User:Halibutt/Archive 9

Invitation
Hi Halibutt,

I remember you from one of the many strange discussions about place names in Poland, maybe you are interested (or know sombeody who is interested) on a German/Polish de:Wikipedia:Treffen der Wikipedianer auf Usedom/Spotkanie Wikipedystów na Uznam. -- southgeist 6 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)

Wikiportal/Ukraine
A project Wikiportal/Ukraine created by several editors is now live. I am sure this topic is of interest to you. Cheers, --Irpen July 8, 2005 22:07 (UTC)

Usedom meetup
Hi Halibutt. Two weeks left to our meetup on Uznam. Regrettably almost noone from the Polish Wikipedia reacted to our invitation but at least you said that you were interested to attend the meetup. Perhaps you might find some other Wikipedians who want to come. Shall I give you the details about the place of the location now? -- Baldhur

Okay, I am glad to hear that you are still interested. It is quite bizarre but I learnt that there is no possibility to cross the border by car on the island, the checkpoint is for pedestrians only. I will ask user UW how far it is from the border to the campsite. I think the easiest possibility to get there is to go by hitch-hiking as close as you can get and then call us on the cell phone so that we can pick you up. We will be at the campsite from Friday evening on. In case you prefer to get there by yourself, here is a translation of the description on the meetup page: ''You come to the German part of Usedom on the B111 from the town of Wolgast. Follow the street to the village Zinnowitz and there to a crossing with traffic lights, turn left there. Street crosses a rail track, then you reach a traffic circle, take its first turnoff. Follow the street and turn left at a crossing with a cinema and an Italian restaurant. The name of this street is Dr. Wachsmann-Straße, the campsite is at the end of the street.'' Okay, that is quite complicate, and I guess the easiest way is to give us a call so that we can pick you up. Then you might find it easier to go to Swinoujscie so that we can meet at the border. You may send me your cell phone number to this e-mail address: wikipedia AT mirko HYPHEN thiessen DOT de. Afterwards I will send you mine. I am looking forward to meet you. -- Baldhur

Addendum: If you need a place in a tent then just tell me. But tell me quickly, since I made the offer of borrowing tents on the meeting page, and there are just two places left by now. -- Baldhur

PSW articles
Hello, may I ask you to first read everything that's said at all of the article's talk pages (not in rush but chronologically, using the "compare" tool), and then respond. I just want to make sure everyone hears each other and no one waists time in repetitions. If others' arguments unconvinced you, there is no good in repeating them. Similarly, if your argument unconvinced others, same applies. In this case, we should just find the least opposed variant (maybe discounting certain fanatical POV pushers) and agree on it with everyone giving some. I really don't want to see you getting annoyed and defensive. I respect your work and commitment and if people disagree, there is no reason in repetitive arguing which would lead nowhere. Let's just all hear each other and try to hammer out the versions that are acceptable. This can only be ensured with everyone taking time and care to listed to everyone else. Thanks! --Irpen 00:31, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Kostomarov
Forgot to mention. I asked earlier at talk:History of Kiev to move your criticism of Kostomarov to his talk, where we could continue our discussion. It would be helpful to have talk pages concentrated both for us and for other parties who might be ineterested. Do you have a problem with that? Besides, did you have time to finish the chapter? I am not rushing you of course. --Irpen 00:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration
Hi. I created meta:Meta:Imperialism and world wars, a project to organize international collaboration. It would be great, if you could take part in the project. Maybe you would like to create a Project like the de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Imperialismus und Weltkriege in the Polish Wikipedia. In the english wiki you can, if you like, take part in the WikiProject World Wars. Regards, John N. 11:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Usedom camp
Hi Halibutt, first I hope you made it back home safely and in due time. Apart from being the only foreign guest, you also made a good bid in the "User with a very long distance from home to the meeting place" category :o). Anyway, hopefully you enjoyed the weekend and don't regret to have made the long trip. There are now the first pictures to be found at de:WP:T/U, more of them will hopefully added in the next days. You're welcome to take a look and possible leave a comment or two about your experiences. As for myself, I highly enjoyed your participation which added a lot to the meeting. Best Regards, --Uwe 12:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Re:PBW
Gdzie dokladnie? Nie widze niczego specyficznie do mnie skierowanego tam. Aha, jak tam prace nad mapka do Dymitriad? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Picture in the header for Warsaw
Hello. I really think that articles about cities should ideally have a picture in the header, on the right-side of the page. I realize that the PKiN picture you removed from Warsaw was not ideal, but could you come up with a picture -- a panoramic view, preferrably -- that would be suitable? Take a look at New York City, or Sydney, or Chicago, or Madrid -- these pages look very good at the top of each article. Perhaps the picture you removed was a little too wide, and that is what made the layout look weird; a different, narrower picture would avoid that particular problem. Please let me know what you think. Pozdrawiam Cie, Mareklug talk  06:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Can we upload to Commons
Cześć! I have a important question, and ask to you. Can we upload the images from Jewish Encyclopedia(kot) to Commons? This will be big delightfull chance or mournfull tragic affair... --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 11:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Uznam
I am suspending my break from utterly infantile debates to salute you for apparently being the only one to fly the Polish colours at the Polish-German Wikipedians' meeting on Uznam. I'm really impressed that you single-handedly coped with the superior number of fourteen representatives of a people that, as we all know, suck anti-Polonism with their mother's milk. Unfortunately, I had no chance of being there myself, maybe next time. --Thorsten1 18:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't be worried about being outnumbered 10-1 by the hordes of Niemci. You need merely to pick up some Fürstenberg beer to lubricate the conversation and all will be well.  Just don't let them drink any mother's milk, or, for that matter, Liebfraumilch - especially after midnight, or they will turn into unpleasant little Gremlins-like creatures. --Jpbrenna 01:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Asking for support
Hello, since you are interested in Lithuania I thought hat you might support our letter to Centre for Cartography, Vilnius University. We are asking to release their maps found at www.balticdata.info under GFDL licence so they could be used in articles about Lithuania. So far we got 14 people to "sign" it. The draft in very very rough English is available at user:Renata3/letter. If you decide to support it, I'll need just your first and last names together with your user name. You can leave it on my talk page or send it via email: just attact @gmail.com to my user name. Renata3 22:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

"Bolesław Prus" and "Edmund Charaszkiewicz."
Do you know of someone who could advise on problems related to the articles, "Bolesław Prus" and "Edmund Charaszkiewicz," described in their respective Discussion pages? I think my comments are reasonably self-explanatory, but will be happy to provide further information. Thanks. logologist 06:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the IPA key to "Edmund Charaszkiewicz." Could "H" have been used instead of "X"?  Any way to get "This article needs to be cleaned up" note removed?
 * In the "Bolesław Prus" article, when I click on "Wikisource," I read: "There is currently no text in this page."  When I click on Wikiquote, it says:  "Wikiquote does not have an article with this exact name."  Originally both were linked to "Boleslaw Prus," and disappeared after some bot corrected the spelling in the article title to "Bolesław."
 * If it comes down to it, I suppose Charaszkiewicz can live with the clean-up label, so long as it doesn't lead to the article's deletion. But it seems a shame to lose Prus' two addenda.
 * Thanks. logologist 09:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for restoring the Prus -source and -quote connections! And for cluing me into Wiki procedures over the past months.

I've left a note for User:Pavel Vozenilek — who placed the "needs-work" notice on "Edmund Charaszkiewicz" — asking for any specific questions or suggestions. logologist 19:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Lebus coat of arms
Howdy again! I recently created a Lebus article and grabbed the picture of its coat of arms from the Lubusz article. Unfortunately, I don't speak Polish; could you please verify for me that the picture is in the public domain and that I put the right coding on it? Olessi 21:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for verifying that for me, and good work on the Emilia Plater compromise. I hope that solution holds; I have been having similarly frustrating discussions at Talk:Warmia that have made me want to read How to deal with Poles again. Olessi 04:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Starka
See Talk:Starka, thanks --Gvorl 08:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Belarus
I was wondering if you could come by the Belarus article and notice any POV or accuracy issues. Thanks. Zach (Sound Off) 18:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Piłsudski article "neutrality" sign
Have you noticed the "neutrality of this article is disputed" sign that 68.163.176.104 placed on the Józef Piłsudski article on Sept. 12? It refers to "discussion on the talk page," but I find no pertinent discussion there. Vandalism? logologist 05:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Wielun
Halibutt, bardzo, bardzo, BARDZO potrzebuje materialow na temat Wielunia. Posiadasz moze cos na ten temat? Ja mam tylko ksiazki, ktore sa za malo szczegolowe. Potrzebuje na przyklad informacji kiedy baony obrony narodowej opuscily Wielun, kiedy opuscila miasto brygada kawalerii, itd.

Podobnie wszystko na temat aktywnosci Luftwaffe w wrzesniu 1939. Szopen 10:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding Emilia Plater
I'd hoped someone will do it. I read somewhere that a modern ship and other objects or locations got named after her - perhaps this and later views on her could be added into the article. Pavel Vozenilek 16:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Baudouin de Courtenay
Prosze sprawdzic: Jan Niecislaw Baudouin de Courtenay. mikka (t) 22:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Czas na mape?
Jak stoisz z czasem na zrobienie mapki? Zalezy mi zwlaszcza na Dymitriadach, bo wtedy mysle ze ten artykul bylby gotow na FA (Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Milinkievič
I belive the gentlemans name is Аляксандар Мілінкевіч (that's Milinkievič in latin).

Redirect categories
I think redirect categories are a good place to store metadata, since redirects are usually only made/edited by folks who know the system, and because their patterns of use are pretty closely tied to people's format conventions. I also replied to your comment on Template talk:R from ASCII.--Joel 23:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

For you
Siemka Halibutt. Zatrzymałem z powrotem tego Aleksandara Milicevica. Możesz go znowu edytować. Miłego dnia. Btw. Ty nie jesteś jeszcze adminem? - Darwinek 12:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Gdyby kiedykolwiek wystąpił jakiś problem, to możesz mnie kontaktować. Jestem dopiero na 1. roku uczelni wyższej (politologia), ty jesteś starszy, ale postaram się Ci pomóc, nie ma sprawy. Może spróbować nominować Cię na admina? - Darwinek 14:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Jako członek mniejszości polskiej na Zaolziu bardzo łatwo dostałem się na prawa na UJ, ale w końcu zdecydowałem się iść na politologię do Olomouca. - Darwinek 15:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Wolodarka
Wiesz, mnie przekonales, ale ciekaw jestem co by Irpen odpowiedzial. A kto zablokowal artykul i dlaczego? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Who is "lying"?

 * moved from user talk:Irpen to preserve context and responded

"Why are you lying?"
The source that is available online says clearly that it was a Polish victory. So, in fact it's not that it's my conclusion, it's Fudakowski's conclusion. Halibutt 04:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Watch your tongue! Now to the point. I explained what's wrong with using Fudakowski's conclusions. His descriptions are interesting to get some small detail not an overall picture. The other source (an academic one indeed), calls this "failure". It is your concsusion that failure is so significant as to qualify for a defeat. I disagree. Why don't you mention what Davies says about it, BTW? Back to your "lying". If you want to turn this into an ethics dispute, I will only welcome it. You know how to start an RfC, don't you? If this just accidentally slips, watch yourself. --Irpen 04:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * One source calls it a victory
 * You say that no source calls it a victory
 * You lie.

Also, from now on I'm stopping to watch your talk page. As a sign of courtesy you could reply at my talk page. Halibutt 21:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Check again WP:Civil. An academic source does not call it a victory. The one that does is, as I explained, not credible in this respect for two reasons. If you cite that Davies also agrees that it is a defeat, I will accept it. Why do you refuse to tell what Davies says about it? --Irpen 21:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. I would like that the context of discussions is present, that's why I was replying on my own talk. You desire to use yours is fine with me. I am watching it and will see whatever you say. --Irpen 22:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Because, as I already pointed out (three times in a row, if memory serves me right), I don't have Davies' book at home. So, contrary to your allusions, I don't simply "refuse to say what Davies says", in fact I don't know. Halibutt 22:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Very well, could you ask Piotrus to check then? As I said, I will accept the Davies' version. I thought you said you don't have Davies in English but have him in Polish. So, I assumed you cold check that. --Irpen 22:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for causing the confusion
although I did come with this to you first.

Mapki
Mapki mają zasadniczo opis "Na podstawie mapy " jak w pl:Grafika:Rozejm andruszowski.png, czy mzopw na podstawie mapy w pl:Grafika:Diecezja chełmska.png (dlaczego to usuwasz w opisie tych mapek ?). Jeżeli któreś zostały pominięte to żadnen problem dopisać. Jeżeli to dla Ciebie za mało to powiedz jak ma być albo kasujemy. Mzopw 13:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Damaged Józef Piłsudski bio-box
The Józef Piłsudski article has a damaged box. (Please see that article's discussion page.) Could you help with a repair? Thanks. logologist 21:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Iskra
Iskra jest jednym z najłatwiejszych w pilotażu i najpewniejszych samolotów. Nie bez powodu Indie wybrały ją nie Delfina czy Albatrosa. Co do wypadku - tylko samoloty które stoją na ziemi, jak Iryda, nie spadają.

Na tej samej zasadzie mozna powiedzieć, że najniebezpieczniejszym szerokokadłubowcem świata jest 747 (najwięce wypadków, bo najwięcej eksploatowanych maszyn). Pozdrawiam Radomil talk 15:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Ja natomiast wychowałem się wśród Iskier (co prawda znacznie lepiej utrzymanych niż te w Dęblinie, bo z 17 el) i nie znam pilota który wypowiadałby się niepochlebnie o tym samolocie (doskonała stateczność. Równie dobrze można napisać, że P-51 Mustang to złom, bo obecnie większość egzemplarzy nie jest wstanie oderwać się od ziemi. Nie zapominajmy, że to samolot zaprojektowany kilkadziesiąt lat temu, a to że obecnie nadal służy nie świadczy o jego awaryjności, a o tym, że pomimo tylu lat nadal większość z nich lata.

Links
Thanks for your recent help in straightening out linkage snags. Could you help again? I'm able to bring up the Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791 Wikiquote but not Wikisource (the English translation of the Constitution). Has someone deleted it? It contained many corrections from the earlier version, as well as a new translation of the Free Royal Cities Act.

Also, in the Bolesław Prus Wikisource, the English-language-biography link no longer works. logologist 04:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Support template
You may wish to consider the previous discussion archived at User:Fir0002/Discussion on templates on the use of Template:Support and others. From memory, it's ok if you want to use it yourself, but by no means impose it on others (including editing their votes). Thanks. Enochlau 07:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Browning wz.1928
Wielkie dzięki :) (A niechaj narodowie wżdy postronni znają, iż Polacy nie gęsi, iż swoją broń strzelecką mają ;) Nemo5576 07:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Może i poprawki drobne, ale jaki piękny efekt :P Swój narodowy wkład intelektualny w produkowane na licencji bronie mieliśmy i możemy się nim pochwalić :) A tak serio to broń produkowana na wschodzie Europy jest nadal słabo znana na świecie (może za wyjątkiem czeskiej i rosyjskiej), a przecież powstało tam całkiem sporo ciekawych konstrukcji. Nemo5576 10:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

pas
To nie był pas kontuszowy, tylko pas żupanowy. To inna sprawa. Podział wytworzył się po pojawieniu się kontusza. To nie jest taki sam pas. Selena von Eichendorf 12:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

pas
To nie był pas kontuszowy, tylko pas żupanowy. To inna sprawa. Podział wytworzył się po pojawieniu się kontusza. To nie jest taki sam pas. A przy okazji, to czerwone na Zamoyskim to delia, a nie jak uprzednio było napisane - kontusz. Selena von Eichendorf 12:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Support Template
Hi Halibutt! Great to see you over at the English wiki FPC. I noticed you brought in the nifty little support templates from the commons. Beware! I tried doing the same thing about half a year ago and look what happened! I would fully support you but as you can see by the arguments there are some pretty stupid comments against it by people too stubborn to change. I in the end had to resort to making a subpage on my userpage and doing it that way (as you probably saw on the anole FPC voting pic). Anyway, let me know if they try delete it again and I'll help you fight it!

Best wishes, --Fir0002 22:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Some thoughts of mine
Hey Halibutt! I am fascinated with placenames in different languages and ideally would like to include as many names for a city as possible, space permitting (of course, that is why there is this article). Unfortunately, the only language I can translate is German, so I am limited in the variety of names I can add at this point. I do try to add names in languages other than German when I find them, however.

I have unfortunately come to realize that many contributors are not as accepting of including as many names as me. I was not around for the Gdańsk Vote and do disagree with some of the results. For instance, I personally feel that the city should be referred to as Gdańsk until 1772, but according to the Vote that is not to be. The Vote is frequently disputed and interpreted differently, especially the phrase "share a history between Germany and Poland". I believe that we share the same interpretation of that phrase (see your earlier discussion at Talk:Dresden and my earlier discussion at Talk:Warmia).

Regarding Dresden: I personally support your rationale for the inclusion of Drezno in the article. I have read the Talk page, however, and the majority of contributors there were resistant to the inclusion of Drezno. I count six active contributors opposing it (Mackensen, Eugene van der Pijll, John Kenney, Philip Baird Shearer, Saintswithin, & JohnDBuell {discounting Zivinbudas}) and only you supporting it. You had said on the Talk page "But what does the number of those who oppose me have to do with the voting results?" The Vote is not a Wiki-Policy, but a Compromise. Unfortunately, this compromise is not detailed enough and, as I have said, open to interpretation. Since out of 7 participants in the discussion, 6 came to similar conclusions and only 1 to a differing conclusion, that indicates to me community consensus regarding this application of "shared history". Considering that there was a two month gap between the reinclusion of Drezno, it seemed to me that you and they had achieved a consensus.

Therefore, when I saw that Molobo had reintroduced Drezno to the intro, I removed it as per the aforementioned consensus. However, to (naively) avert a revert war and because I felt that the name should be in the article somewhere, I followed JohnDBuell's suggestion and added Drezno into a relevant spot in the History section.

Calling my removal of controversial information a Violation of a Vote (interpreted differently than you by the majority), when you have felt it unimportant for two months, was very unbecoming of you, IMO, especially since I had actively tried to find a compromise.

I trust your contributions and have always believed that you edit out of good faith. I do not have that same confidence in some other posters, and I understand your frustration with certain nationalistic contributors (of various origin) as they frustrate me as well. I hope that you would consider my edits to be in good faith. If I have contributed faulty information, then please provide constructive criticism and do not assume that I have bad intentions. Olessi 02:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your responses! I am optimistic that the community can find a consensus and avoid all of these headaches in the future. :-) Olessi 06:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Boy scouts
Oops, my bad. It wasn't clear from the article, feel free to add it back in. Also, do you want to weigh in on naming in the March 1968 events article? --Goodoldpolonius2 06:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Halibutt
Since for now the vote is binding in Gdansk Vote...: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polskie_odpowiedniki_niemieckich_nazw_geograficznych With a good search all of this cities share some history with Poland, either by having a local Polish community, being home to labour camp for Poles, having a treaty signed with Poland etc.And of course their names have to be merged to Polish counterparts.There is a great deal of work to be done of course.Of course there is also Saksonia,Królewiec, many articles(people, firms,places,history articles) have their German names counterparts of those two names and will have to be edited to comply with Gdansk vote. But since it is the "community concesus" to have it that way... Cheers(we really need another voted on that "shared history", I will suggest that the vote only applies to Gdansk and we should have another vote on 1466)--Molobo 18:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I personally do not mind if alternative names are mentioned at relevant spots, although "relevant spots" and "shared history" need to be clarified and discussed. If you really are interested in resolving this issue, I hope that you would not start adding Polish names to German-related articles across Wikipedia until the community discusses it; doing so now would be a sure way to start undesired revert wars. Olessi 20:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm the Gdansk_Vote is seriously flawed in many aspects.One of which is that its effects are only disrupting the clarity of the articles.People taking part in the vote know why the names differ in such strange way from other articles, but a neutral user of Wiki, say from China, or Brasil, is clueless as to why the name is written in such way, and why and in what language ? What do you think about this argument ? --Molobo 20:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Historycznie owszem to można nawet przeboleć miejscami ale dochodzi do absurdów.Na przyklad poseł z PiS urodzony o ile pamiętam w latach 70tych ma przy dacie urodzenia Gdansk(Danzig). Inny absurd-stosując obecne zasady tworzy się nowe nazewnictwo historyczne które poza wiki nie jest stosowane-mówiąc o powstaniu Solidarności musielibysmy pisać Lech Walesa from Gdansk(Danzig). Widziałeś kiedyś by robiły to BBC, CNN lub gazety zagraniczne ? Nie tylko brzmi absurdalnie ale jest też predensem który nie jest stosowany.Prawda jest taka że poza okresem IIWŚ i Niemcami praktycznie już nie używa się nazwy Danzig, szczególnie jeśli dotyczy wyłącznie tylko Polskiej historii. Jestem zdania iż skoro jest shares history to powinno to tylko dotyczyć rzeczywiście sytuacji gdy nadanie owej nazwy odnosi się do jakiegoś momenty gdy to miejsce rzeczywiście dzieliło historię obu krajów w znaczącym stopniu. Obecnie można wszystko do tego worka wrzucić.Że już nie wspomnę że zgodnie z głosowaniem Warszawa powinna się nazywać Warsaw(Warschau).--Molobo 22:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Polish mathematician pronounciations
Hi! I noticed that you provided a recording for the pronounciation of Poznań. Absolutely no pressure, of course, but I was wondering if you might consider doing the same for some famous Polish mathematicians who worked on Enigma &mdash; Marian Rejewski, Jerzy Rozycki and Henryk Zygalski? &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for doing these. I've always felt bad at mangling their names, and I've been spending a lot of time recently reading about their work. I'll still mangle them, but at least I've got something to approximate! If it's not much trouble for you, I wonder if you might like to do Biuro Szyfrów and Maksymilian Ciężki. Although we don't have an article on it, I've always wondered how one pronounces Pyry, which was the site of the historic meeting between the Polish, British and French codebreakers in mid 1939, where the Polish revealed their successes to the British and French. &mdash; Matt Crypto 18:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I hope you don't mind, but I've blogged about the pronounciations, on the theory that there must be at least some other people with cryptographic interests as ignorant as myself: . Cheers! &mdash; Matt Crypto 23:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Voting on FPC
Please note that Template:Support has been deleted and currently shows as a broken link. Please use the support style of voting in future. Thanks. Enochlau 07:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello
Hello. Firstly, I want to introduce myself; I am Knyaz, I registered jsut recently but I was watching wikipedia for long. First of all, I'd want to thank you for all the wonderful contributions you have added to Wikipedia. Unfortunately however, it seems not every user is contributing positively. I've been watching this particular user (User:Ghirlandajo)for some time now, and now when I joined I checked up his history of edits. It seems, although he does some good edits about various Russian people, quite many of his edits are impositions of nationalist opinion, deletions of good wordings; especially this is done when related to histories of eastern European countries, including Poland; this is why I have decided to notify you. He seems to try to convert wikipedia into some Soviet propaganda book, some of his edits I seen in his edit history are clear propaganda, he rarely explains his edits in talk pages and as well frequently insults other users by calling them "russophobic", "nationalists", etc. even if they themselves are Russians; unfortunately, some of such edits remains unchanged as they are not noticed (he pushes nationalism in less popular articles), as well he defends his even most POV edits by reverts. Therefore, I am asking you (and I will ask other best Eastern European contributors the same too), that you would check his contributions from time to time, especially if they are on subjects related to other countries or history of them. If only one person will notice the POV-pushing, he will fight revert wars; but if we will be unified against such POV-pushing and notify each other, then history of the eastern Europe won't be twisted accoridng to the nationalist Russian POV. Just a few examples of his edits, those are now reverted but many aren't and he already tried to revert those back: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russophobia&diff=26377047&oldid=25901246, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gediminids&diff=26381570&oldid=26380888 and so on. Good luck to you and continue your great contributions! Knyaz 08:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Support
Hi there. I didn't delete it (I'm not an admin), and I'm quite surprised to hear that it was deleted unilaterally - I had assumed that it had gone to TfD like last time. Thanks for telling me. Enochlau 13:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah ha! Take a look at the following links: and Template:Db-repost. It appears that admins can speedily delete content that has been previously deleted via a vote (AfD, TfD etc). So I guess that's why it's been continually deleted by these admins - you might want to drop one of them a message asking how to recreate without getting it deleted again. Hope this clears things up. Enochlau 20:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Kulturkampf
Możesz zerknąć na ten artykuł ? Usilnie trwa tam próba wymazywania wszelkich wzmianek o prześladowaniu Polaków i stanowisku Bismarcka. --Molobo 18:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I?
Ta dyskusja troche stara, o co konkretnie chodzi? Aha - jak tam prace nad mapka do Dymitriad? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no objections - let me know what I can do as an admin. For poland-mil-stub, see discussion here. Aha, zwróć uwagę, że mamy nowe zabawki: Poland-mil-bio-stub i Poland-noble-stub. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Mozesz sie wypowiedziec tu i tu? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

re: Template:Support
No it wasn't. Speedy criterion G4 is  'A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy.'  That's exactly what it was. - ulayiti (talk)  12:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And I see you recreated the template straight away, in blatant violation of policy. I have now protected the page with deletedpage. - ulayiti (talk)  12:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:PZL_P.11c.jpg
Can you provide a source? I've been deleting the unsourced images starting with the letter P and this one is useful enough I'd like to keep it if we can. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidates
I'm sorry to bring up the support template again, but I'm afraid I have to: I've had to change your support templates to support, as whenever the template it used it now brings up two huge boxes instead of the proper template; see here and here for examples of what the template looks like now. I know you were a little annoyed about this last time which is why I'm telling you about why I'm doing it this time. Please understand that your actual vote (whether you are supporting or opposing) is not being changed, I am only replacing the template because it has been deleted, and that I really have no choice; the FAC pages cannot be left as they are now that the template has been deleted. Raven4x4x 00:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have also taken the liberty of editing your votes so that the big boxes don't show up, I hope that's ok. If you really like that kind of voting, use like our friend Fir0002 does. Enochlau 10:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I just got your message. Ok, fair enough. Enochlau 11:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Polish lutenist stubs

 * Wojciech Długoraj
 * Jakob Polak

One more, and we can give them their own category! Fill in if you can, or pass it on to the Polish music expert-in-residence. --Jpbrenna 01:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

War crimes
Dear Halibutt, I know Shauri well, and I can assure you that her removal of information in this case is based solely on past experiences with Molobo who has testified to a lack of judgment in his choice of sources. It is a good faith edit trying to keep unreliable information away from the article. Thank you for finally getting involved.--Wiglaf 06:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Chciałbym tylko cię powiadomić że jeśli wszystko pójdzie dobrze książka Szatnera będzie w mojej kolekcji w ciągu tygodnia, dwóch.--Molobo 11:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Dresden Frauenkirche
Please stop moving this article on your own !!! Use Requested moves if you feel this should be moved. --Denniss 09:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

List of country names in various languages under attack !!!
Dear Halibutt,

The List of country names in various languages, List of European regions with alternative names, List of European cities with alternative names, List of European rivers with alternative names, and others, have come under attack by a certain Mikka, who, having just stumbled into all these lists, having found them of little use to himself, and having repeatedly ridiculed them and their users, has then promptly filed a petition to delete the lists in question.

Please cast your vote to keep these valuable, informative, and indeed fascinating lists at Articles for deletion/List of country names in various languages.

Thanks! Pasquale 16:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Kościół Mariacki, Gdańsk
Halibutt, I suppose you moved this to prove a point about the naming of Frauenkirche? Just thought I'd point out that you accidentally used a different name to the one in the article and forgot to change the name in the introduction. Saint|swithin 20:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Datner
I gave a couple of modern scholary works that list Datner as credible source of information. They can be found on the Division page where we led the discussion earlier. --Molobo 22:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Blad?
Cos nie tak z twoim glosem na Featured_picture_candidates. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, what about using the  /  ? I think that gets the point as well, maybe even better - because new users can see them in action and ask why they are not official... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Names of Hungarian-related objects in the English Wikipedia
Hi,

I'm sure you moved Szent István-bazilika, Budapest to its new name with good intentions towards Hungarians. Nevertheless, I'm afraid you were wrong, for two reasons:
 * 1) When I browse the English-language Wikipedia, I find it bad to see things written in the national language (e.g. the name of a Bulgarian bridge in Bulgarian, from which I won't even learn that it's actually a bridge), since I don't speak thousands of languages of the world, only English (plus one or two more), and I think many users will benefit if names are informative and self-explanatory in English.
 * 2) *In other words, although it's good for me to see the name in Hungarian (since my mother tongue happens to be Hungarian) I'm afraid it will carry little information for those who only find the title of this article (e.g. when browsing its category or browsing among search results).
 * 3) There is a policy Naming conventions (use English) saying that
 * If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article (as you would find it in other encyclopedias). This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. For example, Christopher Columbus, Venice.

Although this policy may be taken as offensive against national languages and cultures, I think it can be actually useful for the majority of those who use this (English-language) version of the Wikipedia. This (and the above reason) is why I decided not to object to this policy and why I propose following it.

I'd rather have five thousand users open the article about this basilica and learn about it (despite the English name) than having these users see the correct and authentic Hungarian term and leave the article without opening it and without learning anything about the building itself.

I hope you understand these reasons of mine.

Adam78 23:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I can't find a result saying that the individual decision about Dresden Frauenkirche is to be applied universally, i.e., overwriting the existing Wikipedia policy. I think if the Wikipedia community comes to a universal decision, it will be reflected in the official policies. You don't mind if I stick to them, do you?

On the other hand: as Olessi said on my talk page, "The consensus that I interpreted is to name the articles by how they are most commonly referred to in English". Can you show me English-language websites that use the Hungarian name for the Saint Stephen's Basilica? I think the lack of Hungarian-language references is a major difference from the case of the Dresden Frauenkirche.

Adam78 15:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll just butt in and - I'm a huge optimist :-) - repeat the quote I pasted several times at Talk:Dresden Frauenkirche WP:NC - Convention: "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form" Saint|swithin 16:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Page moves
When you move a page, such as Basilica di San Marco, Venezia, you really should note the request that you check for and fix any double redirects that you have created. Thanks in advance. --Russ Blau (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

PMW map
I think consistensy from map to map is good and I don't object to it. I just think that if you use Warsaw, you might as well use Kiev. Or you could have used Warszawa. I don't mind either way but Kijow and Warsaw on the same map is inconsistent, IMO. --Irpen 21:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Skarga, Matejko, miodzio :)
Miodzio artykulik. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Dziękuję
Za udział w dyskusji nad zbrodniami Wehrmachtu.Książkę Datnera zakupiłem na aukcji w allegro i mam nadzieje, że w ciągu kilku tygodni ją otrzymam. --Molobo 12:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Explained what?
I thoight I explained that to you. Too bad you didn't listen and considered me a random example of a Polish anti-German nationalist. Perhaps one day you'll learn to listen to other people instead of listening to your own thoughts only. Hopefully. Halibutt 00:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

-- Explained what?

Sca 19:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

60-80 tysięcy Rosjan wymordowanych w Berezie Kartuskiej
To tylko jedna z propozycji jakie informacje umieścić w artykule Russophobia jakie umieszczono na Talk Page. Polecam uwadze ten artykuł. --Molobo 14:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Poland
I agree with your revert of my comment, re-reading it, I phrased the insertion badly. Perhaps you can join in the FA discussion in an attempt to placate Vb. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Template help
I am trying to force Template:Polish coats of arms by Tadeusz Gajl to look as nifty as your User:Halibutt/GFDL, and I'd appreciate your help. Eh, that Emax left us lots of problems (stolen images...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Podhalanczyk
Could you please help me with a translation of this polish military termin? Is it sharpshooter/sniper or something alse? Want would be translation of "21. Brygada Strzelcow Podhalanskich"? TIA! Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic 21:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Toll war vs Customs war
Hi. I noticed you moved Toll war to Customs war, but the content of the article still uses the term "toll war" in every instance. I don't want to move it back if there's a good reason for it to be at Customs war, so I thought I'd ask why you did that. It seems to me it should either be located at Toll war, or have the wording changed throughout. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Wielun
I expanded the article by adding a few more opinions of Horst about Luftwaffe and its operations to the text.I also believe it would add to the value of the article If we would translate desription of the bombing from the Polish webpage.I can do that after Sunday. --Molobo 12:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)