Talk:Spieprzaj dziadu!

Various problems
This is just for starters.radek (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ; "Spiepraj" isn't even a word. And btw, literally "spieprzaj" means "pepper off", though since it's slang it can be translated accordingly. The part about it meaning "bugger off" is pure original research, not in the source and should be removed.
 * ; this is nonsense. Whether or not the word carries a positive or negative connotation depends on context it is used in, not whether it was used in the 19th century or today. Also, if it is used "differently" in other sense there is no sense in having this in "See Also". At the very least you'd need some sources which link the phrase to the old pagan festival or the 19th century poem. It basically looks like someone did a search for the word "dziad" on Wikipedia and threw in anything in there without much thought.
 * "Przemyslawowi" is incorrect. It means "to Przemyslaw", as in "somebody did something to Przemyslaw". The name is "Przemyslaw". This, along with other parts of the article reads like a mistake due to too much reliance on google translate.
 * There is a difference between "Wiadomosci" (which means "News" in Polish) from Gazeta Wyborcza as used in this citation and Wiadomosci.pl  which appears to be just a website entitled "News" and is probably not a reliable source (apparently they copy text from Wikipedia)
 * Generally, the refs need to be formatted; they need title, author and date of publication or date of last access at the very least.
 * The translation of the original Polish is pretty bad. Again, the translation should have a source; if the phrase or the conversation is notable, then there shouldn't be much problem in finding a professional translation in a reliable source.
 * ; on Wikipedia we don't use editorials as reliable sources nor do we write about what some editorial wrote somewhere about something, unless that editorial by itself is somehow notable.
 * "It has since taken on a life of its own" is unsourced OR and fairly unencylopedic.
 * There are also numerous grammar and spelling mistakes speppered through out the article.
 * Radeksz, why not just add the 'z' that's missing in "spiepraj"? It's so much easier to be constructive than to waste space up above telling others that the 'z' is missing.
 * As for accusations of OR... not everything we write has to have been said by a source directly. The rule is that OR "refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources." Now, for example, the sources clearly show that the phrase appears in films, games, on tv, on coins... etc. So the paraphrase that you complain of - "has taken on a life of its own" - is a synthesis of material which does in fact suggest this position. Also, consider "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source.". Will all the things you complain about really be challenged? I think not. "Bugger off" for instance is close enough to "piss off" to be synonymous. Your complaint in this case is willfully spurious it seems to me. I know you don't like the article's existence, but come on.
 * And if you find any other missing letters (a 'z', or 'pl' for example), be bold and correct it yourself. Malick78 (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Radeksz, why not just add the 'z' that's missing in "spiepraj"? It's so much easier to be constructive than to waste space up above telling others that the 'z' is missing.  - because last time I tried to improve the article you just reverted me with some spurious reasoning. "Has taken on a life of its own" is essentially a cliche and unencyclopedic language. There's quite a bit of difference between "bugger off" and "piss off". The refs still need to be formatted, the un-RS refs and the irrelevant SAs removed.radek (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between bugger and piss off? As a native speaker I don't see a big one. As for adding a 'z', you know I wouldn't revert that. It's a question of correct or incorrect, whereas the thing I reverted was a question of opinion. "Has taken on a life of its own" is perfectly fine in WP, IMHO. Malick78 (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgive the overhaul, but since the article is here to stay following its most recent AfD, I decided to make it look even more like a real thing. Stay cool. --- Polish29 (talk) 04:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The overhaul seems fine :) I'd still keep a heading before the dialogue though - something like "Incident". But that's just personal preference. Malick78 (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

other meanings of the word 'dziady'
Links to other meanings do not contribute to understanding of the current topic, neither they point to similar topics. The only similarity is superficial: Polish word dziad. -No.Altenmann >t 04:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Spieprzaj, take 2
Wow, I am so surprised that self-proclaimed native Polish speakers do not know the real origins of the words 'spieprzaj' & 'spierdalaj'! Both of them are literally translated as "fuck off" - a bodily fonction all right :-) Do you still need more clarification? That Malick is ignorant I know, but now I begin to doubt that Piotrus is Konieczny :-) For non-Polish speakers I say: 'pieprzyc' and 'pierdolic' are the shades of "to fuck". I am sure now you will can find WP:RS for these when you know what to look for. Since I am a Russophone, I am 'sjobyvaju' from here now. :-) -No.Altenmann >t 05:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ignorance is bliss, but not knowing the language is even better, isn't it User:Altenmann. Look up the meaning of "pieprz" yourself, or just click here, or here, or here and try to refrain from further vulgarities. I'm not going to engage in editing war because that is not my style... not because of what "piss off, you old git" means. Poeticbent talk 19:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't need to loook up the word 'pieprz': it is not used in this article, therefore I deleted discussion of it as WP:SYNTH. As for "further vulgarities", sorry, it is the subject of the article, and you seem not aware of this. And in is good to know that it is "not your style" to engage in editing war in subjects you seem to have no idea. Gosh, is there any real Pole here who can explain him that spieprzać does not mean "to add some pepper" and neither it the same as "spieprzyć"? Not to say that "pepper away" means something in a sense totally opposite to "speprzać": clearly, someone who is peppering away at you na razie nie ma zamiaru spieprzać.  -No.Altenmann >t 04:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)