User talk:Piotrus/Archive 16

Anonimous contributions
Sorry, I don't know, where I must write this. Wery strange edits of anonimous user:. If you can, advice please, where I must to inform about such cases. Ingwar JR 09:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

About Polish clans, Polish families and Polish coats of arms
Dear friends:

If you have some extra time, I would appreciate if you can take a look to Category:Coats of arms of clans of Poland and Category:Polish nobility coats of arms images, mainly the Talk pages.

There is an Italian wikipedian, who knows nothing about Polish history and Polish szlachta and he is rearranging the categories in Category:Coats of arms of Poland

In commons he is User:G.dallorto

My point of view may have some mistakes but I would thank you very much your thought and your discussion on this issue.

As today I got few time I am sending this same message to:


 * User:Piotrus
 * User:Halibutt
 * User:Kpalion
 * User:Appleseed
 * User:Steifer
 * Wikipedysta:Mathiasrex
 * Wikipedysta:Picus viridis
 * Wikipedysta:Rozek19
 * Wikipedysta:Lorakesz
 * Dyskusja Wikipedysty:Tomorek
 * User:GeorgHH
 * User:Bastianow

If you know somebody else interested in Polish heraldry and Polish szlachta, please invite him to join this Discussion.

Best regards, my friends, and thank you by your answer to this request. --Gustavo 08:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nazwy gmin polskich
Witaj! Mamy duży problem. Lajskonik stworzył listę gmin, napisał gminy jako "Gmina XXX", ale zauważyliśmi, że już są opisane niektóre gminy, tyle, że jako "Gmina of XXX". Moglibyśmy to poprzenościć, ale nie jesteśmy pewni, jak jest. Co ty o tym sądzisz? Marcin Suwalczan  [our talk]  14:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Poland
Hi. It looks a lot better, and I think it'll end up being kept. You might want to get someone to give the article a copy-edit to weed out any lingering minor issues. I would help, but I've been swamped with Final Fantasy WikiProject tasks. &mdash; Deckiller 17:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)
The only thing I'd still like to see changed is the "See also" section, but that can likely wait until FAC; so please feel free to nominate the article for A-Class. Kirill Lokshin 18:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:MHR. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with fixing an image
Hi Piotrus

I just noticed a small error in Image:Podział administracyjny I RP.png uploaded by Commons:User:Poznaniak who apparently doesn't speak any language I know. Could you possibly drop him a small note in Polish? The error is that he has labelled the island of Öland (Olandia) as Danish, however this island has always been Swedish. All other islands are correctly labelled. Happy editing. Valentinian T / C 06:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Valentinian T / C 16:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

prosba
witam dobry pomysl, bede linkowal artykuly, zawsze to jest odnosnik dla uzytkownikow

co do polskich znakow (np. Lodz) to mam problem bo operuje komputerem McIntosh i jest on bardzo dziwna maszyna i zmienia mi te znaki wiec nie jestem w stanie tego zrobic

jesli chodzi o te trivia to jestes ekspertem wikipediowym moze sam gdzies to dorzucisz? gdzie uwazasz? pozdro Tymek 13:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Panieri11.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Panieri11.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 19:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop stalking me
After this one I do feel obliged to report a trolling action of an admin. Untill now I did feel free to edit whatewer I felt I had some expertise on, although edit summaries like (tag  for Lokyz) seems to me like stalking and trying to push me to behave unreasonably. Therefore i do demand deletion of this edit summary and a personal appology with a promise I'll be not stalked in the future.--Lokyz 22:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Community enforced mediation
I'll make this offer formal. Would you and Lokyz like to enter enforceable mediation with me as your mediator? Both of you have petitioned me for assistance with your dispute. I'm not going to step in unilaterally, but I'll give you the opportunity to set clear limits for yourselves. The program is ready for experimental launch. Would you like to do this? Durova Charge! 23:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:EPR
Actually, I never got any answers. Feel free to go poke the guy all you want.Circeus 00:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply at External peer review/Chesney 2006. -- Jeandré, 2007-03-17t06:10z

Old favor
May I ask you to wrap up this before I forget? Thanks. --Poeticbent  talk   13:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Stats for assessment
They're all done by hand, once a month. :-\ Kirill Lokshin 17:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Meh. It's not that much work. Kirill Lokshin 17:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

G. I. Krivosheev
Thanks for the tips. I did not know about [WP:BABEL], and was always puzzled if I have to duplicate my answers on the other's talk pages, I was asking this question many times, but you were the fist to answer it clearly. I will make the G. I. Krivosheev stub, though it is too modern event for my interests. Barefact 17:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please look at the Krivosheev stub . Barefact 19:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Pilsener
Hi Piotrus, could you please edit protect this page Pilsener, see this, two editors refused appealed discussion. What to do please ?  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 09:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Note drop
There is an interesting new article, Former eastern territories of Germany, you might want to look over. I drop the note because I see that few of wikipedians I'd normally expect to be there have noticed it yet. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Help needed with User:Justinmobscene
Hi Piotrus. Can you help me with this vandal? He has vandalised some pages like Cribbage (pool), replacing headings with stuff like this:

DELETED.

'''justinmobscene. you can't stop this.'''

Thank you for your time. MarkBA t/c/@ 16:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Krakow pogrom
Please update the information you added following the recent changes in the pl version. Regs. Mynek 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Order of Saint Stanislaus
Regarding your comment here, can I just copy and paste the contents of the last four articles into one of the first two and then add a merge tag to the first two? Appleseed (Talk) 21:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Troubles
Hi Piotrus, Darwinek seems to be in troubles, please see here.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 00:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also request at ARBCOM has been opened .  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 00:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Belarus FAC is up
Featured_article_candidates/Belarus has been up for about 2 days or so. If I haven't been doing to a dentist for everything under the sun, I would have a lot more of the questions done. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. I knocked out all of the red links in the history section (still need to tackle some in the Culture section). I responded to your two fact templates; the first one I just removed the sentence and replaced it with already cited text. The second one, it belong to the same source as the next sentence (generally, if the information in two or more sentences are coming from the same source, I just usually cite the last sentence. That was how I was taught to do citations, but since this is Wikipedia not English 203, I should do it your way). As for the map issue, I honestly believe the map should still be there, since it is showing how the Belarusian lands were split between Poland and the Soviet Union. I made the caption a bit better. I hope this helps. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Me neither
Well, that guy is on a tour, and, given what he allowed himself to say about me, I'm not ready to even pay attention to what he claims and argues (suffices to note that the emphasis is on "I would like you to state your opinion about Rumanization", which translates into "I have a POV to push"). In any case, I don't think the lead is wrong, but the sentence may be futile. Dahn 17:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact User:Dahn who just replied to you has been stalking and reverting my contributions since I started on WP. Look here for an example of his pushing of patent lies. It is quite unfortunate that you asked precisely his opinion. He seems to adopt the strategy that whatever I write, he reverts. What he writes to you goes in any case against every WP policy one may think of. So please decide for yourself about the issue or just ask somebody else. Icar 12:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There you go, Piotrus. I could not have illustrated the point better myself. Dahn 13:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Darwinek
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Darwinek. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Darwinek/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Darwinek/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Education
When is it Vandalism, fixing your lack of knowlege about Polish history. I know everything about you, you are all over the internet, making up your own proof to the stories that you are teaching your students. The hammer will never kill the white eagle. I am very sorry for you, being (I Think) Polish and promoting the death and destruction of you families history. Countries don't annex, did the U.S. annex Iraq? I don't now how was teaching you as you grow up, and you ideas placed on you. Freedom is Equality, having a all high cantrolling Government will never give you freedom because they will always afraid of a revolt. If a government comes and a kill one of your kids with no trial, I hope you will not set back and say It's my Governments wish. Please if this is just for your doctrine, then don't give up on your history because the polish only have each other, and other country fear the polish to the exstint of killing them for fear and the power of the polish mind.

Please e_mail so we can have discuss history and polish believes. I am getting the Back by Polish Organizations in the USA and Polish.

Thanks magusrobertus@yahoo.ie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir Gutowski (talk • contribs) 17:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Try improving your command of written English language, for starters (the above mostly incomprehensible post being a good example). Then read up on the links from the welcome message I left at your page. Your edits to Wikipedia were mostly grammaticaly and styllisticaly wrong, and partially irrelevant to the topics involved.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Lebensborn
Given his various other accusations of people being right-wingers, fascists, etc., I'm not actually convinced that he didn't intend a political subtext here; but, in any case, let's assume for the sake of argument that the usage was purely as a metaphor.

There are, in my opinion, different levels of "unacceptable" metaphors, ranging from the merely poorly-chosen ones to those which evoke comparisons so vile that excusing them is simply out of the question. In some sense, the very specificity of the term used is a negative factor here; I find it utterly inconcievable that Darwinek could have chosen the lebensborn comparison without actually being aware of what the history of the program was—and this necessarily forces me to conclude that he considered it acceptable to compare a fellow editor to Himmler. Frankly, I see no reason why we should tolerate such commentary here.

(It's a bit like the difference between saying "the admins are all thugs bent on abusing innocent editors" and "the admins are rounding people up like the Einsatzgruppen"; one is merely an insulting comparison, while the other is intended to evoke a very specific—and extraordinarily hateful—image.) Kirill Lokshin 19:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would have thought that a personal block from Jimbo would generally be sufficient warning for most people; it's regrettable that Darwinek doesn't seem to have gotten the idea yet, but we can only give him so many chances.
 * As far as your case: based on a brief look, yes, I'd say that comments of that sort are unacceptable. But I haven't examined the entire context and history here (and, frankly, would prefer not to, as it's likely to become Requests for arbitration/Poland-Lithuania rather than a personal matter). Kirill Lokshin 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Realistically, your options for a permanent resolution are either asking for a community sanction of some sort or ArbCom. Kirill Lokshin 20:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Presecution of Political bloggers
Czesc. I zauwazylem ze Pan, ponowne odnowil texty Biophys'ego ktore nie zawiera zadnej informacji o blogach. Prosze Pana, z poczatku czytac texty ktore sa reference'ami, i tylko zatym cos robic. Po drugie, mam nadzeje ze Pan to robi nie zatym ze jest bardzo zainteresowany w dezynformacjii o Rosjii.Vlad fedorov 05:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Pan Vlad: Pan Piotrus understands English very well. Please try to stick to English in the projectspace. --Irpen

Tranlsations for ArbCom
I marked the threads in question in your archives. Could you go to the Archive 13 linked above and add the full an honest translations of the threads in question for the ongoing ArbCom case. --Irpen 06:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of The Independent School, Inc.
I removed the article at The Independent School, Inc. per your lapsed prod last night. The original author has requested that the article be restored, which I have done per the prod guidelines. You can read his request at User_talk:Kuru - the next step is AFD, but you may want to wait a day or two to see if he improves the article or establishes some sort of notability. Kuru talk  23:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

new interesting article
Check this out: Battle of Jarosław, and please, make it better :) Pan Wikipedia 12:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Soviet occupation of Romania
Hi, Piotrus. Could you please weigh in on the dispute here? It seems to me the other side is arguing that it was not an occupation, but as the citations I have provided in footnote 1 show, many legitimate sources call it that. See also my explanation on the talk page. Thank you for your assistance. Biruitorul 04:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Replace this image1.svg
Maps are not I feel a good target at the moment. Buildings I'm working on but my inkscape-fu is weak so it will may not be finished tonight.Geni 20:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

NoSeptember Admin Project list of user pages
Thanks for the note. Please feel free to add new pages to my list when you find them :). NoSeptember  22:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Poland FAR
I am going to remove some photos from the article, but I removed the Patria poster before I saw the comment on the FAR. I want to realign the posters, but I am just not sure how. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Attribution
There has been an extensive effort to combine Verifiability and No original research (together with much of Reliable sources) into a new policy called Attribution, and its FAQ, WP:ATTFAQ.

Recently, on Wikipedia talk:Attribution and on the Wiki-EN-l mailing list, Jimbo questioned whether the result had adequate consensus, and requested:


 * "a broad community discussion on this issue", (now taking place at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion), followed by
 * "a poll to assess the feelings of the community as best we can, and then we can have a final certification of the results." (now being drafted at Attribution/Poll)

You are invited to take part; the community discussion should be as broad as possible. If you wish to invite other experienced and intelligent editors, please use neutral language. This message, for example, is ATTCD. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the antidemocratic from the text
Hard to believe.Xx236 11:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Hey, I was going to weigh in on the article Kraków pogrom, and wanted to hear what you felt the major disagreement was. I think I know, but it would help me understand the breadth of the situation if you tell me yourself. You can respond on my Talk Page, where I've set up a section heading specifically for this. Arcayne 19:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Names to correct
Hi there, Piotrus! I corrected the names and removed Russian patronimics (they don't really use them in Wikipedia). I also corrected their ranks (colonel general instead of general colonel etc.). Happy editing! KNewman 19:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Northern Group of Forces.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Northern Group of Forces.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 22:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Northern Group of Forces
Thanks for creating Northern Group of Forces. This was fast! -- Petri Krohn 01:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Biało-czarne
III Rzesza budowała autostrady a ZSRR był postępowy. Stanowczo nie należy ich krytykować.Xx236 06:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Curbing the pushers of the "friendly" POV
Piotrus, I know that you repeatedly refused to reign down on the POV-pushers if the POV they were pushing seemed "right" to you no matter what behavior they expressed. Molobo, Ksenon/Litwa, LUCPOL or Mathiasrex who you even instructed on how to file a 3RR report on myself.

But I really have no choice but to ask you again, now in connection with LUCPOL. As we speak he repeatedly removed my well explained tag from the NGF article without discussion and without adding a single entry to a talk page. I request that you take him to the woodshed about disruption and restore the tag on your own until our discussion is finished as I expect the fellow to be looking forward for an opportunity to accuse me in 3RR. He may even be the same fellow as Mathiasrex. --Irpen 20:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Irpen, please face it: people disagree. Sometimes, they even disagree with you. In that case, you may be in minority, and your edits will be reverted. We all have to live with it. I have tried to address your concerns raised at Talk:Northern Group of Forces, but really, your constant objections to expanding and featuring any articles which show less than perfect part of the Soviet/Russian states are quite discouraging. Please note I didn't plan on expanding the NGA article with details on those issues, but as the saying go: if you push... expect something to return.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, this is not about people disagreeing. It is about acting reasonably or not. My objection are well explained and out of nowhere appears this friend of yours who reverts me without adding anything to the discussion. And, as always, you refused to curb on the friendly troll and use him instead as battering ram. I tried to appeal to your consciousness once again. Guess, I made a mistake. The rest of your accusations are not new and I will not dignify them with a response just to repeat what was said earlier. --Irpen 20:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Irpen, I find your actions - tagging articles you dislike with POV tags, arguing they should not be featured on DYKs, GAs, FAs, etc. - all without providing any references - much more problematic. Any editor has the right to disagree with you, and calling them 'trolls' only reflects your belief in your own infallability. Again, I invite you to present references supporting your POV if you want to claim an article is not NPOV. I have replied to you on talk of that article, and I believe I addressed all of your concerns.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No you did not but I am now banned from correcting it thanks to the fierce reverting campaign run by you and your friend who mysteriously appeared out of nowhere just to revert me without a single entry at the talk page. Your refusal to intervene is telling enough.


 * Now, I already explained to you that sources and neutrality while related is not an identical concept. Tendentious presentation, no matter how sourced, remains tendentious. The example of Legnica issue perfectly fits the pattern of Russian Enlightenment when the lengthy piece on the issue that belongs elsewhere is pasted into the article to give some POV an undue weight. I leave this article in disgust, note your siding with the friendly troll and wish you luck. But under this circumstances the article cannot be featured at the main page and I will reiterate this again. I expect your accusations that I try to derail anything that does not fit my POV. This is inline with the bizarre statement by your friend whose behavior is being scrutinized by an ArbCom, the statement which I understood, despite your refusal to translate it. I will not even dignify this outrageous accusations with the response. You can claim all you want. --Irpen 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You cannot claim that the article is POVed without presenting sources to back you up. Please read WP:NPOV: what you are doing is using your own personal opinion, which is nothing but the most extreme case of 'undue weight'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You just pretend to not understand that WP:RS and WP:NPOV are different policies and they address different issues. Sigh. I've heard it already. --Irpen 21:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Irpen, I understand completly that you are not a reliable source. EOT.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Another straw man argument. No wikipedian can claim to be a reliable source. I never claimed otherwise. --Irpen 21:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you just claim that certain articles are POVed and fail to give any sources. But of course since you are representing some 'great universal truth', you are neither presenting your own POV nor need to cite any sources. How could I have failed to recognize that... not. If you have nothing reasonable to say, please just go away. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not about sources. I do not question facts, I question the presentation and I explained at talk why so. I tried to make some edits without deleting a single fact or source, just correcting the mistakes and rounding the angles were the undue weight was given to the facts of relative lesser importance (Russian Enlightenment syndrome displayed here in Legnica issue.)


 * Based on the same set of sources the article may be written neutrally and may be written to air some nationalist grievances brought up to satisfy one's agenda at wikipedia. Trying to reason with you at your talk when I see the problem was a mistake which I was making repeatedly. Trying to bring to your attention the disrputive behavior of your compatriot was also a mistake since I have tried that before (WRT to Molobo, Ksenon's socks, Mathiasrex, and now Lucpol) was also an exercise of futility. I should have known that too. Anyway, since you are now telling me to leave your talk page alone I will do that per your request. I should have known better from dealing with you in the past. --Irpen 01:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am only learning from the best, Irpen.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Irpen, that you should have known better is quite an understatement. Dr. Dan 03:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope that P.P. (aka Prokonsul Piotrus) would not ban me (as he threatens several times already) if I write about this situation. The same situation regarding usage of user: LUCPOL’s “services” I meet at Ponary massacre. Firstly Piotrus tried his best to remove referenced facts about Polish Jew killers with shocking edit summary, such behavior was denounced by other contributor. And now then P.P. is alone with his POV and removal of facts, suddenly out of nowhere user: LUCPOL jumps in and restores “proper” version of article by removing referenced facts and tags presented by different contributors with with edit summary - this is OK. Feel the power? And literally LUCPOL did not add a single entry to a talk page why removal of facts is “OK”. He also did not add a single entry to the article before nor related articles. But just looking into LUCPOL contributions such behavior is not isolated, exact same happened and in other places. I find disturbing that contributor who allegedly can’t present his view and defensive speech to his ArbCom case  due to poor command of English (as Piotrus notes), but can easily remove facts and distort articles. Another interesting development, as P.P. notes LUCPOL has bad command of English (btw, did he/she understand articles in which he/she intervenes?), translation of LUCPOL’s thoughts to ArbCom and RFI was made also by Piotrus. So that do we have – same “contribution” scheme – when Piotrus intervenes in content dispute and needs "support" LUCPOL, who enjoyed Piotrus’ help in his ArbCom and RFI cases, jumps in  out of nowhere  and restores "proper" article version supported by Piotrus, without any further involvement in articles. Probably we will see more such developments in the coming future. M.K. 09:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Romania and the Warsaw pact
Thanks for the link. Dpotop 06:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Request
Regarding your phrase at my talk page, I don't know that phrase but I guess I get that. Regarding your request of Milovice geo-stub, there are three municipalities in the Czech Republic called Milovice. Two of them are villages, one is a town. Which one do you meant? - Darwinek 08:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Google Book links

 * They hardly ever come up for me, Piotrus. Sandford does. Even some of the Google Book links you quote in discussions don't usually come up for me, which is frustrating. I have a feeling these links are volatile from user to user. We can link the books themselves, if you like; but I suspect that trying to link the pages is futile. It's misleading to link the reader to a page when if he clicks the link he doesn't get the page, only the cover page. We could link to the cover pages in the references section. qp10qp 16:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I will put them back in because it is your article (give me a day or two). But I feel that they are unprofessional and will store up nothing but potential link rot for the future. (I even sometimes find that I can't get some of my own search results back a few minutes later; so I am learning that if I do find a page, I must make notes from it immediately. It is the same with the poppies in my garden: if I don't sniff them straight away, it may be too late.) qp10qp 17:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've put them back. But I didn't find many (I compared two old versions of the page with the current one). Let me know if I've missed some. The Martin Dean and James Dunnigan ones don't bring a page up for me, just the book cover. (The notes are all a bit untidy and inconsistent at the moment. If we ever go for FA, we'll need to think up a stylish and consistent way of presenting all the refs, links, notes etc. But we might as well leave that till last. qp10qp 20:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Prod
Hello Piotrus, you prodded Polish National Top 50, but one user and some IPs insist on keeping it by removing the template. I don't see any substantial improvements being made to that article. I've tried to engage the user in conversation, to no avail. What does one do in this situation? Appleseed (Talk) 21:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

not stalking
Just to tell you in advance I was not stalking you. I accidentally run into this article when I came to 172's talk to tell him about a different one. Just letting you know 'cause I am getting used to ABF from your end. --Irpen 02:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, for whatever it's worth, I would never use that edit to assume you are stalking me; it is obviously an AGF argument and as such, appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This was prompted by DYK and DYK only. Again, not stalking. Thought I better explain. --Irpen 04:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Irpen, did I ever accuse you of stalking?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You did and exactly under the similar circumstances, when I showed up at the page after your edit. What was especially disconcerting was that you could not have not known that the particular page was on my watchlist. Should I dig the diff? --Irpen 15:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, please.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All right. --Irpen 18:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, that. Well, if you stop accusing me of canvassing whenever I report a Poland-related discussion on Poland-related board, I will have no reason to think that you stalk me...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

So, you are saying that I did stalk you, aren't you? What should I take? This or your "did I ever accused you of stalking" rhetorical question just two entries above? --Irpen 19:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase that. Did I ever groundlessly accused you of stalking? And no, you don't have to reply, I see no point in pursuing this thread which has no destiny other than degenerate into more flaming. Please, in the future, you don't need to post on my talk with explanations of your actions until I question them.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for welcoming me. I was active last November, but using my IP. This time I decided to get an account. I'll check out the noticeboard and see if I can help with anything. I'm not 100% Polish, but of Polish descent (3/4ths). - Britlawyer 20:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, I understand. Now you are getting the orange. I will familiarize myself somewhat before continuing and making a mess of things. I thought I had learned a few tricks in November, but I need to brush up on it, especially now that I have an account. Britlawyer 20:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Jews in Poland
Certainly I'm planning to contribute to that article, but at the moment I need to finish Krakow pogrom article, which tends to consume huge amount of time so far. I've also started a copy edit of Żydokomuna, which also remains unfinished. M0RD00R 21:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Polish Armed Forces in the West
This does not adequately cite its references or sources. Please help [ improve this article] by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!) --For heaven's sake, Piotrus!! ;)Camptown 13:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Obrazki Brynowa na Commons
Witam, jestes moze z Brynowa? Widzialem Twoje zdjecia na Commons. Pytam tylko z czystej ciekawosci :) Necrokris 17:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Milo, ze nie jestem sam z Bryonwa na Wiki :D Jeszcze jedno pytanko. Nie wiesz gdzie na en.wiki sa prosby o zmiane nazwy usera? Pzdr, Necrokris 23:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thankyou Piotrus for this medal. This is a great honour, coming from one of most prolific DYK contributors ever, and one of the most prolific article writers ever. You are one of those who deserve it much more than myself. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey there
I've noticed that you are active in the BattleTech articles here at Wikipedia. I've started a proposal for a Battletech Wikiproject. If you are interested please check out my proposal at the Battletech main article's talk page. Thanks alot. NeoFreak 05:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Mass AFD Nomination
Just through I'd give you a heads up, you have to put the AFD template on each of the pages, not your simple text without even a link to the AFD discussion. It may lead to the discussion being closed, and I don't think it was a good idea to proceed that route anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 06:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest nominating all of them at once. That would likely be a bad idea. My advice is to try The Village Pump to get people's consensus on what to do, or to look for a few of the worst offenders in the category, nominate them, and see what the consensus is. Or both, there's no reason you couldn't try it either way. FrozenPurpleCube 20:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, PROD is one option, but in this case, I don't recommend it without more discussion. Not exactly much attention was paid to it. FrozenPurpleCube 20:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

framing merge proposal
Please see Talk:Framing (sociology). - Grumpyyoungman01 13:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gerdorff pp.
After creating my first article on Wiki (Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff), I had no choice but recognizing your extraordinary contributes to this encyclopaedia. I hereby would like to draw your intention to my second try: Red Army atrocities (WWII). Probably you can give me some more information concerning Poland in this matter. Sincerely yours --Dionysos 19:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Update request
Hoi: I'm very fond of your User:Piotrus/Wikipedia interwiki and specialized knowledge test; it's very interesting and a good antidote to subjective appraisals of Wikipedia's incompleteness. Anyway, recently on WikiEn-l, it has been proposed (and supported!) that article creation in general just be disabled for a while. The idea apparently is that biography articles are too troublesome and that Wikipedia is relatively complete anyway. I'd like to cite your essay in any such future discussions, but I'd be happier if it was brought up to date - besides, en and the other Wikipedias have grown and changed a lot since then! I don't know whether you have the spare time or want to do it at all, but if you did, I'd appreciate it. --Gwern (contribs) 04:45 4 April 2007 (GMT)


 * That's quite cool; I wish I could somehow fold all the time I spend on Wikipedia into a thesis! I don't mind waiting.
 * But as far as I can tell, it's an utterly serious proposal, and appeared well before April 1st; see Snowspinner's initial email. --Gwern (contribs) 05:24 4 April 2007 (GMT)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Location map Poland
Witaj. Powiem bez ogródek - jest już ten szablon na en.wiki. Zobacz hasło Warsaw - tam już działa. Co z resztą miast - te infoboxy jakieś takie nieporadne. --Hiuppo 11:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Felices Pascuas/ Happy Easter/ Wesołego Alleluja!


Dear friend:

This is just a wish of happiness in this Easter from myself. (The Easter Egg is a kindly gift from Tomek)

Regards

--Gustavo 13:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Vilnius Operation April 1919 Przybylski.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Vilnius Operation April 1919 Przybylski.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 20:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Imperial Castle in Poznań
I've got informations, by no enough abilities in using English language :) Radomil talk 22:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Dzięki za zamek... a bezczelnie korzystajac z twojej uprzejmości - Poznań International Fair ;) Radomil talk 15:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Talk:Operation Wilno
Out of curiosity, why did you change your mind? And here I was happy for 12 minutes that one problem has ended :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed my mind after reading more of that "Discussion" and "Alternative name" sections. --  tariq abjotu  01:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. If I may ask, what convinced you that 'battle of Wilno' is not a better name? Note that in this case we are not only in need of a 'best' name, but 'any' name will do as the article is occupying a name which 99,9% of all sources use for a different event (thus the first priority is to free a redirect, second, to have a better name).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion about which is a better name; I just thought there was no consensus that "Battle of Wilno" was a better name, based on the discussion. --  tariq abjotu  02:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, however I still wonder if keeping an article under a misleadin name (as users looking for 1944 battle will find 1919 one) is preferable to moving it to a name considered better by roughly half of the participants (note that no other suggested name has generated more then one support post; and nobody is actually arguing in favour of leaving the article at the current name - everybody is in agreement current name is bad). PS. Consider this case study in RM history: a move was carried out to a name with the highest number of support votes, even though only 1/3 of the voters supported that name...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble finding sources that use "Operation Wilno" to refer to the 1944 event. --  tariq abjotu  02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Try: 'operacja wileńska' + 1944 and compare to 'operacja wileńska' + 1919. And yes, in English historiography different name is usually used for the 1944 event - 'operation ostra brama' + 1944 or 'wilno uprising' + 1944. However on the 'operation wilno' name may be used (particulary relying on Polish historiography and translations) by some for the 1944 event - but certainly not for 1919.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously I'm not fluent in Polish (it is Polish, right?) so... I can only say that if you weren't able to convince the others involved (whom I'm sure are more knowledgeable about the situation) that the suggested name is better, I'm not sure I could be convinced. You are, of course, free to get a second opinion for another outside user, but I fear someone's going to think you're twisting arms if you do that. So... do that at your own peril. --  tariq abjotu  02:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Soviet infantry doctrine
Write an article? I suppose I could do that, but keeping it encyclopedic would be very time consuming and time is just something I do not have. I would be glad to contribute to such an article, if one is started, but I don't think I could make one from scratch. At least, not right now. Should I get the time, I think I would like to do that. MVMosin 02:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your help with the Soviet occupation of Romania article; you may find this poll interesting too. Biruitorul 07:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your vote, too (though I received a canvassing accusation). I voted in a couple of those Polish polls and will keep the page in mind. Unfortunately our board isn't as well-structured, but Romania-related deletions do sometimes appear here. Biruitorul 17:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I always say, Illegitimi non carborundum! Biruitorul 18:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Day of Rememberance of the Poznań June of 1956
Hello, Piotrus. According to Poznań 1956 protests, written mostly by you (Good job, BTW.), June 28th became a national holiday in Poland last year. I wonder if it was just for the 50th anniversary, or is it an anuual holiday from now on. If it's annual, would you mind updating Public holidays in Poland, please ? I don't know the Polish language, so references such as this doesn't help me. Thank you in advance. --PFHLai 12:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell it is a new national holiday. I'll adjust the page accordingly, you may also want to drop note on WP:PWNB. There is however a difference between public holidays on that page and national holidays like that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your help on Public holidays in Poland. I am not aware of so many 'non-public' holidays in Poland. It's fine as is, but I wonder if we should move the page to Holidays in Poland (currently a redirect).
 * I'll be putting "Day of Rememberance of the Poznań June of 1956" on the Selected Anniversary template soon. Thanks, again. --PFHLai 18:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The list is still incomplete. It is possible we should rename all the articles, see Talk:List_of_holidays_by_country.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, it's indeed a mess there. Is WikiProject Holidays still active ? People there should be fixing things like this, I hope. --PFHLai 18:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please elaborate...
on this. Who is that you accusing in PA and a do you have a diff with the alleged PA? Note that baseless' accusations of PA are PA indeed. --Irpen 19:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Accusations of canvassing, which you are quite familar with, are PAs. Pestering other users is also not nice. You don't need to reply, I am sure you will disagree with my opinion.--&amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not reply, I will ask a counterquestion. Is accusation of Polonophobia a PA? --Irpen 19:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Depending on context and amount of evidence provided. In all cases it is better to take a person to DR rather than accuse them of phobias, trolling or canvassing. Unfortunatly, few follow that rule and low-level flaming proliferates... but you know that well, so why do you ask?--&amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You know why I ask. Should I find a diff? --Irpen 19:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * By all means.--&amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I already told you that I remember that incident vividly and I do not remember exactly at what page you called me a Polonophobe, but I can go and found a diff after spending some time on this just to show one more time that I was telling the truth, you knew that and you were merely trying to force me to spend time digging. This has happened before and this will happen again. So, I will be back with the diff when I dig it out.


 * But here is the difference. When you made this unspeakable accusation, I simply ignored it. I did not go to WP:ANI, WP:AN, WP:PAIN, WP:RFI (sounds familiar?) to call for sanctions or to other user's talk pages to just badmouth with a free hand. This is what I was trying to convince you of. To just stop seeking upper hands in content disagreement by looking for some sort of a policy that would have allowed you to call for sanctioning the user at best or, to at least, have an excuse to badmouth him on the talk pages at least (accusation of PAs is badmoutinh without doubt.)


 * This here is again merely a content dispute. Both sides presented their positions and one side went on to reinforce his by recruiting users who would vote support. Sounds familiar? I merely exposed that the said campaign was going on the top of the discussion. What I said was truth supported by diff. You accused me in PAs in return. Point is, there was no PA. Both sides has points in that argument. And the last issue is that, unlike pointing towards the fact that the user spammed host of others to increase the headcount (the fact supported by diffs), calling someone (me) Polonophobic (like you did), is a PA. Demanding diffs on your part would have been fine and dandy if this was the first time when you demanded hard to dig diffs when you knew in advance where the truth is and, once I dug them, turned the table accusing be in going through dirty laundry. But you bet, I will dig out that damn diff. --Irpen 20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Irpen, that is very disingenuous of you. One of your close wikifriends was notorious for wrongfully accusing others of Russophobia, but that did not seem to bother you. What you have written above can only be described as very disappointing. Appleseed (Talk) 20:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It bothered me. I just saw it wrong to use it as an excuse to go 'round complaining with the purpose to shut down the content opponent. I bet you would not have been worried by a much more vicious attempt by a non-editing filthy mouthed troll. It was editing disagreement that bothered you and your friends and you saw that as a chance to shortcut the content dispute. I did not see you condemning abusive users with a friendly POV. Much more convenient to use them as a battering ram. --Irpen 20:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It bothered you, yet you did nothing to stop it? And now you accuse me of not condemning abusive users? Sad. And how you scramble to dig up one diff against Piotrus, when I can even find many of your wikifriend's accusations of Russophobia in his edit summaries. As for your other accusations, I have refuted them before (see my talk page, for example). Please stop repeating them ad nauseam. Appleseed (Talk) 21:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Appleseed, I am accusing you not for "not condemning". I am accusing you (and Piotrus) in using every possible method to get an upper hand in content disputes by using WP:CIV and WP:NPA as a weapon to "get" your content opponents, have them sanctioned or, preferably, blocked. Incivility of your POV-sharing friends or users who don't edit much does not bother you that much for the very this reason. --Irpen 02:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are evil. Do you have anything to say besides those personal attacks? If not, please don't hesistate not to post them on my talk page; there is a limit to my patience before I am forced to seek just... I am mean, before I decide to gain an upper hand and have you blocked for slander and such.--&amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, what you are actually doing is changing the subject now that I've exposed your double standard regarding accusations of phobias, which is what this discussion was originally about. As usual, your off-topic accusations are all without diffs, and all without merit. Appleseed (Talk) 03:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? Besides personal attacks? That shot missed, Piotrus. There are none here. I may be not mincing words but no personal attacks were posted here. And you know that.


 * What diffs, Appleseed. About your sneaky post to PAIN aimed at Ghirla's block. Or Piotrus post to RFI. Those brought the thankful demise of these boards. Or Piotrus' going to 4 (!) different pages in Irpen 04:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Irpen, you're changing the subject again. When you take a break from searching for that diff, please answer this and only this simple question: why are you having such a problem with one supposed accusation of Polonophobia, even though you turned a blind eye to your wikifriend's constant accusations of Russophobia? Appleseed (Talk) 12:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Appleseed, the subject of this is Piotrus' one more time baselessly accusing one of his frequent opponents in content disputes in a PA. Point is, this was tried before. Roaming from page to page with baseless accusations aimed at silencing the opponents in content debates (another prominent example) isn't new. --Irpen 16:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * IF Irpen could prove that acusations of Polonophobia are rife, then it would be hypocrisy. Since he is struggling to find one example, I think slander is the appopriate term.--&amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can, Piotrus, I found it. The reason why I could not see it was because I deleted this at the time as I thought it makes you look bad and I did not want that then. I will gladly post the diff upon request. Now, we got another accusation, btw, in slander! BTW, it has been discussed at some board that the accusations of slander should be avoided at all cost since they may fall under WP:NLT because of the nature of this particular word. I know you did not mean that. In any case, here is the diff you asked me to find. --Irpen 16:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A great example of how you twist the facts, Irpen. After a series of your attempts to remove any reference to Poland from the article, I enquire if you have a problem with Poland - I don't accuse you of that. Now, it's your turn: explain to us why do you believe you are not guilty of the things you accuse me of when you speak about russophobia and canvassing here?--&amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha, so "Feeling Polonophobic, Irpen?" was just an "inquiry". Nice.


 * To answer your question, that Russophobia link did not imply you in any way. You did NOT try to disrupt Bakharev's RfA. It was someone else who I meant I would not have ben afraid to repeat it in connection with that particular editor. --Irpen 17:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you can accuse others of Russophobia and its ok, but when others ask you if you are Polonophobic, its not? I am tired with your dual standards; this thread has wasted enough time. Please don't bother me again here - per tactic.--&amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, I do not "accuse" others. I called one particular editor a russophobe and for a very good reason. That fellow is still posting all kinds of slurs about "Russians", "Muscovites" in every single talk page entry. I am ready to defend the propriety of calling that fellow as I called him all the way to the ArbCom if necessary. This has no relation to you, Appleseed, Halibutt or even Darwinek whose entry on account of the "Russians" were especially juicy. This has no relation to any serious editor who may be dear to you. So, I don't understand why you are bringing this up in an attempt to defend or justify yourself in connection to a very specific and clear offense, that it "accusing me in making personal attacks" (check what started this thread) when they were 'none, nada, zero of personal attack from me either in this incident nor anywhere I can remember. Well, maybe if you dig, you can find some harsh entries left by myself that you could with an overstretch call a PA, but you know this is not the habit that I have and, most importantly, you know that in the specific incident there were no PAs from me and your vehement entry at Biru's talk was false, unjustified and unworthy of an admin. It is, however, well inline with the previous incidents of you bringing up various accusations against your content opponents and spreading them to talk pages, admin boards or special pages (now there are less of those left) which seemed especially designed for such activity (and which they were deleted by the community). So, no, I did not ever accuse in in Russophobic motives. Yes, you did accuse me in the "polonophobic" ones. And my exposing the Biru's "get out the vote" campaign was not a personal attack. We may disagree on the propriety of such campaigns and that is fine. But my entry was not a PA and you calling it such was improper. This was not an isolated incident but a part of the trend to spread the accusations on PA's all around all the time. --Irpen 01:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Irpen, I told you I don't intend to continue this pointless discussion. You are convinved of your own infallability, and nothing I can do will change that. I can only promise to write an article on Kali's morality one of those days...--&amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My alleged infallibility is not the issue here. I am fallible. The issue is that in this (or other incidents) there were no PAs from me. All I am asking you is not to attempt to paint a picture from page to page that PA's is what I do. I don't. You indeed do not need to respond. Just don't do it again. --Irpen 01:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I consider accusations of canvassing, spreading propaganda, attempting to get one's opponents blocks just because they disagree with one and similar PAs and underhand tactics for those who cannot win a dispute on the merit of facts and our NPOV/ATT policies alone. You disagree. Let's live it at that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Riiight. Until you provide the diff I will concentrate on writing articles and content discussions; I have had enough flaming recently. Thank you.--&amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, Piotrus. I will come back with a diff. Trust me it is there and therefore, I will find it. --Irpen 20:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I have no dobut that you will find something. After all, dajcie nam człowieka a paragraf się znajdzie... May I suggest if you have a problem with me, go to WP:DR - or WP:ANI or such. I don't enjoy playing semantics on my talk page; there is enough of that on article's talk pages recently thanks to certain somebody whom you have defended from public scrutiny several times...--&amp;nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, no. Not "something", Piotrus. A specific statement by you calling me "Polonophobic". More specifically, not that what I said was "polonophobic" but me being "Polonophobic". How could you forget? I am telling you in advance what this is, not that I am looking for any "paragraf" to nail you. Just have patience. --Irpen 21:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

History of Poland (1945-1989)
Are you going to be able to work further on this for the FA review? It's quietly turned into a two month review and I don't know what to do with it. Hard data remains that ought to be cited (e.g., elections results at the beginning of The Gomułka period). Marskell 08:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mimimize category clutter?
Nope, nothing we can do. The way categories are displayed is controlled by MediaWiki; unless the devs come up with some general way of hiding categories, we're stuck with having them all shown like that. Kirill Lokshin 05:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

World War Two
You assert that the British could've dropped bombs or leaflets. With what planes? The RAF was a hollow shell in 1939, equipped with obsolescent aircraft. Moreover, what good would dropped in a few bombs or leaflets have done? You think ther Germans would've said "Oh, the British bombed a city or two, so we'd better pull out of Poland, and make the Soviets do the same"? Only France was in a position to do anything meaningful during Fall Weiss. I have not yet reverted your change for the 2nd time, to give you the opportunity to defend it. If you'd like to reply, you can do so here. Parsecboy 16:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Those same sources you cite on my talk also discuss the terrible preparedness of the RAF in 1939. The only bomber unit in France at the time was equipped with the Fairey Battles, which were entirely useless as combat aircraft. Moreover, the only thing that could've saved Poland in 1939 was an immediate French offensive by the majority of its divisions. Bombing raids would've accomplished little (there are many historians who believe the American/British bombing raids of the war contributed little to the overall war effort also). Parsecboy 17:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Internet brigades
Hi Piotrus, I have created a new article Internet brigades. It was marked for a speedy deletion. Could you take a look and tell your opionion? Is it really that bad?Biophys 17:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting there
Well, those maps have made a difference, too. We're getting there!

I did note your previous request for a copy-edit of History of Poland. That I haven't addressed it is because I really can only work on a couple of articles at once (I'm slowly writing a new one of my own offline), and with Soviet invasion of Poland and the occasional FAC review, I am about up to capacity. For what I call "deep copyediting", I tend to delve into sources to check we really have accurate wording–which takes ages. In fact, I've just spent a couple of hours reading forty pages of a very detailed and, it seems to me, impressive book about the deportations (Rieber), in order to address Mosin's objection that we didn't (of all things) present a Soviet justification for the deportations. I enjoy close reading, so it's a pleasure. But at this slow rate of working, I can't do much else. qp10qp 02:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)–

Triple crown
Piotrus, I'm pretty sure you qualify for one of these. User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle Would you drop a line by my user talk and specify which articles? Cheers, Durova Charge! 02:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not very good at playing user talk tag so the reply to your reply is at my page Tag! scurries away Durova Charge! 04:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Your revert in Persecution of political bloggers
I hope that you could show me where in the cited sources you have found words "blogs", "blog" and "bloggers". 1 source, 2 source, 3 source. Po drugie, ja pszeczytalem artykul z Tygodniku Powszechnego i nie odnalazlem zadnej wskazowki na to co dotyczy blogow. Pan porusza reguly Wikipedia, kiedy wstawia dezynformacje do artykulu. Prosze milego Pana udowodnic i objasnic swoje dzeje... Vlad fedorov 11:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

GG
Siemka. Pisalem teraz Tobie na GG, otrzymales wiadomosc? - Darwinek 22:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Moj numer to 10935023 . - Darwinek 22:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Help with Polish
Hi. User:Snowolf said you were Polish so I thought I would ask you to review this and comment on the accuracy of both translations. Machine translations are so patchy, and, sadly, I don't know Polish. Thanks, --Guinnog 23:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. --Guinnog 08:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edu assignment template
What do you mean? I only my template to three articles (stress and duress, human security and interdisciplinarity) and they all use the optional parameter.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 13:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, it seems I just checked the one and only one that's wrong - stress and duress were not the Pitt project :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

2012 UEFA
Piotrus, I added photos of Ukrainian stadia to the 2012 UEFA European Football Championship under Poland-Ukraine bid section, but I could not locate equivalents of Polish stadiums. If you are aware of any, it would be great if you can add two photographs to balance out the gallery. --Riurik (discuss) 16:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Bierut
Sorry about that. I knew he died a week after something important. It was (about) a week after the Secret Speech, not Stalin's funeral! Biruitorul 02:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't the one who added that tag. I'll produce a citation soon, though, if Irpen still needs one. In fact I'm preparing to add a lot - I'll put it on the talk page first so you can look it over. Biruitorul 03:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those explanations; I will make sure to behave. The scandal had to do with a defector exposing the secret police's crimes. I'll write down the a more precise quote in a short while. Biruitorul 04:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nicely done. I'll give it a look. I still don't know what would make an ideal title, but that will do for now. Oh, and you've been reverted on Fantana Alba. Biruitorul 05:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's the exact quote on the scandal, from Machcewicz, p. 101: "Significant political changes were accelerated by the affair of pl:Józef Światło, a top-ranking official of the Polish security apparatus who defected to the West in December 1953. From the following autumn, his revelations of the crimes of the secret police and misdemeanours of the ruling Party were broadcast back to Poland by Radio Free Europe, based in Munich, shocking thousands of listeners, including many members of the Party. After a wave of criticism directed towards the Party leadership and collective security apparatus, for the first time expressed during official (although still confidential) meetings, the Ministry of Public Security was dissolved in December 1954." The article on Światło should definitely be translated at some point. Biruitorul 07:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

re
it takes two to tango...Anonimu 10:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Your formatting of Hungarian Revolution of 1956
Hi Piotrus, this edit seems to have used a formatting script on most of the article. looking at the side-by-side comparison, I could not detect any difference from before/after. Out of curiosity - can you point me to a source that explains what that script does and why it is used? Thanks in advance István 14:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Zaolzie
Hiya Piotrus,

I believe we may have argued in the past..? My memory is pretty hazy...

Can you make heads or tails of Talk:Zaolzie? Is this one POV-pusher trying to upset the apple cart, or are there legitimate probs? I'm inclined to delist the article from GA based on stability....

Thanks --Ling.Nut 12:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again... --Ling.Nut 17:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Odznaczenia
Można "Radku" ;) Ja nie tyle zmieniłem kolejność ile przeniosłem dwa ordery nadal przyznawane z historycznych do tych co są nadal przyznawane - Siły Zbrojne w Służbie Ojczyzny i Za zasługi dla obronności kraju. Pozdrawiam Radomil talk 10:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Jesteś pewien, że wszystkie medale "historyczne" są historyczne? Chodzi mi o to, że np. Wielkopolski Krzyż Powstańczy, który dotyczył przecież biorących udział w walkach w latach 1918-1919 zakończono nadawać 8 maja 1999. Być moze część odznaczeń za II wojnę światową nadal jest przyznawane (część na pewno zaprzestano przyznawać w tym samym momencie, ale czy wszystkie)? Radomil talk 10:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Zaolzie
I have quoted Peroutka. My additions were deleted.

I have added Kovtun. My additions were deleted.

I have added Gawronska. My additions were deleted.

I have added information from Mamatey. The information was deleted.

I have added information from Gabal. The information was deleted.

I have added quotation of Chlebowczyk and Kosiński. The quotation was deleted.

Following this, I have deleted Watts. He presents view of one side only and Czech side has no defence. The deletion was twice reverted.

I cannot add, I cannot delete - I cannot edit the article. At the same time, I am subject of personal attacks and ad hominem arguments.

I appreciate that Darwinek is your friend but you may wish to be objective. What do you think?

--Xixaxu 08:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Rakowicki Cemetery
Thanks for the Polish-English translations for the two photo captions. They provided the basis for improving the text. For the record: as I understand English usage, a tomb may be above or below ground; a grave is below ground, but the structure called a mausoleum may indicate aboveground burial which can't be known from merely viewing the photos. So your prompt response was most helpful! Perhaps future editors will expand the page with more particular information. -- Cheers, Deborahjay 04:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Józef Światło
BTW, I've tagged the image in the article, Image:Swiatlo.jpg as being unsourced. The URL you gave leads to a Page Not Found error. Hopefully you can find another source for it. Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 16:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom/Piotrus
Your behavior will be scrutinized here:  M.K. 10:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, I would like to express my support for you in this matter; it is clear that M.K.'s accusations are without merit. I am not listed as one of the "involved parties", but I wonder if it's still possible for me to provide a statement to ArbCom? Appleseed (Talk) 19:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Polish translation of edit summary
Hi there...

I am wondering, as someone who indcates they can translate polish, could you review the following edit summary for this diff and let me know it's general content. Based on the topic and the fact the edit reversed my editing, I believe it is likely in polish and directed at me. It is unlikely I will report it or anything, but it is always nice to know if someone is slamming you. Thanks.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 12:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Another user got to this already. Thanks anyways.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 13:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies
Your latest proposal seems to have broken ilink...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks I have now fixed it, Buy what did you think about it?Max ╦╩ 20:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

koloman gögh
you are invited to improve article, thanks --Mt7 20:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC) what you say is humbug, no one is czechoslovak player Ján Čapkovič, Antonín Panenka, Ladislav Jurkemik,Ivo Knoflíček, František Plánička, Ján Švehlík, Josef Masopust, Alexander Vencel (born 1944), Ivo Viktor, we need a new wikipedia for you. --Mt7 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject
Thanks for the link. I will take a look. How did you know about my interest in this sort of stuff? --HappyCamper 04:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class
Thank you, Piotr. I appreciate it very much. I'm moving the awards to my userpage. Thanks a million. --Poeticbent  talk   22:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome
But - remember, every rose has thorns :) The more active you are, the more effort you put in - the more enemies you make... there are days I wonder if it is worth it, really... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of that new development . I read the initial statements yesterday but only today noticed how other somewhat familiar names have reappeared jumping with glee on the bandwagon. I don't know what to say, I don't have the nerve for exchanges that lead nowhere like in the case of Anti-Polonism versus the euphemistic Anti-Polish sentiment and so on. This is why I admire your stamina even more. --Poeticbent  talk   01:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't have to say anything - in many regards you are luckly you don't have to waste time on that. On the other hand, if you agree with some of the comments, or disagree with others, you are certainly allowed to comment. Ability to diffuse information quickly and receive comments from all sides are what makes Wikipedia strong, after all. And the dilemma of being silent is similar to the one of 'should I vote in the elections or not? Kind of a free rider dilemma when I think of it: if others will comment and solve it, it's good, I don't have to do anything... but if everyone will think like that... anyway, no hurry, and certainly, no pressure :) PS. You send me MSN info once but I never saw you afterwards - are you still using it?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you have a strong case there but I will look at the comments again tomorrow morning and possibly express my opinion in this matter. I’m going to see a play tonight and have to get ready. The problem is that some of those diatribes take hours to read and make me feel guilty for wasting time trying to get to the bottom of it. The long learning curve of some of those hard-headed editors make me think of my father. --Poeticbent  talk   02:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration statement length
Please note that an arbitrator has requested that you reduce the length of your statement on Requests for arbitration. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 14:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reification (fallacy)
Thanks for the article, Piotrus. How does one generate the kind of notice that I received from you the next time a user accesses en.Wikipedia?

Two comments on the article: Your subheading "Ethymology" is not as familiar as the equivalent "Etymology" – the former redirects to the latter in en.Wikipedia. Also, in the "Theory" section you write "A reification circle refers to the event when a norm, first seen as artificial and forces,...." It makes sense to me if "forces" should be "forced" but perhaps you had something else in mind that I'm not getting. I'll duplicate these comments on the Reification (fallacy) talk page if you want to discuss. —Blanchette 06:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

a recent prod
I left a message for you here.

I can see your point about not keeping redundant information, as the two locations can get out of sync, causing confusion. But, if the out-of-date, and possibly redundant info hasn't been checked, before the article is removed, it is lost. And I think that should be checked first. Probably a lot of work to do a proper job of it.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 15:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your arbcom comment
Thanks for your comment wrt the Romania case. You wrote:
 * However if incivility and other disruptive behaviour took place, it should be analyzed [...] And if some parties who are guilty of it here are the same who come up in other cases (like mentioned Latvia case), I think ArbCom should consider doing something about such repeated offenders: looking over Romania case, I certainly see disruption by some people whose behaviour has been condemned by both past ArbCom cases, and in other DR proceedings

Maybe I am suffering from certain delusions, but may be I am correct on who you mean by "certain users". In this case, please reread the Latvia case, note the list of users ArbCom found engaged in "poor behavior", reread the talk of the Romania article find those engaged in poor behavior there as well and compare the list. I am writing to you off the arbcom page because the page is already loaded, but I welcome your continued scrutiny. In fact, from the pattern of your edits that show up in certain articles I am aware of being under the radar and it does not bother me. So, I would be interested in your more detailed analysis rather than a totally unsupported statement. --Irpen 05:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Leaving my comments in the air with lost context
When you remove or significantly alter your comments to which I already replied, my comments start to look irrelevant at worst or strange and mysterious at best. Please post your new thoughts below (rather than in place) of old thoughts so that I know what I should be replying to and the reader may follow the discussion. TIA, --Irpen 05:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Somehow one of my comments there got duplicated and I needed to fix it. By all means please note your reply was to an earlier version of my post if it matters, I occasionaly expand my post with relevant items and if we talk in near-same time it may be indeed somewhat confusing. On your side, please remember to indent your posts properly, this makes everything much less confusing.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

3O ToT
I am removing Third opinion Time of Troublesrequest because you did not include the section on the talk page it related to and there seem to be more than two people involved now. If I am mistaken please resubmit. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Polish Communes
Hi. You are an admin here, so I'd like to ask you for something. After my talk with User:Marcin Suwalczan, we agreed to keep standard of "Name Commune", not "Gmina Name". But I was move few articles before: Gmina Abramów; Gmina Adamów, Łuków County; Gmina Adamów, Zamość County; Gmina Adamówka, Gmina Aleksandrów, Biłgoraj County; Gmina Aleksandrów, Piotrków Trybunalski County; Gmina Aleksandrów Kujawski and Gmina Aleksandrów Łódzki, all of them should be moved back. And, as You know, it is not possible without deletion of redirect pages. Sorry for this perturbation. Regards Lajsikonik 20:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User:87.187.170.182(talk)
We have a new anon on a destructive spree. Can you take care of this? Thanks. --Poeticbent  talk   15:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

IRC
Okay, you're added. You may have to type /msg chanserv invite #wikipedia-en-admins before joining. --Interiot 17:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Nie movie po polsku...
...but you do, of course. Can you leave a note for Commons:User:Ocuish? He or she is uploading images to Commons, but in the process expanding .jpg to .jpeg. That just means work for nothing at our end. Example: Image:Airport Terminal.jpg went to Commons:Image:Airport Terminal.jpeg. It could be that they were called .jpeg on the Polish wiki, but maybe you could ask him/her if there is a reason for it. Many thanks in advance for your multilingual assistance! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NCGN
Hi Piotrus, I am sorry to disturb you with this, but I would greatly appreciate if you can look at the edits (well, in fact just reverts) by User:Odbhss. He is reverting to a version contradicting WP:NCGN.[] I have tried to explain him/her the convention on his/her talk page, but to no avail. He/she has a clear POV, but I believe we should play by rules regardless our POV. What should I do? I have discussed WP:NCGN with other Hungarian editors on their notice board and, although one of them opposes the convention in general, the rest seem to accept it. Communication with Odbhss is kind of... not extremely fruitful. See User talk:Odbhss. I would be grateful for any help. Tankred 02:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick answer. My interpretation is that alternative names of towns should be placed in the lead of the main articles about those towns, but not in the body of other articles. The only exception is if a widely accepted historic name in English can be identified on a talk page of the main article. Odbhss' interpretation is: "Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers Historical names can even be used in the lead, not just article body". The article is History of Hungary and the edit in question is . Basically, I prefer a version using the geographic names as they are used in the titles of the main articles. This new user is reverting to a version, in which they are Hungarian names (and in one case also a German name) listed whenever a geographic name is not Hungarian. I believe it is against the convention. Tankred 03:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sarkar's Social Cycle Theory
Hi,

Your claim that Sarkar's Social Cycle Theory is a hoax or to tie its legitimacy with number of Google hits is amuzing. Please refer to the page were you deposited the claim. Here is the reply. Please consider resolving this issue before other measures need to be taken with regard to the offending entry.

Answer on the P. R. Sarkar talk page: "This is incorrect. There are plenty of hits of Sarkar's "social cycle theory" relating to Sarkar. Try the follwing search string "social cycle theory" & "sarkar". Please note "Sarker" is an incorrect spelling of Sarkar. In the Talk page of the present "Social cycle theory" the following was written: Wrong title for this article. The term Social Cycle Theory was first used in relation to The Law of the Social Cycle invented by P.R. Sarkar in his book Human Society, Vol. 2 published by Ananda Marga Press in Calcutta, India in the late 1950s. The term 'Social Cycle Theory' became popularised as the term for this law in other works in India and later in the West, including in the #1 New York Times best seller The Great Depression of 1990 by Ravi Batra published by Simon and Schuster in 1987. The SCT term was earlier introduced by Batra in his less well known book The Downfall of Capitalism and Communism: a New Study of History, published by MacMillan in 1976. The use of this term as a description of this article is therefore wrong and likely illegal. The term Sociological Cycle Theory could be used for this entry. The issue concerns the right to the use of this title. It has been used in copyrighted works for many decades. The use of this name for other theories is not as per academic standard and should be discontinued. Please do the honorable thing and make the change in the title of the offending page, as earlier suggested, and then this mess can be cleared up. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prabhat_Ranjan_Sarkar" Budfin 10:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Puppetry!?!
Sorry for any confusion. I've replied here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Institute_of_National_Remembrance#Any__Piotru.C5.9B.27_puppets_here.3F and taken the liberty of correcting a (presumed) typographical error in your reply. I admire your contributions. ... Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 10:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon vandal
If he returns, I will block him for disruption.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not going to be easy I'm afraid. The anon, who's using a dynamic IP number (see: User talk:87.187.167.90) has been vandalizing the List of Poles quite regularly. Just keep an eye on it like I do, that's all. --Poeticbent  talk   17:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

LoP
(You wrote)

Added LoP to my watchlist... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Piotr. Like I thought, the above mentioned anon reappeared under a different dynamic IP: 87.187.171.37 (talk) arguing over Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Hevelius, German minority in Poland and the like, however, LoP has been left alone for the moment. With regards to your question, I have a habit of responding with the copy of the original from my Talk from which I take it out. I didn't respond to you directly that's why keeping the original was a bit of an oversight. Instead, I wrote at RfA. I trust in the infinite wisdom of the arbcom members since some of the swings taken at you could only be attributed to lack of experience. --Poeticbent   talk   21:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Piotrus, for the information on Wawrzyniec Grzymała Goślicki and Thomas Jefferson. I am going to look into the references you suggested. Also, I have ordered a copy of Oldisworth's 1733 translation of The Accomplished Senator to see what I can find in there. I noticed the item in Wikipedia article about that "there is no evidence of a direct link with Jefferson's Declaration of Independence." It would be interesting if somebody could come up with one. --Gjm5025 23:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Warsaw Uprising FAR
Warsaw Uprising has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

nadav 05:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mundana Quartet
Wow, I screwed up. Sorry about that. Will get right on relisting... If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 16:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Hi Piotrus, may I ask you for a warning to this user due to the uncivility and personal attacks, , ? Thanks.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 22:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Speed of my slow computer...
Your user and talk pages are hard to view due to the speed at which my computer runs. :\ --Remi 01:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Piotrus
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Piotrus. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring
Piotrus, you violated the 3RR in the IPN article. Times below are in GMT:


 * 04:33, April 27, 2007 you reverted the tag placed by another editor
 * 17:17, April 27, 2007 you reinserted the (irrelevant) information about the lustration laws in other countries (which has no relevance to IPN)
 * 00:51, April 28, 2007 was a full revert
 * 01:00, April 28, 2007 was a full revert as well, only 21 hours after the first one.

Please self-revert. Until recently, I would have never contacted you in connection with this or considered posting this to 3RR board but I can't help but make a connection between your act of joining the #admins that we used to criticized together and this rather unexpected showing up of a know IRC member bashing me at your ArbCom. I consider resorting to this tactic beyond limit. Anyway, irregardless of whether you want to explain the connection between these two events, please self-revert your 3RR violation. Thanks, --Irpen 01:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm, I am pretty sure I am below 3RR; i.e. your fourth link is not a revert and I have reverted only 3 times in the 24h. I have also rewritten the 'other countries' lustration section so that it is more relevant to address your objections. Per your own comments, this is a WP:BRD rather than any WP:3RR issue. Are you satisfied with the current version? If not in a gesture of good will I can remove the sentence about lustration in other countries myself (but you can remove that sentence yourself, too, and I promise I will not count it in any possible 3RR discussion).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My fourth diff is a revert by you to your previous version (except for additional spelling correction) with all my edits undone. I want you to self-revert and why so is self-explanatory from the article. Since you seem to employ against your opponents the tool we used to criticize together at better times, I am not willing to do any talk page chatter beyond the absolute minimum. I really did not expect the IRC thing from you. truly, --Irpen 01:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have restored your commenting out; it's no big deal either way. If there are any other changes you'd like me to make, please tell me here or on that article talk page. As for IRC, I am still a strong supporter of public logs of all discussions on it, and you can quote me on that anywhere, anytime. I was however never against using it; it's the potential for secrecy and non-transparency that is damaging. As for the fact that people criticize your comments, well, you are the only one who can blame yourself for giving them a reason to do so, I am afraid. And your comments at Vlad's page are quite bad faithed, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As for potential of secrecy and non-transparency, someone secretly and non-transparently have asked at IRC admins to take a look at my entries in connection with your arbcom. In view of your commitment above, you can make the log of that incident public unless you are saying that your joining the IRC had nothing to do with DG's sudden interest to the controversies surrounding the EE topic?

I stand by that comment in view of the past actions by you that I have seen repeatedly. Unlike some, I am on record with the diffs of you seeking the blocks. I warned an editor also publicly, knowing that my comments will be scrutinized. Diffs of past attempts to have the opponents sanctioned have been brought to your attention. You know them. I would appreciate if all your comments in connections with these affairs are made in public, so that the diffs would be there. You want DG to comment/reign in on Irpen? Ask him to do just that at his talk page. This is called integrity.

As for DG's comment it just shows that he (and you for agreeing with him) has not read the AGF policy for a while. How is that edit supposed to show my bad faith? How is my advise, which also included staying away from rv warring and commenting on the editors, is bad faith, or bad in any way? It isn't. I tell him that Piotrus will try to make him blocked. And this is true (and, btw, this has been attempted at once.) How is this assuming bad faith? That's something else. If I've tried assuming good faith and been proved wrong, I've got to stop assuming. And the AGF says just that. David is not saying I assume bad faith. He's saying I edit in bad faith. (In other words, it is David who is in violation as he is assuming bad faith of me.)

And I would be very pleased to see the confirmation of who brought him there. --Irpen 02:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I came to the articles in response to a RfC. I sometimes try my hand at RfCs to see if I can work miracles. (smile)DGG 04:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

History of the administrative divisions of Russia
I'd love to get back to that project if I had my reference books back :( Glancing over my resources, I could perhaps finish the series  with what I have (mostly generalized tertiary sources), but the part dealing with the 18th and 19th centuries wouldn't be very thorough.  This all is also a matter of having time to do it&mdash;I guess I've got so involved with modern administrative, territorial, and now municipal divisions of Russia that I don't really have much time left to deal with the historical development.

Anyway, if you are asking because you have something that you can contribute to the series (even if that "something" isn't terribly detailed), go right ahead; don't wait on my account.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the terminology is currently more or less established; just use the terms you see in the Wikipedia articles on the topic ("governorate" for губерния, "viceroyalty" for наместничество, "province" for "провинция", "oblast" for "область", "krai" for край, and "uyezd" for уезд). I'll be following your work with great interest, so you can count on my advice when/if you need one.
 * As for the lists of provinces etc., I'm afraid I can't be of much help here. Most of what I have is in narrative form; whatever tables present in history of the administrative division of Russia were compiled based on various sources (with quite a bit of cross-checking).  I simply don't have any complete tables to share.  Sorry!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can find and will let you know.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oversight
(You wrote)

Just so you know, WP:TE (tedious editing) is not a nice thing to say about somebody. Your evidence comment on evidence page would suggest I am guilty of it. Is this the intent of your message?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting the mistake. What I meant was "wordy," or rather "thoughtful and prudent". I've fixed my mistake already. Please forgive the oversight. --Poeticbent  talk   05:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, no harm done - I figured it was that, but to be on a safe side... thanks again.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If there's any other way I can improve on that statement, please let me know. My opinion might not be shared by others so at least it should sound straightforward. --Poeticbent  talk   06:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Prodding lists
In response to your comment at my talk page:

I don't know that it would be appropriate to prod them as the deletion of the lists is obviously not uncontroversial. As for individual AfDs, I don't know whether that's really necessary ... if editors make use of the lists in counter-vandalism (recent changes patrolling), it makes no sense to delete them. If we are not going to leave them in the mainspace, we should at least projectify them instead of deleting (though, for the time being, it may be better to just leave them in the mainspace). Rather than 1-2 nominations per day, I think it would be better to start making requests to various WikiProjects to see if they'd consider projectifying their lists (e.g., asking WikiProject Germany if they'd projectify List of Germany-related topics). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the thing is that the people who use the lists are not members of any particular counter-vandalism group, but rather just patrol pages related to one or more countries. Those lists that do not have a corresponding country WikiProject can be projectified to a regional project (e.g., WikiProject Africa). Regarding your last point (the lack of response from some projects), I think that if 10-15 projects agree to projectify their lists, one can simply be bold and do the same for the rest.
 * There's one more issue I want to raise. Some of the lists (e.g., for Singapore) are apparently both (mostly) complete and regularly maintained. In short, I see no need to be particularly hurried about removing the lists from the mainspace ... a slower, more communicative (with the projects) approach is less likely to generate opposition or result in missteps. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus
Oh man, what's going on?  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 18:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * that's bad, I will try to summarize some statement. First Darwinek, now you, hmm, too bad :(  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 23:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Where should I write my statement now? I see case was accepted where is actual page with statements?  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 08:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Orliński
Orliński was based upon Polish Wiki article, without references... Oops, I wrote article on Polish Wiki, but it was long time ago, in pre-reference era. I must have used some Internet sources, because I can't find written ones. Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 21:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC) To musiało być na podstawie tego, ale brak miejsca pierwszej publikacji. Pibwl

Teksty
Pamiętasz jeszcze USS Tennessee (BB-43) ? Teraz znalazłem coś takiego USS Whipple (DD-217) i USS Whipple (DD-217) World War II Service, 1941-1945 Zastanawiam sie - czy to jakoś oznaczać czy po prostu za twarz wziąść i skopiować do głównego tekstu--Pmgpmg 21:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

New aricles for Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination
I am afraid the answer is negative. Firstly, the bot only looks for the new texts in the article space. Secondly, the very new userpages are rarely informative, usually people put some reasonable social information after some time on wiki, thirdly, I afrayd that in the post-Essjay world there is tendency to ignore or remove the real life credentials from the userpages.

There might be some bot solution but I am not aware of one yet. Alex Bakharev 07:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NCGN Official name takes precedence over local name
Can you enforce this rule on Odorheiu Secuiesc? This rule is simply ignored there even if the results of the vote are "PRO" this rule.--84.95.241.145 16:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Kraków for GA
(You wrote)

It would be an interesting project to bring Kraków to WP:GA status, don't you think so?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I love the idea! Where do we start? Would it be citations and footnotes? That's the hardest part considering the number of past contributors, but it can be done. Meanwhile, I've been eyeballing some red links for near future DYKs and don't know whether to start with St. Felix and Adaukt Church or the Church of St. Wojciech. Nevertheless, I think there's too many red links there for a good beginning. Take a look, if any of those red links are of interest to you. --Poeticbent  talk   18:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations are needed, certainly. We should also make sure the article is comprehensive. See cities (geography section) at Good articles for standards we will be aiming at.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked at Copenhagen and Stockholm for now and noticed additional subsections like Demographics, Transport and Geography which ought to be worked out. One step at a time I guess. --Poeticbent  talk   18:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

History being my hobby, one less red link. :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good going. I proofread it already. --Poeticbent  talk   21:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Red links from history section can now be removed, as I copied the section to History of Kraków; we can now shorten/summarize what's left in the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Piotr. History of Kraków looks perfect. I don’t know what your schedule is like, but please consider getting to work on that section of Kraków along the lines of other GA articles on cities like Berlin, Stockholm and Copenhagen. I’m in the process of composing a new article called Church of St Wojciech and will get to the History section of Kraków next. I noticed there’s some new activity taking place around the article already. My intention is to add the new subsections there first i.e.: Infrastructure, Demographics and Geography which are going to require additional effort.


 * By the way. Would you please remind User: Nihil novi to refrain from engaging in original research? Thanks. --Poeticbent  talk   21:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I will copyedit and ref the history once we are done with Warsaw Uprising which is now in danger of losing its featured status.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. -- Poeticbent   talk   14:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Do we have a bot...
I've seen such bots in the past, but I'm not aware of one that's operational at the moment. Kirill Lokshin 01:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (Followed this over from Kirill's) -- I've got the "keys" to RobotG (Robert G's) BOT, if you have the time and want to see what you can do with it. It's of course set up for category redirects now, but... he wanted to leave it with someone trustworthy... think you qualify!  // Fra nkB 00:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ''Thanks for the offer, but I have no idea who to "run" a bot. If you can figure a way to make it go through categories (And hopefully subcats) and tag all the articles that don't have a specific wikiproject template with that template, it would be great...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no can do&mdash;which is why I offered it to you. I simply don't and won't have the time to learn to speak and tweak "BOT" before late summer at the earliest. If you can think of someone dedicated and responsible with a CS background, I'll be glad to consider such a nominee. Robert was concerned at how much damage one can do with the refinements he'd made in a short amount of time, so I feel honor bound to honor the spirit of that trust. Not that I'm going to make a big deal out of it, but will figure on a baseline of longevity and lots of edits... common sense. Cheers! // Fra nkB 05:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Kyle Baran
Can you check out this article? This appears to be complete nonsense. Thanks. JRWalko 01:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Grafiki - własność rządowa III Rzeszy i zasady autorskich praw materialnych - na marginesie PD-Polish
Na marginesie dyskusji o Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Polish cały pakiet spraw dot. 1. Grafik, których prawnym właścicielem był rząd III Rzeszy (np. MSZ III Rzeszy),lub agencje państwowe ( jak Deutsches NAchrichten Buro) - A NIE OSOBY PRYWATNE- prawa wygasły w maju 1945 po likwidacji III Rzeszy jako państwa -podmiotu prawa cywilnego. Prosi się o stworzenie PD-NaziGov.

2. Zauważyłem ,że niektórzy administratorzy (konkretnie-niemieccy) próbują wykorzystać dyrektywę harmonizującą EU dla generalnej blokady foto sprzed 1945 r.- niezależnie od proweniencji.

3.Tymczasem podstawową sprawą jest kwestia istnienia lub nie MATERIALNYCH praw majątkowych do dzieła, ktore są zbywalne i mogą ulec umorzeniu nawet przed datą śmierci autora.

4.Przykładowo - zdjęcie, do którego prawa zostały sprzedane np.Ilustrowanemu Kurierowi Codziennemu czy DNB,albo wykonane przez pracownika Ministerstwa Propagandy Rzeszy czy DNB , a osoba prawna uległa likwidacji bez następców prawnych prawa nabytego jest zdjęciem w domenie publicznej (prawo zbyte skutecznie nie wraca do zbywcy -autora)

5. Poza tym bardzo dużo starych zdjęć to zdjęcia legitymacyjne, paszportowe etc robione przez rzemieślnicze zakłady fotograficzne, które albo w ogóle nie są ( i nie powinny być )przedmiotem prawa autorskiego , albo jeśli traktować to restrykcyjnie - prawa do nich zostały zbyte przez wykonawcę (twórcę)- fotografa w chwili wyjścia klienta z zakładu fotograficznego po zapłaceniu za wykonanie zdjęcia, niezależnie od tego gdzie pozostał negatyw ( i nikt po wydarzeniach II wojny i     komunizmu badać tego nie będzie)

6. Pozostaje kwestia zdjęć amatorskich - bez autorstwa. Jeśli już dziś niektórzy niemieccy admini chcą usuwać zdjęcia egzekucji dokonanych przez Wehrmacht w 1939 r vide :

pod pretekstem dyrektywy harmonizacyjnej i poszukiwania autora ( gdyby się znalazł - to pierwszy do zawiadomienia - Prokurator IPN)...

a zdjęcia z powstania w getcie warszawskim zostały usunięte to aż się prosi o rozwinięcie tematu.

A prawna sytuacja jest taka,że w prawie europejskim ciężar dowodu faktu spoczywa na osobie,która z tego faktu chce wyciągnąć konsekwencje prawne. Dotyczy to zarówno prawa karnego ( domniemanie nieiwnności) jak i cywilnego, którego częścią jest prawo autorskie. Tzn. o ile nie ma dowodu na zastrzeżenie prawa o tyle ono nie istnieje. W polskim prawie autorskim przerzuca to ciężar dowodu na autora ,zaś wydawca ma jedynie OBOWIĄZEK ZACHOWANIA NALEŻYTEJ STARANNOŚCI - tzn. wiedzieć to co może uzyskać przy zachowaniu zwykłych wymogów staranności. Prawo zakłada domniemanie dobrej wiary użytkownika rzeczy czy prawa tzn. ewentualne naruszenie prawa materialnego może stwierdzić tylko właściciel tego prawa zwracając się z żądaniem do użytkownika o zaprzestanie naruszenia prawa ( i udowadniając swój interes prawny). Tzn. trzeba wykazać naruszenie prawa.

Ponieważ jest to powszechna zasada prawa rzymskiego ,obowiązująca zarówno w prawie polskim, jak i niemieckim inne postępowanie jest uzurpacją i po prostu robieniem ludziom wody z mózgu poprzez świadome mieszanie pojęcia autorskiego prawa osobistego, autorskiego prawa materialnego, zasady należytej staranności, domniemania legalności i zasady cięzaru dowodu po stronie tego, który zgłasza zarzut naruszenia prawa.

Generalnie: często słyszany argument,że każda grafika ma autora należy uzupełnić następująco: KAŻDA GRAFIKA MA AUTORA ALE WCALE NIE KAŻDA MA WŁAŚCICIELA i nie ma to nic wspólnego z datą śmierci autora.

To takie wstępne uwagi, które IMHO warto przemyśleć w długi weekend a potem przegadać z innymi adminami na Commons i na wikipl.

Serdecznie pozdrawiam:

85.89.162.47 08:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Państwowe Gospodarstwo Rolne
Thank you for your translation to english. Superzohar Talk 15:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 16:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Anna Halman
I can agree, that my english is extreme horrible, but I can not agree with Idea Not notable. Their death was very referenced in media in Poland and all east Europe, for example in czech media is referenced as one from the first and most known victims of cyber and sexual bullying in East Europe, two czech common reportage about bullying in Czech republic and Europe cited their case), influence of their case on polish education system and schools politik is out of question. And you tell: Not notable?! --Cinik 06:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: Pokud jste sto dobře rozumět česky, dejte vědět, budu psát i česky. --Cinik 07:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

nationalism comment
I'll say to you what I've already said to Lysy: my comment was poorly phrased and I'm sorry for that. However, I'm still concerned that tensions between Eastern European countries spread themselves on Wikipedia as well. In the Ghirla RfAr, which was requested on very poor grounds, this was exceptionally visible from all sides. These tensions manifest themselves on a number of issues, and it is a situation that has me very much worried.

As for not apologising earlier: I was very much affronted by your reply. I still think it is very ill-advised to reply to what you conceive as an inflammatory statement with another inflammatory statement, certainly if it is the first time you deal with an editor. Threatening people with ArbCom is not a good statement to start a discussion, it's not behaviour I'd expect from an admin and I still believe you owe me an apology for that.

Now I won't hold this against you, and I won't enter any evidence into your arbitration case, as I agree with Irpen that nothing can be gained from punishing a prolific editor. Instead, I hope you will learn from this experience, and that all the editors in the Eastern Europe part of Wikipedia can start working together more instead of combatting each other. Er rab ee 09:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Międzynarodowe Targi Katowickie
Informacja o MTK jako o drugich pod względem wielkości w Polsce jest z całapewnością błędna. Swego czasu o miejsce to ubiegały się bodajże targi w Radomiu. Obecnie po katastrofie MTK z całą pewnością spedły. Pytanie tylko na które miejsce. Pozdrawiam Radomil talk 19:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Polish October
You might want to add a fair use rationale to Image:TimeCover10Dec1956.jpg, as otherwise Polish October might be quick-failed for GA. Er rab ee 23:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Historical demography, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence phase
Hi Piotrus. There is no standard length for evidence phases, nor is their an order of when parties submit evidence, but it usually takes between 2 and 6 weeks, and on the longer side for cases involving more than a dozen people like yours does. I'd recommend getting your initial evidence in quickly but keeping a close watch so when other parties submit theirs, you will be able to respond to perceived inaccuracies in their comments (in your own section mind you; it is a common mistake to rebut evidence in the provider's section!) Picaroon (Talk) 21:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A subheading of the your own section, titled along the lines of "Response to Example's evidence," is commonly used; I think that is best. Picaroon (Talk) 20:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Warsaw Uprising
Hey, thanks for reminding me - it had kind of slipped my mind. I'll copyedit my way through the article over the next few days - let me know if there are any sections that you believe need special attention. Carom 16:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Overlapping articles
What is the policy on dealing with strongly overlapping articles and sections of articles? -- Zz 14:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

OK
Trochę chyba mamieszałem ;-( Jak w końcu powinniśmy pisać Gmina of X, Gmina X, a może X commune?

Pozrd. -- Medard Talk 22:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kaczynski.jpg
Pan Piotr, can you take a look? I asked the uploader, but he has ignored me. I doubt he took it himself as he claims. Could you please review and delete or tag accordingly? Thx -- Y not? 23:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Greater Poland Uprising (1806)
W odpowiedzi na krytykę przetłumaczyłem naskkrobany kiedyś przeze mnie artykuł z pl: wiki - User:Radomil/brudnopis. Mam swoją tradycyjną prośbę o (zapewne konieczna) korektę w wolnej chwili. Z gory dziękuję :) Radomil talk 23:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

communist crime
Takie małe podziękowanie za communist crime. :') OldEnt. 00:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)