet where that statement could be backed up. I only based that statement, being an asiduous visitor of Hobby Stores (I am building a small town for my niece, sort of a much smaller scale of Amsterdam city town in Holland) and everytime I go there are three rooms dedicated to men's and boys toys with one room left for dolls! lol!

I will try to find internet information that backs that statement tomorrow. Meanwhile, pleasse pass by one of my newest contributions, Hobby Bench.

Thanks and God bless you! Antonio Gwar Martin

Peace of Riga

Piotrus, your last edit to the Peace of Riga article 4/16/06, @5:30, is awkward and poorly written. The English is messy, and it is TMI (too much information). It's actually untypical of your contributions. Getting rid of it altogether might be better, than trying to rewrite it. Just an opinion, that might be helpful. Dr. Dan 16:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not that computer literate, to link some of these matters. More importantly however, is I made a mistake, I meant the edit at 14.52, not 5.31. Dr. Dan 16:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Mosque FAC Comment

I have responded to your comments on the Mosque FAC; I hope I have addressed your concerns sufficiently. Feel free to comment more on issues with the article on the FAC page. joturner 03:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block on Red Army

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 3 hours.

Sorry about this, but you have clearly broken 3RR (ou are joking? please stop restoring Soviet propaganda) plus 3 explicitly marked. You say: I have not broken 3RR as my reverts today were not to my own version but to Irpen's compromise version from earlier today - this is wrong. No such defense exists.

William M. Connolley 18:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The reverts are: [24], [25], [26] (those 3 labelled revert) and [27]. I can't see why those aren't 4 reverts, within 24h William M. Connolley 20:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Relax Piotrus. Numbers of trigger-happy admins grow. This one was decent enough to issue the block for 3 hours only. The idea that 3RR does not make the block obligatory has become alien lately. `'mikka (t) 03:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I don't think you have any doubt but thought I just state for the record that in no way I did I take the position of supporting of your opponent in the RA article. You can see that I was not online at the time of your message and for a considerable time after that. Should I have been around I would have interfered. I don't think you should make anything out of a symbolical block. I noticed that you cheered up since then already. Just wanted to make sure that it is absolutely clear that I took no part in that edit war even by deliberate abstaining. ---Irpen 01:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

re: email

In addition to my e-mail, which I hope you recieved. You may want to consider joininf Esperanza and listing yourself under stressed users list. Again, let me know if there is anythign more that I can do. -JCarriker 21:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Tnx :) After some WP:TEA the world looks better again :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

And I want to thank all who expressed their support for me. It's glad to know one's work is appreciated. I'll try to be more careful in the future.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Prośba

Cześć. Mam do ciebie prośbę - czy możesz przetłumaczyć na angielski nazwę "Górnośląskie Zagłębie Węglowe" (nie mylić z Górnośląskim Okręgiem Przemysłowym). Z góry dzięki. LUCPOL 22:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Cześć dziękuję za powitanie, będę trochę edytował na angielskiej Wikipedii, chociaż będzie pewnie problem z poziomem mojego angielskiego. Pozdrawiam --Nowis 09:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:PZL P.11c.jpg

Cześć Piot, I just got your message since I was away for Easter.

Yes this case is indeed quite difficult. I think that scans are not a problem, many images we have are from scans. As long as there is a proper source and the proper tag, no problem. Now for this image, I can see how this could be a problem, because when I saw it for the first time, i thought it was actually a very recent image (let's say a couple of years ago). And what the Kunsturhebergesetz says and if it is still relevant or been replaced with another copyright law, I am not lawyer. hm.... The only solution I would suggest is to state the source as accurate as possible. It says it's from this magazine Signal? Ok, is there a homepage or some archive? Was the scan from a personal issue owned by the user? I think we need to put which issue is this image from, what year exactly, and what page. If that still is not enough, obviously it would be best to go to the Polish Army in Kraków, and take an image of the current plane there, that would solve everything, as tedious as that could be. That's also one of the reason why I always try to take a lot of pictures and put them up in the Commons, to try to avoid such situations.... Gryffindor 14:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC) ps: the statement "The legal successor to the Nazi regime is the Federal Republic of Germany" would not be totally correct. The "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" is the legal successor of the "Deutsches Reich", which existed in this form from 1918-1945. What changed was the form of government, however legal succession in court AFAIK is only possible in the frame of sovereign nations, not governments. The essence of the statement is true, that today's German government handles legal issues pertaining to the previous Weimar Republic and the Third Reich (both officially "Deutsches Reich"), as well as Imperial Germany (-1918), and even the GDR "Deutsche Demokratische Republik" (1947-1990), but matters are handled in the name of a country. It should read "The legal successor to the Third Reich "Deutsches Reich" is the Federal Republic of Germany "Bundesrepublik Deutschland")

I thought you wanted to hear only my opinion on a one-on-one basis, but sure, you can quote me on that or paste my comments on that talk page. Gryffindor 16:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer to your question.

Just good old curiosity ;) Adiós,Rosa 00:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

PolandGov

At last: Template talk:PolandGov. //Halibutt 14:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Are the russian contributors above the rules? 3RRR breaking violation of User:Irpen

Are the russian editors above the rules? Why shouldn't that apply to all users? They reverted my edits and Bogdan's.

I posted his breaking rules on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Irpen

Let all the people see what kind of people are in Wikipedia.

--Andrei George 19:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing happen so far...

Three revert rule violation on Uprising of Khotin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Irpen (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log):

• Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uprising_of_Khotin&diff=49122359&oldid=48934943

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uprising_of_Khotin&diff=49122359&oldid=48934943
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uprising_of_Khotin&diff=49253537&oldid=49186274
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uprising_of_Khotin&diff=49318130&oldid=49258375
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uprising_of_Khotin&diff=49319141&oldid=49318621

reported by Andrei George 19:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Solar eclipse

Hi,

I thought you might want to take a look at my changes in Solar eclipse since you voted in the FA discussion.

Thanks, Nick Mks 18:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

Please take a look Talk:Russophobia. A long conflict about a controversial quote, and its proper sourcing, has finally been resolved after I checked the original Polish reference. It turns out that the quote and the reference which User:Ghirlandajo inserted simply does not appear to exist, at least not at the citation which he referenced. Despite repeated requests on the talk page, Ghirlandajo has refused to clarify how this deeply unfortunate situation has come about. He claimed only that he does not remember where he got the quote. This is a little bit hard to believe, as the topic of Russophobia is clearly dear to Ghirlandajo's heart, and the quote which he inserted was displayed prominently in the article, in a special box all of its own, and was doing an excellent job in creating the impression that the most ardent Russophobes are in fact Poles (a point which the whole article tries hard to make).

Now you are more experienced in Wikipedia's procedures than I, which is why is why I am asking for advice. If a user puts in a presumably false quote, backed by a definitely false reference, and this quote pollutes an article for half a year, should he face any consequences? Should he explain his actions? Should he at least express remorse? Are there any formal procedures to be taken about any of this? I look forward to your view on these issues. Balcer 18:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, after six months, the quote is on all the Wikipedia mirrors, for example on answers.com. Given that the quote is clearly slanderous, should Wikipedia consider issuing a retraction of some kind? Balcer 18:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I will first let a few days pass so that Ghirlandajo has adequate chance to comment on this. Then I might ask for the opinion of others interested in the subject on Wikipedia:Verifiability talkpage, as you suggested. I just hope no media outlets in Poland or elsewhere jump on this as another example of Wikipedia's unreliability as a source. The Batuta Street debacle was enough. For all my differences with Ghirlandajo, I would not wish it on him to become famous on Wikipedia or outside of it because of this matter. Balcer 19:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Need your advice!

RFC Woggly

I have opened a Request for Comment on User:Woggly due to harassment which is clearly evidenced by her in a harassment campaign that she has organized on her talk page User:Woggly 4 On this page one can witness how accusations of using sockpuppets were never confirmed before she accused me of these actions and others. Thanks, IsraelBeach 01:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Your advice Piotrus

I asked you on your talk page above something, but you didn't have any reaction. What can be done? --Andrei George 07:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I started a Request for Mediation for the following users:

• Irpen (talk · contribs)
• Khoikhoi (talk · contribs)
• PANONIAN (talk · contribs)

--Andrei George 15:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Battle of Gdynia, 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.

--Cactus.man ✍ 00:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Piotrus, I was pleased to see your "Perhaps we should have a rule forbidding the creation of divisive userboxes" comment. Perhaps, you could have a word with your friend (perhaps privately} in connection to this. I could not care less to see such stuff at the troll's pages, but since I don't consider our mutual colleague a such, despite whatever he keeps saying about me, I would ask you to give it a thought. --Irpen 06:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Warsaw Uprising

Hello there. Now that my work on Mauthausen-Gusen is nearing an end, I started revising some of our former collaborations. I still wonder what could be done with the article on the Warsaw Uprising of 1794. I'm tempted to move the revelations of that Russian "historian" to a separate section named accordingly, but I'm sure it would spark yet another revert war. On the other hand keeping such rubbish in the main body of the article is not the best option, since it would eventually have to look like "more than XX Russian soldiers were slaughtered in the Orthodox churches, eventhough there was no church and noone slaughtered them"... Any ideas? //Halibutt 19:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Using biased sources is allowed, if handled appropriately of course. To illustrate with an example, Warsaw Ghetto Uprising quotes the Stroop report, after all. So, a section on how various historiographies described the event (Polish,Imperial Russian, Communist Russian, Communist Polish, modern Western) is all right. For me it is actually quite informative what the "other side" thought about various Polish uprisings. Balcer 19:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Balcer is right. I wouldn't like to edit that article myself as I'm pretty sure I will be reverted on sight, but this would need to be done in the nearest future, I believe.

As to Mauthausen-Gusen - I already reported it for PR, with my friend Renata presenting an incredibly long and unbelievably helpful list of issues, which we're currently fixing. She has the merit of not knowing anything on the subject, which helped me notice some statements that are obvious to me, but not necessarily to the average uninformed readers. If she finds time to help me out with some of her questions/issues she raised I still don't get, I'm pretty sure the article would be ready for FAC by the end of the weekend. I will let you know when it's done. //Halibutt 22:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, as to the Uprising and my unwillingness to edit that article: the reason is that I've been instructed by Irpen that reverting my edits on sight is in fact good faith superimposed on an extremely Polonocentric world picture intermingled with a self-denied but obvious hatred toward Russia. After that I decided not to feed him any more. I don't have enough time to waste it on such people as himself - and definitely not enough time to waste it on hours of editing that get reverted because someone believes User:Halibutt is a bad guy. //Halibutt 22:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ustawy

Niestety kruchoo u mnie z czasem, chęciami i umiejętnościami robienia szablonów (przyczyna jest na mojej polskiej stronie użytkownika). Nie chciałbyś może mnie wyręczyć? Mieciu K 19:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Liberation

I think you would be interested in this discussion. --Irpen 23:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

GG

I have not used it for a long time. Plus I don't use Windows anymore. But pl:Kadu seems to be a good alternative for Mac and Linux. Give me some time to install it, then I will email you the number and we can chat sometime. Balcer 16:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have set it up. My GG: 6242190 Balcer 22:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about GG. Time permitting, I'll try to look into it. logologist|Talk 09:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)