User talk:KonradWallenrod

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Noticeboard
You may be interested in Polish Wikipedians' notice board.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:23, 3 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 03:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Warto zobaczyć tą dyskusję
 --Molobo 16:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Oule, Ave, and Hello. I would like to thank you for voting to keep the Aleksandra Wasowicz artice. I really appreciate it. Again, thank you. Over and out. - Deucalionite Deucalionite 14:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Just So U Know
Hi. Saw that you created the page Puł just to nom for deletion, that too speedy. Why would one create an article just to delete it? Such frivolity is best avoided. -- so U  m  y  a  S  ch  10:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't remove the tag. And neither did I assume you were a non-serious editor. Saw the page's history and it had only one edit - Your's and the content was a deletion tag. So I thought it was done as a joke (okay, a stressbuster may be!!!) The message was supposed to be friendly. Sorry if it sounded otherwise. -- so U  m  y  a  S  ch  10:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry. It has already been deleted. -- so U  m  y  a  S  ch  11:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha ha! Even I will be more careful that I don't "Pul" off such a thing. -- so U  m  y  a  S  ch  11:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. -- so U  m  y  a  S  ch  13:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Poland-related new articles
Thank you for your contributions. It would be great if you could report them at Portal:Poland/New article announcements.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Pope Stephen IX (or X)
Hi,

I read what you wrote on Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło about the attempt to rename the page into Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania, and I agree totally with you. I think as rule there can't be more than one variant of a name in the title of an article. If more than one variant is possible, the title must chose only one and the others must be explained in the text itself and redirects must be used from alternative titles. If such alternative titles were admitted in the article's title itself, then we'd have to rename, for examples, Stepanakert into Stepanakert/Xankəndi, Tighina into Tighina/Bender/Bendery or 2003 invasion of Iraq into 2003 invasion/liberation of Iraq...

I am myself implicated in a very long and endless debate which is, I think, similar to this one. It's about the need to rename the article Pope Stephen X into Pope Stephen IX, and so on until Pope Stephen III into Pope Stephen II. The historical reasons of this naming problem are detailed in Pope-elect Stephen. Those historical facts are not the matter of the debate. Everybody agrees on those facts. The problem is some users want to rename Pope Stephen X into Pope Stephen IX (or X), which is an absurdity because of the same reasons as above.

I've launched this debate on 19 February and it is endless because it seems to interest very few people and it's impossible to reach a majority. I'm now prospecting for other people who would share my opinion on the matter. If you think you have something to say about this, I would be very glad if you did on Talk:Pope_Stephen_X. I thank you in advance.

Švitrigaila 00:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I thank you very much for having answerd my call. :o) Švitrigaila 17:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Jagiełło pronunciation
Please see Manual of Style (pronunciation) for the guidelines for such cases on Wiki.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Prussia
All information about discrimination of national minorities in Prussia was deleted. Information that Poles were subject to discrimination in Prussian state have been stated as "historical revisionism" by a German user. All information about this presented on discussion page was either ignored or claimed that it is a Polish POV because Poles feel unsecure living on others land, despite the fact that sources were non-Polish. Please help in achieving NPOV in the article --Molobo 15:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility
In order to maintain a positive working environment here on Wikipedia, could you please try to maintain civility when referring to me, and avoid name-calling? Thanks. --Elonka 22:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A good principle. I hope Elonka will try following it herself.  KonradWallenrod 00:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have any examples of me doing otherwise? --Elonka 00:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * See your remarks at Polish Wikipedians' notice board, under "Proposal to rename this board." I think their tenor speaks for itself, so I don't intend to comment further.  KonradWallenrod 01:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not make false accusations. My tenor at the board has been at all times polite and professional. --Elonka 01:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigismund III
May I ask whether you are a Polish nationalist?

I cannot understand that you want to name Sigismund III as Zygmunt III here in English Wikipedia - after all, he was an international personality, having reigned also in Sweden. Much less reasons have lead monarchs to their Anglicized names. The question cannot be solved by counting which-language-kingdom he ruled longest. The name should be something all those kingdoms can live with. Sigismund is the English variant. Marrtel 20:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)