User talk:CanadrianUK

Re:Józef Lipski
I am not sure what specifcally do you mean. The story is interesting, but considering the size of the article it seems to unduly concentrate on a minor detail. Neither Polish nor German articles on him mention it, and the stress on it can create an impression that the start of the war was due to one diplomat oversleeping :) Which is certainly not the case - him getting out or not off bet wouldn't change a single thing - and the impression only serves to confuse a reader and possibly blacken an image of - as far as I can tell - is and was a respected diplomat and soldier.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's much better now. As for Danzig crisis, see Polish Corridor - I think they cover a similar issue.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd think that its WP:NPOV. My version makes no claims about which side had the right to it, just states that the Germans wanted to annex it. Yours, on the other hand, used the word 'return' which would imply that it was rightfully German. The other side would be a version that would suggest Poles had more right to it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Starting from the back, yes, I would get the notice, this is why we usually post in threads, not new messages. With the caveats that I am not, obviously, a native English speaker, I think return is less netural then annex. Perhaps we could poll editors at WP:PWNB and its German equivalent for more feedback. Return is tricky as Poland could also argue the city should be returned to her since it used to be part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Annex seems logical: Free City was neither Polish nor Germany and both countries would like to annex it, eventually Germany had their way (for a few years).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer national boards since it seems most editors interested in a given coutry would watch them (and remember, those boards are not for editors from country X but interested in country X). There is always WP:3O, WP:RFC and other steps from WP:DR, as well as various other boards.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You may be suprised how much time people spend around here discussiong single words :) As long as we can keep our cool and remain civil, its a pleasant thing. Unfortunatly sometimes this is not the case :( I am glad our discussion was one of those better ones. As for stubs, check WP:STUB, personally I use a rule o thumb: if the entire article (not counting lists) fits on a single computer screen, its a stub. Note that referenced non-stubs, created or significantly expanded withing last week, qualify for WP:DYK.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-Free rationale for File:Lloyd's list covers.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lloyd's list covers.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Coffee shop.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Coffee shop.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)