User talk:Piast~enwiki

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! --Irpen 21:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Kielce Pogrom
The remark about Soviets not having an interest in "anti-semitic" actions is not accurate. As a scholar recent said, the Soviets were "masters of duplicity" and had not interest in preserving, enhancing or furthering the Jewish cause in post-war Poland, a fact that became ever so clear in 1968. To display this statement would totally ignore a lot of research that has shown that while not totally verifiable, there is at least doubt regarding the role of the Soviets in Kielce and other anti-Jewish occurrances throughout the Soviet sphere of influence at the time. The remark I deleted, especially its tone, seems to discredit these scholars totally, and this forum is to present fact not opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piast (talk • contribs)
 * Hi Piast, and welcome again. I am glad you explained your action since many people don't do even that. Please make use of article's talk for the article's related matters. Much of this was already discussed. Also, sign your messages with ~ as explained in the greeting above.


 * That said, I will restore the passage you blanked. Deletions should not be taken lightly, this passage was discussed and in the end of the day, it was left in. This is a very sensitive and controversial topic and the Be bold! guideline specifically mentions the need to be extra careful when dealing with such things. In no way I want to discourage you from contributing. Please hang around, use talk pages and contribute to WP. Regards, --Irpen 21:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Copernicus

 * Hi, even if the Polish language claims are just as valid as the German ones, as you say, wouldn't it be much more in the Wikipedia spirit to include some material supporting that contention instead of fully reverting the whole language paragraph along with a dozen other, unrelated changes I have made? Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. I included references to major books that support the contention, including links to the exact pages of the sources that state these assertions. I made sure that these sources were English so that all could read and verify, and I made sure to include authors that weren't just from Poland or Germany. Your reaction to my changes was a bit surprising. When I found this article it seemed quite tilted towards implying that NC was fully German, and I only endeavored to rebalance it a little bit by inserting clear omissions. I stayed away from inflammatory and selective ideas like quoting specific historical figures although I have a trove of them at hand from the past five centuries. However, it seems to have touched something in you as your changes were very overt in their intention, meaning subverting my ideas and then adding on new claims that you knew would be highly inflammatory for your colleagues working on this entry.  I do not want to play games of reversion, I simply thought the article needed a bit more fairness to the Polish side. --Piast (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Copernicus citations
In some edits, for example this one, you have a citation with a number followed by "pp." Is that your way of indicating a page number? Or do you mean that the source has that total number of pages? In the citation systems used in English Wikipedia, a single page number is indicated by "p." followed by a space (or even better, a non-breaking space, which is entered with the HTML code ) and then the page number. Multiple pages or a range of pages is indicated by "pp." followed by a space (or non-breaking space) and then the page numbers. We do not include a source's total number of pages in a citation. You might what to take a look at Citing sources for more information. Could you please fix the citations where the "pp." follows the number? Thanks very much. —Finell 06:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that - should be cleaned up now. --Piast (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Jan Dzierzon
Imie i nazwisko Dzierzona zostalo zmieniona na Johann Dzierzon, to jest pisownia niemiecka. Britanica podaje Jan Dzierżoń (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/175400/Jan-Dzierzon) i tak powinno byc. Rowniez tu (http://bees.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=bees;idno=5017629) angielskie tlumaczenie pracy Dzierzona podaje Dzierżon, Jan. Czy skontaktowales sie z museum w Kluczborku, albo przeczytales dowody i fotokopie w podanych pracach Brozka, Gladysza i ks. Mazaka? Pomijanie zrodel polskich jest niedopuszczalne. Ci ktorzy chca zmieniac artykul powinni uznac wage zrodel polskich wage a nie lawirowac na drugorzednych przekladach i niepelnych zrodlach. Podane tez sa wspolczesne artykuly w prasie polskiej i napisane przez Polakow. Trzeba je wniesc do tekstu. Niech chociaz bedzie widoczne ze spoleczenstwo polskie ma silne zdanie na ten temat. Podaje Ci e-mail jezeli chcesz powaznie pracowac bez udzialu szpiegow: erudra@hotmail.com. --Soujdspo (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Bierz zawsze pod uwage ze: 1) w okresie Bismarck'a zniemczano imiona celowo 2) Poszukiwania liczbowe zapisu imion na internecie sa falszywka - autorzy wtedy i dzisiaj powtarzaja to co zostalo zniemczone i wprowadzone w pismie, clowo, przez nieuwage lub niewiedze. Jedyna droga czy jego imie powinno byc pisane Jahann czy Jan jest stwierdzenie ze Dzierzon uwazal sie za Polaka i kultywowal polskos, i tak jest zgodnie z dokumentami opisanymi w pracach Brozka, Gladysza i ks. Mazaka etc. --Soujdspo (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC) --Soujdspo (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Piast. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Piast~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)