User:Piotrus/Sandbox/Wiki

Wikipedia tools

 * Wikipedia Page Usage Statistics
 * CheckUsage
 * Poland new articles
 * List of Wikipedians by number of edits: Ranked by total edits, updated every few months.
 * User Edit Counter: Total edits, User groups, Image uploads, Distinct pages edited, Edits/page (avg), Avg edits/day, First edit, Edits by namespace
 * User Contribution Tree (requires the user to agree to it first)
 * Countervandalism Edit Counter (very basic)
 * Kate Wannabe user edit counter. Note: stops at 45000 contribs and thus may not be accurate for top contributors. Total edits, First edit, Edits by namespace, Edits by month, Top 10 articles edit in every namespace
 * TDS' Article Contribution Counter: Editors by number of contribution to given article. Anonymous lumped together.
 * User:Dschwen/WikiMiniAtlas
 * User:Misza13/Scripts/Watchlist sorter/WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Watchfilter
 * User:Zocky/Auto Complete User:Zocky/Search Box

Nifty
XMAS Gift

XMAS gift
Lots of good intentions flying around, but not much in the way of useful stuff. Here is a nice template I found to organize your ever-growing collections of awards :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

From userpage

 * Statistics from User talk:Voice of All/UsefulJS tool, as of 15 July 2006.
 * Time range: 54 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
 * Most recent edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 15, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 15hr (UTC) -- 22, May, 2006
 * Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 64.3% Minor edits: 27.86%
 * Average edits per day: 224.37 (for last 500 edit(s))
 * Article edit summary use (last 579 edits): Major article edits: 93.96% Minor article edits: 36.59%
 * Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown of this page):
 * Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 2.1% (105)
 * Significant article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 8.94% (447)
 * Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 33.4% (1670)
 * Superficial article edits marked as minor: 3.78%
 * Breakdown of all edits:
 * Unique pages edited: 2272 | Average edits per page: 2.2 | Edits on top: 28.34%
 * Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 49.32% (2466 edit(s))
 * Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 2.04% (102 edit(s))
 * Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 4.62% (231 edit(s))
 * Unmarked edits: 34.5% (1725 edit(s))
 * Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
 * Article: 52.32% (2616) | Article talk: 14.34% (717)
 * User: 1.16% (58) | User talk: 8.22% (411)
 * Wikipedia: 7.86% (393) | Wikipedia talk: 4.44% (222)
 * Image: 1.44% (72)
 * Template: 1.82% (91)
 * Category: 2.54% (127)
 * Portal: 2.52% (126)
 * Help: 0% (0)
 * MediaWiki: 0% (0)
 * Other talk pages: 3.34% (167)


 * Edit summaries:

Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world ''' this article is. Please help fix this and Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world '''

format

Fixing giant loopholes in Survey guidelines
NOTE: now official proposal is at Wikipedia_talk:Survey_guidelines

Proposal
To be moved to Village pump (policy) soon Survey guidelines, a guideline for all manners of surveys and votes on Wikipedia, is deeply flawed in its existing rules and fails to adress several important issues. A prime example is that in Gdansk/Vote it allows both sides of the dispute to claim they are immunie from 3RR rule, as well as disputing the very vote results. As there are proposals for new votes similar to the Gdansk/Vote, I feel we must fix the policy ASAp - otherwise, those votes will be nothing but a giant time loss for everybody involved, including poor participants of RfC, RfA and admins enforcing 3RR rule, who - judging on Gdansk/Vote results - will soon be asked to chose sides in various interpretations of the vote. I think the following changes have to be implemented: Well, that's all I can think of now. What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) This is supposedly an official guideline, but it states first: These guidelines provide a framework that may be followed when creating a new survey. These are not binding in any way. It would be funny if it wasn't sad. What's the point of official unbidning guidlines, especially when they are used to change/counteract official policies (like 3RR)? We need to make some of them obligatory for carrying all votes on Wikipedia, or at least those that affect official policies. I definetly think that each survey must follow points 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
 * 2) Points 1 and 3 are 'good wishes', and should be moved to the introduction section of the guideline
 * 3) Point 9 is too general: Where there is a sign of activities intended to frustrate the intent of the survey, those who can opine may be restricted. A lack of restrictions is usually best, so this may be invoked after the polling has started. We need to specify what are the 'acitivies intended to frustrate the intent of the survey' and how 'those who can opine may be restricted'. In current form those rules allow for, for example, for a restriction of vote to 'Yes' only.
 * 4) Point 10 is even worse: If the majority of opinion is in one direction, but a significant minority of people oppose it, work to find a solution that can be accepted by as many people as possible. It can easly be used to dispute almost any vote after the voting has ended. It should either be deleted, or we need to define significant majority *gasp* with clear qunatiative percents - and make it clear to the voters (by adding the relevant requirement to step 2 of 'creating a new survey section') that they know that the vote needs more then normal majority (50%+1) to pass. Otherwise any user can claim that anything is a 'significant majority' and the vote is unbinding. I'd suggest that a Wikipedia vote must require at least a 75% majority to be binding, otherwise it can be only a guideline.
 * 5) Further, we need to add to that section an obligatory information on who can vote, preferably make this a rule in survey creation instead of leaving it to arbitrary decision of not always impartial vote creators. I.e. make a rule that only users who have at least x major edits and registered y time periods before voting can vote. I'd suggest 100 edits and a week. Note that such a rule applies to current Election_candidates_2005.
 * 6) If a vote would influence and official policy (like the 3RR) then information about the vote should be added to the relevant policy discussion/talk page. Similarly, if a vote would influence mainspace articles, note on the vote should be added to them as well (as was done in Gdansk/Vote example).
 * 7) We need to add an information what is the minimal numbers of voters that makes the vote valid (for example, a vote with 1-2 users is not very useful). I suggest at least 10 voters for a valid vote.
 * 8) We need to decide whether and if so, under what rules can a vote/survey be repeated. I think a vote can be repeated until a binding desision is reached. If a vote has passed a decision, a new vote should not bring the issue again until at least a year have passed since the last one or there is an Arb Com agreement to start a new vote. And if a vote is repeated, all past votes on the issue should be copied and included in a new vote unless the vote owner changes decision.
 * 9) We need to make clear if the current changes apply (or can apply) to old votes (I think that at least Gdansk/Vote must be repeated under the new rules, or it will continue to plague us for ever *shivers*).
 * 10) We need to make a rule about vote enforcement. What's the use of a vote if those who don't like the result can ignore it? If a vote is binding, that all edits contraty to the vote decision should be reverted and not count toward 3RR rule.

Comments by john k
A couple of points:
 * 1) All guidelines are non-binding, I'm not sure this is such a problem. I agree it shouldn't go to much trouble to say it's non-binding
 * Yes, I agree.
 * 1) I basically agree with you - this is way too vague. I think what it should say is that if it appears that a lot of very new users of en are creating accounts just to vote in the survey, those votes can be discounted.
 * 2) In terms of this point, I think that some marker should be set at the beginning. For some things, a simple majority makes sense, especially very zero sum things, like naming. For other things, you should definitely have a supermajority of some sort. But I think the key is that this should be set at the beginning of the survey, and that everybody participating should agree.
 * 3) I fully agree.
 * 4) Surely notice of the vote should be added to the talk page, not to the articles themselves?
 * 5) I largely agree
 * 6) This mostly makes sense, although I'd like to think about it for a while. I think an exception can be made for instances where it is quickly discovered that the wording has been too vague, and that some sort of vote is necessary to make it clearer what is intended, as for the current issue with cross-naming of Polish (and German) cities. john k 20:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) For Gdansk vote, I would mostly oppose a new vote, except on the specific cross-naming issue, which I think has gotten out of control. I think that for most of the votes, the outcome was quite clear, and that for 1466-1793 it is very difficult to see "Gdansk" winning in a new vote. I would be willing to do another vote on that part, as well, if it becomes necessary. But not a redo of the whole vote.
 * 8) Not sure about this - this can be abused easily (look at what Halibutt's been doing, for instance). If there really is a consensus that the vote is valid, there should be a lot of people reverting, so it shouldn't really be a 3RR issue. john k 20:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Weyes
I had a point by point response interleaved, and then John turned up and ever so callously edit-conflicted me, while making most of the points I wanted to make. I would warn of increasing formalism though: The more rigid and formal the system, the easier it is to game. The same goes for making majority-rules sufficient for certain cases. With reasonable editors, any proper compromise should be able to get something close to consensus: If editors aren't reasonable (which I suspect may be the problem in the polish naming issue), this isn't something we can solve with surveys anyway, and the more editor-oriented methods of problem solving should be used. --W(t) 20:30, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Comments by llywrch
I stumbled across this by accident & not by invite, so I hope you don't mind if I add my say to this. (If not, well at least consider what I have written.) Thanks for listening to me. -- llywrch 23:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The Wiki-EN mailing list has a few emails discussing voting in the last few days, so you may want to look there for some ideas or feedback.
 * 2) As for a quorum (i.e. minimum number for a valid vote), I've always pushed for 3% of the active Wikipedians -- or to use even more precise terms (although I believe "active Wikipedians" is defined somewhere as those who make 10 edits or more a month), 3% of the total number of contributors to Wikipedia who made 10 edits or more the previous month. (I pick the number "3%" because that was the quorum of the whole membership required to do business at meetings for a union I once belonged to 15 years ago.) The last time I calculated this for Wikipedia, 3% of 2000-3000, this would be 60-90 people; if you can get 45-75 Wikipedians to agree on anything, it's a minor miracle. Then again, if you get that many to agree with you, but almost that many disagree with you (for example, the recent AD/CE debate), then it's a clear sign that there is no consensus yet.
 * 3) An unsuccessful vote should not be repeated any sooner than 3-6 months afterwards. I agree that a successful vote should not be repeated any sooner than 1 year after -- & hopefully even longer.
 * 4) I don't think there is a need to enforce the results; it should be covered by WP:POINT.

Comments by Irpen
1. I agree, we have a problem here. However, I am not sure I understand your solution. This guideline suggests how to create a survey. Enforcing the results is a separate issue. As for enforcement, yes I agree. We have to devise a procedure of enforcement. 2-5. I agree. 6. I think if a vote would influence the article, the note should be added to talk of these articles. It's true that many readers don't read talk pages. However, a see talk edit summary supplied with reversion would point the attention there anyway. 7. Agree, except for the obscure topics that generate little interest. A couple of times I voted for the page to be moved (and it was moved) with only two support votes and zero oppose votes. For topics that would generate little interest, setting a minimum isn't necessary. However, such issues would probably not reach the stage of surveys to be taken. So, I agree with you. 8. I agree 9. I didn't follow the details of Gdansk vote, so I neither support nor oppose its repeating. 10. Agree, we need a rule. I think a milder version than complete abandoning of 3RR would suffice. For example, reverts of WP:Point edits, or edits taken against the survey would not count towards 3RR if the offending edit was allowed to stay in an article for 1 hour or more (or 1/2 an hour). And I do think that WP:Point edits should be governed by the same rule (it is probably a separate policy issue). In recent Kijow->Kiev edit war, I was very tempted to revert Space Cadet and Witkacy (no offence to them) at once every time. I had to constrain myself and make an effort on trying to convince. Other more short-tempered editors, may rush into immediate reversions, allowed if we through out a 3RR rule and the edit history will multiply in no time. Some short time delay in this frame would help cool off some heads and allow other users to intervene and revert.

Generally, I fully support the overhaul you suggest. Regards, -Irpen 02:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Comments by Balcer
I fully support this overhaul as well. Most of the proposal seems very reasonable. If I can pick a point I am not comfortable with, I would say the quorum of 10 voters for a valid survey is too low. If there is some controversy and only 10 people are interested in it, they should be able to reach some kind of compromise among themselves (maybe even hold an informal vote of their own). Balcer 06:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments by User:Tony Sidaway
Wikipedia's attitude to rules and guidelines is ambivalent, and we like it that way. We prefer flexible, fuzzy guidelines for surveys because surveys and polls aren't the method by which Wikipedia makes decisions. We do that by discussion and reaching a consensus--a compromise we're all reasonably happy (or not unreasonably unhappy) with. The best a survey can do is to reveal an underlying consensus, and at worst (and indeed, usually) a survey simply polarises views and makes consensus more difficult to find.

In short: the survey guidelines aren't broken, they're intended to be fuzzy. Surveys aren't binding, they only serve to demonstrate a consensus when one exists. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree with Tony Sidaway here. I've had quite some trouble dealing with this in the past. Let's just say that voting is bad. Surveys to figure out where the consensus lies are often useful, but can easily be misconstrued as votes. If anything, the survey guidelines should stress this more, not less. :-) Kim Bruning 19:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments by User:Chris 73
I agree with the proposal, and also feel the need to have a rule /guideline implemented. As for the specific points:

Overall, the proposal from Piotrus is useful and needed. What are the next steps? We would need to prepare something to vote on. The above points are not yet structured for an easy to do vote. Piotrus, what's your plan? -- Chris 73 Talk 06:07, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree, rephrase that the guidelines are to be followed, unless there is an agreed on reason not to before the vote begins. (this allows for some flexibility)
 * 2) Absolutely. Move to intro section
 * 3) Agree, this is too vague. However, i am somewhat unsure what to replace it with. Just removing it would be not good. John's approach looks reasonable, but may need some more discussion
 * 4) Agree with John here, issues like double naming: You either have it or you don't. Rule changes may need a larger majority. Adminship is given with ~80%, but this is pretty much unachieveable on controversial issues. I think this depends, and should be stated before the vote begins
 * 5) Agree, this is desperately needed, although i prefer slightly different numbers of 200 edits and 1 month activity before the vote starts. (i.e. German wiki requires 200 edits, I just turned eligible for voting)
 * 6) Agree, (on Talk pages)
 * 7) 10 voters should be obtainable, 3% (i.e. 60 people) is very tough. Deviations from this guideline may be possible.
 * 8) Tricky one. I.e., I do not want to repeat the Gdansk vote every year, which would surely happen until some people like the outcome.
 * 9) Agree with john. The double naming may need a brief update on where it is applicable (history only or general). I am also happy to recount the votes with a new edit count requirement.
 * 10) Agree with Piotrus, disagree with John. Some enforcement is needed, otherwise non-consensus editors just ignore any vote. And a few non-consensus editors can be much more stubborn than a large majority of consensus voters. I also think the recent trouble on Gdansk comes because the Gdansk vote is the first content vote I know that gives more power to the consensus.(by excluding reverts to consensus from the 3RR and even allowing for blocks in extreme cases, hence upsetting users that did not like the outcome of the vote.) I would strongly urge to include something like this in the proposal!
 * Well, as I have incorporated almost all of yours (i.e. everybody who posted here) comments into proposal now at Village_pump_(policy), I think it is time you voiced your opinion there. Hopefully this will also bring more people into the the dicussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The updated proposal was moved to Wikipedia talk:Survey guidelines. I will be applying the changes soon, as there have been no objections. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Translation you requested
Hi Piotrus, this below is a quick translation from Ukrainian of the review you asked for from "Nasze Słowo", wydawany w języku ukraińskim tygodnik mniejszości ukraińskiej w Polsce, located at http://free.ngo.pl/nslowo/vydavnycha_vitryna/ukrajinci_pid_wawelem.htm. This variant is quick and unpolished but you will get an idea. It was kinda interesting for me since it is written in diaspora Ukrainian and the choice of words sometimes seems unusual. I might have misspelled some names in reverse transliteration back from Ukrainian. The translation is below. --Irpen 08:12, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

In the Krakow "Library of the St. Vladimir Foundation" series a new book appeared in 2004, "U stop krolewskiego Wawelu. Spolecznosc ukrainska w Krakowie w latach 1918-1939" by Tadeusz Filar. This may be the first attempt to analyze the Ukrainian community in the interwar period of the last century. It should be noted that it is a supplemented Ph.D. work defended at the Dept of History of the Jagiellonian University;.

Ukrainian community (article uses "khutir") in Krakow had its own civilian institutions, that supported the national identity of Ukrainians in Polish environment. Spiritual and religious dimensions of the community life was organized by Krakow Greek-Catholic parish founded as ealry as 1794.

After 1918 the spirit of the community was also supported by the Orthodox garrison church.

The Jagiellonian U.had a huge impact on the life of Ukrainian Krakow. Many of the Ukrainian youth from Halicia studied there, and there were several Ukrainians with great scientific achievements and academic authority among the instructors.

In the first part (there are 5 of them) the author attempts to show the genesis of Ukrainian community in Krakow to show subsequently the problem of the minority in the context of political, social and economical situation on Poland of 1918-39, taking into account the attitude of the 2nd PR toward the Ukrainian question.

The second part describes the period of the return of the Polish Independence in 1918, that brought the liquidation of "Prosvita". The attempts of renaissance of cultural Ukrainian organizations were just made in the period of the general stabilization of the Polish state after 1924.

The best years of development of Ukrainian institutions in the city are described in the third part of the book. At the time, in academic community an "old" Ukrainian emigration from Halicia appeared (B. Lepky in Jag. U. and I. Feshchenko-Cholivsky in Mining Academy). This emigration provided assistance (including financial) to the former military men of the Ukr. People's Republic to join the student community (e.g. L. Hets). Ukrainian students of Jag. U. created their own organization - Ukrainian Student Union, and then started to work with legal and underground Ukrainian political parties (UVO and OUN), and also with Polish Socialist party, which after the May coup of 1926 resulted in Police surveillance of the Ukrainian community activists. Most organization, including the Union of Ukrainian women were under the threat of liquidation which is described in the following chapters.

The author got the information for some chapters from the state archive of the Jag. U., and from the district court where the notes are preserved about "інвіґіляція" (I do not know this word) of OUN members, which resulted in an increase of arrests, especially after the murder of the Minister of internal Affairs B. Piracky. This even resulted in the closure of Krakiv chapter of OUN.

The author, when describing the Ukrainian community of Krakow, used extensively the archives of the Jag. U., where the works of Prof. Bogdan Lepky are deposited. The archive of Rakovicky cemetery helped to collect the materials about the camp of the interned in Dombju. The author also used the materials from Ministry of internal affairs and PZPR, Ukrainian press of the interwar period: "Краківські вісті" weekly, which appeared in 1940-56. Nashe Slovo, Nasha Kultura and Ukrainian calendars and emigration printed editions were also helpful.

It's worth noting that the book is valuable not only as the source of deep information about Krakow Ukrainian community, but also the graphics of the cover was made by Ukrainian artist Igor Kusyk from Krakow, and for the computer layout we should thank Oleg Aleksijchuk from St. Vladmir's foundation.

GUS letter
Subject: Developer help needed for General User Survey

Hello guys,

The General User Survey project (survey of Wikipedia users, see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/General_User_Survey) is in dire need of somebody who would help us with the coding part - the questions for the survey have been mostly ready for months, but we cannot implement the survey with our (lack of) technical skills.

It was suggested (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Researching_Wikipedia) that our close-to-2-years (!) delay in getting General User Survey project up and running is due to researchers discussing the issue among themselves on a forum nobody else reads (i.e. Wiki-research-l) - so I am bringing the issue here.

Finishing the GUS project would give us not only a better theoretical understanding of ourselves (demographics, motivations, etc.) but also generate reliable practical information on how Wikimedia software and procedures are valued by the users.

Thank you for your help,

PS. I've tried sending this message to the list few days ago but I am pretty sure it got eaten by some net bug along the way, so I am trying it again. I apologize if it anybody receives it the second time.

PS2. Just recently another interesting research project did cross a milestone: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiXRay

-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus

Libraries
We librarians flatter ourselves that we know a thing or two about organizing information. It's time we stepped up and contributed to Wikipedia: not just to its content but to its structures and technologies. This project page is intended to provide a rallying point for these activities The members of this WikiProject have come together to make some suggestions about how Wikipedians may contribute to articles about books and literature in general. Welcome to Library Success: A Best Practices Wiki. This wiki was created to be a one-stop shop for great ideas and information for all types of librarians. All over the world, librarians are developing successful programs and doing innovative things with technology that no one outside of their library knows about. There are lots of great blogs out there sharing information about the profession, but there is no one place where all of this information is collected and organized. That's what we're trying to do. If we all—librarians, readers, writers, publishers, etc.—pulled together, could we create an online library that included every book, every journal, every instance of every type of content a traditional library might contain? Even if we failed to reach that grand goal—almost as grand a goal as Google’s vaunted mission (“to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”)—we could make something wonderful in the attempt.
 * WikiProject Librarians
 * WikiProject Books
 * WikiProject Books/Library article
 * WikiProject Resource Exchange
 * Library Success: A Best Practices Wiki Library Success
 * liswiki liswiki
 * Oregon Library Instruction Wiki
 * Refwiki: The PALS Reference Wiki is a reference tool for members of the Prairie Area Library System to use and build. - interesting
 * Open Library
 * Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
 * Ballard Carnegie Library
 * Blackstone Library
 * Oregon Public Library
 * Michigan State University Libraries

vs
 * Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
 * Hillman Library

Other: The Lord of the Rings, Uncle Tom's Cabin
 * Reference desk
 * List of basic library and information science topics
 * Category:Library and information science stubs

Jimbo on civility

 * 

Replies to common criticism
Let me stress three points, clarifying issues that in the past seemed to confuse some reviewers.
 * first, I am pretty confident that at this point, with more then a year of research, I have reached most major publications on that subject of Polish culture in WWII (in English and Polish). To reiterate: on the subject of the article, i.e. Polish culture in WWII, I invite the reviewers who want to suggest the article is not comprehensive to cite specific publications I have missed, preferably with references to reviews.
 * second, I have scoured the above publications for important facts and numbers. I have tried to present all of the important numbers here, and when statistics for the big picture were available, I transcluded them into the article. That was, however, not always possible. To illustrate: Madajczyk (1970) gives the following statistic: "by the end of 1940 only 30% of prewar schools were operational, and only 28% of prewar Polish children attended them". So in other words, in what is seen as the most comprehensive treatment of the subject of Polish culture in WWII, the author does not give a statistic for 1941, 1942, 1943 or 1944. The same holds true for many other statistics in the article: I have never randomly picked the statistics for a random year, but in most cases, authors cited don't give statistics the full picture, but rather snapshots, and this is what I was forced to cite. The bottom line is that "some statistics don't exist in literature": perhaps the primary sources for them have been destroyed or were never compiled, or perhaps the relevant research was never published. So as noted above, if you are unahappy that the article doesn't have, for example, year-by-year analysis of number of paintings stolen by the Nazis, monuments torn, or textbooks milled, consider that A), such level of detail may not be needed here (this is what subarticles are for), B), the data in question likely does not exist, so give me a ref to the work which you know has such data instead of just saying that the article is not comprehensive and/or C) complain to the professional historians so that they analyze and publish such information. While I agree that it would be great to see some other statistics, I certainly have no intention of doing OR, by querying the primary sources to fill in such gaps (unless somebody is willing to offer me a scholarship for a PhD in history :D).
 * third, this is an article about the "Polish culture during World War II". Key words: Polish and culture. Thus it was not intended to be, shouldn't be and won't be an article about non-Polish cultures in occupied Poland. In other words, this not an article about the culture of German, Jewish or Ukrainian minorities of Second Polish Republic during the war. The article, as suggested by the title and the scope of the series of articles on Polish culture, focuses primarily on the culture of the Polish speakers. Of course, where and when relevant, the article includes mentions of those other cultures (the article clearly states: "the Second Polish Republic was a multicultural state..."), but details of the fate of those subcultures belong in subarticles on "German minority in Poland's culture during World War II", "Jewish minority in Poland's culture during World War II" or "Ukrainian minority in Poland's culture during World War II". I would also note that none of the sources I've read had more detail on the cultures of such minorities than is already included in the article, and as noted above, we can hardly be expected to do OR and find information on subjects that have not been research by professional historians (so if anybody knows a good work on, let's say, Jewish minority in Poland's culture in Poland during WWII, give that ref, or forever stay quiet :D). Please note again that the article doesn't ignores those other cultures, but treats them in a due weight, as they for the most part fall outside the scope of this article. This holds even more true for the second part of the title, i.e. culture. Topics like "everyday life", "economy" or "changes in society" are outside the scope of this article (i.e. this article is not about how Polish society changed during the war, or how an average day of a person living in occupied Poland might have looked like). It's about culture, and as general as this term is, its not about everything imaginable and the kitchen sink. Please, don't get me wrong: all of those are notable subjects that have both been researched by literature and are notable for Wikipedia, but they are outside the scope of this article

Please don't reply here but a the nomination page, from which a link presumably led you here. Thanks, Piotrus

Signature testing range
1) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk

2) &amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus   &amp;nbsp;talk

3) &amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus &amp;nbsp;talk

4) &amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus &amp;nbsp;talk

5) &amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus   &amp;nbsp;talk

6) &amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus &amp;nbsp;talk

6a) &amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus

6b) &amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus &amp;nbsp;talk

6c) &amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus

6d) &amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus

6e) &amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus

6f) &amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus

6g) &amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus

6h) &amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus

6i) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&amp;nbsp;

6j) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&amp;nbsp;|&amp;nbsp;talk

6k) &amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | &amp;nbsp;talk

6l) &amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus

6m) &amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | &amp;nbsp;talk

7) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;talk

8) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk

9) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrustalk

10) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk

11) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk

12) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk

13) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  Talk

template


Golden W Award

 * User:Noraft/Golden W Award
 * FA: easy
 * ITN: ?
 * DYK: easy
 * OTD: Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/September 30 -> Władysław Sikorski
 * FP: ?