User talk:Piotrus/Archive 17

Verba
Bardzo proszÄ o sprawdzenie gramatyki w artykule Verba i jego korektÄ. Pewnie tÅumaczenie z pl:Verba wyszÅo doÅÄ Åmiesznie, no ale jak siÄ nie ma co siÄ lubi...;)

Pozdrowienia! :D --Pawelooss 18:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral move
I know you subscribe to the well grounded policy of simplifying the names of articles when there are no problems with disambiguation and their meaning. There were no problems with disambiguation in the article Church of St. Wojciech, nevertheless the article was renamed unilaterally by another editor. Would you please bring the original title back if you agree with me? You can search Wikipedia for another Church of St. Wojciech if you like, but there arenât any. The simpler the better is also my own policy, see St. Florian's Church for comparison. -- Poeticbent   talk   14:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Darwinek is a reasonable editor, why don't you talk it out with him first? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion. I wrote him a note already. Below is his response. -- Poeticbent   talk   17:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello. Both sides have valuable points. By "there are many others" I meant that there are many others in Poland, not in EN Wikipedia yet. So feel free to ask another admin to move it back but be prepared that in future it will be probably moved to make room for real disambiguation page. I can also imagine some English user will move it to "St. Adalbert Church". Greets. - Darwinek 17:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So Piotrus, please move the article back to Church of St. Wojciech for now. Thanks for this. -- Poeticbent   talk   17:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Battletech cbt 20year tri 800.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Battletech cbt 20year tri 800.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Battletech cbt 20year tri 800.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Battletech cbt 20year tri 800.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Rise of nationalism in Europe
Hello - you may wish to have a second look at this AfD, as I've better explained why it should be deleted at the top of the page. Biruitorul 08:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to Inform you
You and the number of articles you have successfully submitted to DYK has been noted here because you have been discovered as one of the twenty-five highest DYK article contributors. If you feel compelled to continue to update your number of DYKs on this list, and therefore the list itself, then it would be very helpful and help make sure that the list is as up-to-date as possible. If you, indeed, do not wish to be present on this list, then please notify me, the creator. Regards,  &mdash;A â¢ D  Torque 11:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:WWII_Poland_Invasion_1939-09-01.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:WWII_Poland_Invasion_1939-09-01.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Warsaw_ghetto_uprising_German_sentries.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Warsaw_ghetto_uprising_German_sentries.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 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 09:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Sarmatians
The Article for Sarmatians states that there is a genetic connection. However, I fail to see that connection from the sources given. So, I moved it to the discussion page (and yes, I know about the role the Sarmatian connection played for the Polish self view in history - the article makes it clear, too).

In return, I got some vacuous answers on the discussion page, and the paragraph was added again. In order to avoid an edit war, I ask you to be some kind of mediator here, if you like. Since you are Polish, it should help against feelings of anti-Polonism, too. -- Zz 12:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Nasz
There's a thread at WP:AN about a new Polish user that you may be able to help with. Please see WP:AN. Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 16:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:CreativeCommonsSomeRights2.png
Hello, Piotrus. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:CreativeCommonsSomeRights2.png) was found at the following location: User:Piotrus. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 23:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:CreativeCommonsSomeRights2.png
Hello, Piotrus. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:CreativeCommonsSomeRights2.png) was found at the following location: User:Piotrus/Babel. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 23:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus
I really busy these days, besides I do not see any reason why you cant state your ideas to that is already presented. M.K. 09:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As size canât affect presenting facts to concrete evidence sections, I find your motives puzzling. However, if you troubled due to count of words - donât be. If somehow your essay will be wrong due to size and would not be concise etc., clerks or arbitrators probably modify it accordingly or ask you to do it. Besides evidence presentation is continues process rather then onetime.  M.K. 11:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kazimierz siemenowicz.jpg
Hello, Piotrus. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Kazimierz siemenowicz.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Piotrus/Archive 8. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 16:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

KrakÃ³w szopka
Btw, a new article I wrote for DYK.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. I spruced up your article just a bit. The main thing to watch for at this point would be the English plural for szopka not being szopki (see: References). -- Poeticbent   talk   16:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to delete banners and buttons page
Someone feels that teh banners and buttons articles violates wikipedia policy on free use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banners_and_buttons. Currently that includes hte banner you have on your user page. If you have an opinon on the issue feel free ot enter the discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:Banners_and_buttons. Mrdthree 16:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:ORP Sokol 1.jpg
Hello Piotrus, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:ORP Sokol 1.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Piotrus/Archive 4. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Piotr_Blass_1977.jpg
Please forward the e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Thanks, Yonatan talk 04:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions
Piotrus, I was wondering if you could look at the article. Lately some changes have been made in regards to Khmelnystsky in Jewish History- in fact the article about Khmelnytsky turned into revert war over numbers. I am interested in your opinion. Thanks. --Hillock65 18:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input Piotrus, it was very helpful. I will stay away from it all, I removed all Khmelnytsky articles from my watchlist. I will return later to editing them. Let's see what happens around them in the meantime. As well, I have a favour to ask, I was wondering of your opinion in regards to article Ethnic Russians in Ukraine. I got bogged down in dispute there over Russian imperial terminology and other things. I tagged it as NPOV, but I think it should be upgraded to "totally disputed", as it seems to be an exercise in Russian imperialist revisonism rather than a serious article. It is replete with original research, virtually without any sources to support outlandish claims. I was wondering what you think about it, and whether I should file for RfC or it is too early at this stage? I know you are very busy with other things, so whenever you have time. Thanks in advance. --Hillock65 20:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you again, I had a question regarding the naming conventions. For example, for Gdansk under Germans, we would use the old name or the Polish name? Where can I find more reference on it?--Hillock65 22:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor technicality
(You wrote)

Your post from evidence would probably be better as motion in workshop.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. Where exactly shall I post my new motion? Would that be under Template 1.1 or perhaps in a different slot? I suppose it's best to inform the parties about my decision by adding a link in its place, right?   Workshop page offers a number of slots, i.e.:
 * 1 Motions and requests by the parties


 * 1.1 Template


 * 1.2 Template


 * 1.3 Template etc.


 * Should I just replace the Template 1.1 with what I wrote originally or is there something Iâm expected to add on top of it? -- Poeticbent   talk   01:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be the 'Motions and requests by the parties', but check the rules on that page to be sure. My experience with ArbCom is quite limited I am afraid.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Although Iâm not a âpartyâ here  Iâd like to make a solid contribution, so let me get some feedback from Durova whoâs made a few good points already  on my behalf.   We'll see what she says. -- Poeticbent    talk   02:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read the opinion expressed by Durova in response to my query. I tend to agree with her that it is a bit late for a Workshop. Therefore I've concluded that my statement will work best where it is. -- Poeticbent    talk   20:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Poland articles notice board
Hi Piotrus,

My name is Mark Rodowicz. I am an Australian of Polish descent, in my early 30's. My interests are international politics, languages & films. I wanted to thank you for inviting me to the Poland group. I've been to the Poland site, and I'd be happy to participate when I can. Is there anything more I need to know, or do I just sign up & go from there? Regards, Mrodowicz 14:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Konieczny connection
My paternal grandmother was a Konieczny, and there are several Konieczny's living in Toledo, Ohio, my hometown. I rarely encounter anyone who shares that last name, so I thought I'd say hello. --Ssbohio 02:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:EPWA airport
Well, thanks. I've just completed my final exams so I'll have more time to participate and write new articles. PS Maybe we should make Template:Infobox Polish Cabinet or so? There is an American version and I think it's worth converting to Polish governments and ministries EPWA airport 05:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Poland group participation
Thanks Piotrus - Regards,Mrodowicz 10:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Official name definition
Hello, I'd really appreciate it if you took a look at WP:NCGN and the issue of the official name. There's a huge problem in the Dokdo talk area about the concept of official name. Dokdo is claimed by Korea and Japan and they both have their own official names. (Dokdo and Takeshima). However, some users are saying because Korea has a few soldiers and is at present the 'occupant' of the island then that becomes the official name. I don't think this is in the spirt of the name convention regarding official names: In other words, if one country has a name and it doesn't exist much in English please use that. A simple change to say that there may be more than one official name in an undisputed territory would be helpful. I don't want to instigate the change myself as it would lead to charges of bias.

Many thanks.

Macgruder 11:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Dead sockpuppets
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful intervention.

I've been moved to a different hospital today and been able to edit at last using the staff nurses work station.

I'll e-mail you a proper thanks if I ever make it out of here ... Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) â¢ 14:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Witold Leon Czartoryski.jpg
Hi, I saw you found a source for this image. Thanks. However it's not complete. Is there on that Polish page more information? The date when the picture was taken and/or published. The image is probably Public Domain but with just a link to the photo somewhere on the web, we can't be sure. Garion96 (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Too bad, I will also look to see if I can find something. But If I am not successful I will tag it as having no source again in a couple of days or so. Garion96 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the Public Domain rule in Poland? With 70 years usually is meant the death of the author/photographer. It is not that unlikely that that has not happened yet. PD-Poland doesn't work in this case unfortunately. Garion96 (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed
Thanks for uploading Image:Polish-Ukrainian War - final stage.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Alex Spade 12:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Also:
 * Image:Polish-Ukrainian and Polish-Soviet Wars early 1919.JPG
 * Image:Vilnius Operation April 1919 Przybylski.JPG

I have just answered at Image talk:Polish-Ukrainian and Polish-Soviet Wars early 1919.JPG. Alex Spade 20:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 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 05:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This statement is exactly the problem
You've made this request on your RfAr:
 * It is my belief that M.K. should be warned to stop harassment of me and other editors (like Halibutt and Lysy) under a threat of a block, and put on probation from Poland-related articles. Majority of his positive contributions are in the field of Lithuanian architecture and history, unrelated to Poland, it would be a loss to see him go but his disruption of Poland-related articles needs to be put to an end. Some form of mentorship and adoption would be also highly advisable. Considering the neglible positivie content contributions coming from Dr. Dan at all, and vast amount of disruption, I feel that a probation from any Poland-related articles and particulary talk pages is highly advisable and the least strong solution ArbCom should utilize in regard to this editor. Finally, several users (M.K., Jadger, Dr. Dan, Irpen) should be cautioned that they are not neutral and reminded of how Wiki is supposed to work

This shows exactly where I find your communication with other editors to be problematic: threatening with sanctions. It is not up to you to suggest anything here. Let the ArbCom do their work, if you want any sanctions taken against other editors, you could always propose measures at the Workshop subpage, where people can respond to your suggestions directly, and arbitrators can then decide if sufficient support exists for those measures. Right now, this statement of yours just causes a very hostile environment, without anyone being able to do anything about it. I strongly urge you to withdraw this request from your RfAr, or move it to the Workshop subpage. Er rab ee 09:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look at Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Workshop, you'll see a couple of proposed principles, findings of fact and remedies by non-ArbCom editors.
 * Your statement above contains many findings of fact and remedies, but you present them in such a form that it is practically impossible to discuss them individually. The first sentence should be split in a finding of fact (M.K. has harassed other editors (diff, diff, diff, diff)) and a general remedy (Harassment is forbidden and can be punished by a brief block for each infringement). The next sentences could be done in a similar manner: a finding of fact and coupled one or more remedies.
 * This approach enables people to discuss and dispute the findings of fact and the remedies separately, which can help structure the discussion. Er rab ee 12:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK
What about History of Exploration in Tibet? I used a book but I am sure some web references can be found. â¦ Sir Blofeld â¦ "Expecting you" Contribs 18:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK I have tons of good new articles but many need referencing. Kumbum Monastery is another recent other. I have had many DYK's Uttara (film) was another article which never got done but I often don't have to time to propose it myself -I see it as bragging!! â¦ Sir Blofeld â¦ "Expecting you" Contribs 19:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Railroadtyccon3_screen2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Railroadtyccon3_screen2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. â  pd_THOR  undefined | 23:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: question
I have to agree with said editor that you and the other should start proposing remedies, however, I don't see a pressing need to remove that section from the evidence. The format he suggested of proposed remedies should be along these lines name the editor in question and state the sanction you think should occur, provide a brief explanation of why this remedy is a good plan, provide two to four diffs if possible exemplifying the behavior in question, and then wrap up with a link to the relevant evidence section, which should go into more detail/provide some more diffs.

For an example of how this works, see the remedies at Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. The arbitrators approved of remedies along those lines which they found on the workshop page; then they voted on them at proposed decision; and then the closing clerk moved them to the main arbitration page (sometimes they keep the diffs and evidence links in the final remedies, sometimes they drop them; in the case I linked, they dropped them, but it is still a good idea to include them on the workshop pages.) Picaroon (Talk) 23:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Loss of Halibutt
Certainly I have, how else could I have come up with an average of 6 edits per day? Over 180 edits in April, more than 150 in May as of today. I admitted it was (much) less than he was used to. Maybe this qualifies as limited involvement, but certainly not as loss of an active editor, which I feel misrepresents the facts.

BTW, you still haven't removed your request (and optionally sort it out and move it into the Workshop area). M.K. has already made one proposed finding of fact (although it lacks diffs). Er rab ee 18:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is indeed a matter of interpretation. Halibutt has had periods before when he was even less active than he is now. And I've taken the worst month of 2007 to calculate the average. January amassed to 377 edits (12/day), February 286 (11/day), March over 245 (8/day), and May is up again (wrt April) with 7/day.


 * As for refactoring your statement: the point is that evidence has to be supported by facts. Your request/solution is your opinion on how to proceed, and cannot be evidence. You're quite right that ArbCom should make their own decision, but then I wonder why you've placed that request in the first place? Er rab ee 18:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how I should read this statement of yours on my talk page:
 * We have already fixed part of the problem: I am not aware of any conflicts along the lines Ghirla-Polish editors since the end of the previous year
 * Could you please elaborate on what has been fixed? If you mean that Ghirla has limited his involvement as well, I consider that as much a loss to Wikipedia as you consider Halibutt limiting his involvement. Er rab ee 08:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your answer is very telling. Many people consider Halibutt to be as rude as you perceive Ghirla to be. Your answer would be comparable that they say that M.K. has fixed part of the problem, which would be just as inappropriate as your answer is. I'm beginning to doubt very much whether I should indeed stay out of your arbitration case, because this is really not acceptable. Er rab ee 18:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? How are *we* baiting Ghirla to change his behaviour? No, I definitely feel you've crossed the line here big time. Er rab ee 18:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been invited to comment on this discussion - and since Halibutt is one of the very few Eastern European editors who's rubbed me the wrong way I'm probably the right person to say this: I can read Piotrus's comments on this topic at face value and in good faith. This doesn't look like a deliberate attempt to bait anyone. Durova Charge! 20:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Another Polish copyright discussion
At commons. What do you think? Also: here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I commented. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Technical note: I don't usually follow replies on other user talk pages; in the future note if you want me to be aware of a reply, please copy it to my talk page. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Grr...I forgot, sorry. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 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 06:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

revert war at Vilna offensive
Alex, Piotrus, consider this. Both of you are administrators and you both should know better than revert warring, right ? --Lysytalk 07:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Regina Neighbourhoods mediation
Thank you for your comments, it seems that I have been directed to several pages but have not received any aid in my plight. If you could be so kind as to direct me to the proper resource for settling my dispute. However, the dispute at Regina Neighbourhoods involves the validity of statistics that I have proposed be inserted into the article. If you could either, mediate the dispute or ascertain the validity of my proposal or direct me in the proper direction, it would be greatly appreciated.--207.81.56.49 22:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I feel that the statistics meet all the requirements that I have been directed by yourself. They are crime statistics from the local police force and are therefore verifiable and primary sources. I also thank you for your direction to register but at this point, I fail to see the purpose due to the disputes over content at Regina Neighbourhoods. If this can be settled in a fair and equitable manner, I will register due to having confidence in Wikipedia. If they can not be dealt with in this manner, I see no reason to go through the hassle of registering, as I would be unable to contribute. Once again, thank you for your advice and hope that you may help me find a resolution to this issue.--207.81.56.49 22:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Prodding List of... article
I do not think that you should be prodding List of... articles as you currently are doing. You tried to mass AfD them, and that did not work; nor was there consensus that it was a good idea. Nowhere have I seen evidence of consensus being reached that the deletion is a good thing. I think you should seek to get some consensus before engaging in this exercise. At the moment it appears to be your personal opinion that there's something wrong with these articles; you look like you're rampaging through Wikipedia without giving a second thought to other people's opinion.--Tagishsimon (talk)
 * Yeah, I've read more now & see slightly better where you're coming from. The UK list does seem to be actively maintained. Can't speak for others. Let's see if they get deprodded; I'll stand on the side-lines. --Tagishsimon (talk)

style="position
Your use of HTML "style="position" (I think) is causing me some problems with the display of this page. â The Storm Surfer 08:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skartabellat
"just google" is hardly a serious answer as far as peculiarities of the Polish history, unknown to the world, and even to the Poles themselves are concerned. I would say "just read" Henryk Samsonowicz's article on Polish skartabels. Or any book on Polish nobility that would clearly cover that topic :-). "De" in Polish surnames is not French. It's Latin. Just read any medieval or early modern sources on Polish nobility. There is plenty online. Try http://teki.bkpan.poznan.pl . Show me any Polish lord called "Voivod" :-). Wojewoda OK. But not "Voivod". However, in official Latin documents of the Polish state these dignitaries are constantly named "Palatinus" and their areas "Palatinatus". Also current Polish historians use "Wojewoda" and "Palatyn", or "Wojewodztwo" and "Palacja" as synonyms. Thanks for managing the page!

Ethics questions
Piotrus, below is the thread I moved from the article's talk to yours since this is too far from the topic at hand. I would appreciate receiving finally a truthful answer. The original thread is moved unmoderated. --Irpen 06:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC) I was asked by one of the parties in this article to view this article. So, please tell me what seems to be the major sticking point? Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Observer
 * Why did the whoever asked you used IRC or whatever, I wonder? Anyway, your feedback would be welcome but it is impossible to summarize a sticking point in a few words. Please read the talk above and see the article's history with the revert war Piotrus waged during his own arbitration. --Irpen 02:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because IRC is the quickest way to get to me and I generally leave that open even if Firefox is closed. Anyways, I'll review the information and see if I can help yall out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I believed Zscout370 would be an acceptable neutral party already familiar with parts of CE/EE history, I contacted him. Do you have a problem with me asking for a neutral party intput in our latest quagmire?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, while the lead image might not be an issue, but if I read this correctly, the image should be in the public domain in Poland, since it is 70 years since it was published. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

To answer Piotrus' question, the proper way to ask for a neutral input is article's RfC. I don't mind requesting Zscout to look individually, since I know him for a good guy but as a matter of principle I object to out of band communication on Wikipedia conflict related matters for the sake of transparency. There are very few incidents when out-of-band communication is warranted and those usually involve privacy issues, dangerous vandals or some sort of emergency. Content dispute is not an issue of this sort. Piotrus' using IRC to get a hand from David Gerard, otherwise non-interested in articles at all, who suddenlly came bashing at Piotrus' arbcom and later, of course by accident, happened to block another editor with whom Piotrus had a conflict, Piotrus' sending out emails aimed at derailing another RfA has become all too common and I happen to think that acting behind people's back is unethical. When I will be asking for Zachs' opinion about some article, I will do so at his talk. That said, I would welcome his non-involved opinion on the matter. --Irpen 04:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is fine Irpen; I have worked with you before and I hope we get similiar results as we did elsewhere. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your unprovable accusations of my misbehaviour are a sad violation of WP:NPA, but I think I am getting used to that. The fact is that I wanted Zach's opinion ASAP, since the sooner we would get neutral editors to mediate, the lesser personal attacks - or accusations of thereof - we would see. Bottom line is, there is no Wiki rule discouraging use of off-wiki communications, and I don't remember you complaining when the two of us were discussing some other editors face to face during last Wikimania (I am just sad that what looked like good understanding we have reached then seems now completly forgotten).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, about my "unprovable" accusations, your resorting to out of band makes them indeed unprovable except through circumstantial evidence, but it is strong enough. But let's just make it all easier for all of us. As for our talking in person, unlike your persistent refusal to answer questions asked to you repeatedly, I not only freely admit it, but I immediately made it know to the subjects of our conversations about that discussion. I find nothing shameful in that discussion and I can repeat in public everything I said in private at that or any other time. Can you do the same? --Irpen 05:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you talk to David Gerard over IRC before his sudden appearance at your arbcom with a diff to an obscure message I left at another editor's talk asking him not to revert war with you and to stay out of your way? I am asking since DG never makes any of substance edits or does anything substantial content-wise, he never before interacted with me or that editor, he is at IRC 24/7 and this happened right after you asked for access to IRC? This is my line of circumstantial evidence. Please just say I am wrong
 * After hanging around at #en-admins did not you see a chatter there about Errabee's position on Fairuse and that's how you found out about this RfA?
 * Following that, did not you send emails to several users with a link to a several month-old diff edit made by Errabee?
 * Is there any connection between your IRC activity and the fact that DG soon blocked your content opponent for a month?


 * What part of "there is no Wiki rule discouraging use of off-wiki communications" is unclear to you? You are trying to create a controversy where none should exist. To clear up your misuderstaning, let me illustrate with an example.  How would you feel if I gave you a detailed list of questions about what you smoked or drank tonight, accompanied by a haughty lecture on how editing Wikipedia while not completely clear-minded is a bad thing.  I think you would be outraged, and rightly so.  I will of course not do that because 1. it is none of my business.  2. there is no Wikipedia guideline whatsover regulating what one does while editing. My own willingness to give a detailed discussion about my substance intake tonight would not make my point any stronger here. Balcer 06:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, what I drink or eat is unrelated to the editing, to canvassing people to vote to derail someone's RfA, to help in revert warring, to ask a known problematic admin to block your opponent and do so at the channel where the abuse is known to be rampant or to ask the very same admin to post something to ArbCom that would help, like a request for a thorough review of Irpen's editing pattern. (How did it go, btw?) As for lack of rule, I agree, but this is about ethics not rules. Ethics are not encoded in the legal codes, neither they can be encoded in policies. But let's see whether Piotrus will ignore the questions again. --Irpen 06:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * While I completly agree with Balcer, and I consider your inquisition a gross violation of both good faith assumption and normal right to privacy, since it matters so match to you, considering my respect to you for our 2+ collaboration on Wiki, I will give you the answers - even through, as Balcer points out, I am not obliged too by any law, policy or even decency (instead, your questioning of my private conversations is certainly impolite, and questioning my right to have them, downright insulting). I'd be happy if you'd treat this post as a token of good will, and decist from challenging my good faith in the future.
 * I mentioned my ArbCom on IRC channels several times asking for advice, this can be confirmed by many users, including some ArbCom members themselves. I received some helpful and public advise on technicalities, much more than through traditional ways (which is almost none). If I ask on advice on wiki, I may get it after days, if ever. When I ask for it in IRC it is likely I will get it in seconds. That David chose to offer his opinion, quite unfavourable of you, was of his own free will. Until that time I was not familiar of any bad blood between you and him. That said, I am afraid he is right: for many months now your behaviour towards me has been getting worse and worse, today's your claims of falsification are a prime example of that. Your apology would go long way towards proving DG wrong.
 * I found out about Vlad's blocking recently when I glanced at his talk page; I had no idea DG was blocking him but on that note I completly endorse that block; I certainly have not seen or participated in any IRC-related discussions regarding his block.
 * I found out about Errabee's arbcom by following contributions of some of our common friends - but I see nothing wrong if I were to learn about it on IRC (alas, I hadn't). As far as fair use stance goes I actually support him on that, and stated this publicly both on IRC and (somewhere...) in wiki space.
 * I think I was the first Polish editors to comment on Errabee's adminship, but I think it was Lysy who brought the link in question up on the voting page (interestingly, he voted in support). Please note I tend to chat to dozens of wiki editors interested in matters ranging from Poland to sociology, on and off wiki, via email, IMs, IRC and occasionally even face-to-face (including with you). There is no Wiki rule discouraging use of off-wiki communications, and what I talk about is private. I have my suspicions about what and with whom you and some other editors who tend to be critical of me talk about, up to and including my recent ArbCom, however I don't intend to pry into that, spy on you or challenge your right to discuss things in private. I consider the right to privacy to be one of the most important parts of our civilization, and barging into the private realm - by individual or government - a serious crime. This is all I intend to say on that matter. EOT.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, I hoped to either get answers to the questions asked or not get answers at all. Instead you respond and not answer questions at the same time.
 * David certainly did what he did on his own will. What kind of opinion he gave about me is something I care least. David is one of two-three main IRC-figures and they know my opinion about that medium as I have made it quite public. I was disappointed to see your joining the channel, but there is nothing I can do about that.
 * The question remains who brought him there, who brought the diff to my edit at Vlad's talk to his attention and was not it you. What was meant by "a thorough review of my edits" is a question to him. In fact, I feel sorry for David and his friends that they have nothing better to do with their time than running "thorough reviews" of other editors. They are neither first, nor last who follow my edits. I feel nothing but pity towards my stalkers and I welcome all their attention.
 * As for the diff DG showed, you can certainly give that diff to ArbCom, there is nothing shameful in telling an editor to cut on revert warring and stay out of your way. I have no idea about any bad blood between me and DG personally. I don't even remember ever talking to that fellow since we are at totally different places. What I do, is writing articles, what he does is chatting at IRC and he has yet to make any content contributions, at least in several months. So, there is no room for interaction or conflict between him and myself.
 * My main question about Errabee was whether it was you who sent messages about his RfA to Polish users off-wiki. It was not Lysy who brought it to PL board. No one brought it to that board before I did after I realized that the off-wiki campaign is being run.
 * There is nothing secretive in my communications off- or onwiki on wiki-matters. I never say anything anywhere that I would feel ashamed to repeat in any public venue. I would tell to go to hell to anyone prying with info about my personal matters, family business, health, etc., but I am quite open about any wikirelated matters I am involved with. I was asked about that in the past and I always gave truthful answers. --Irpen 07:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Pinsk massacre
(You wrote)

Try to engage your adversaries at talk, be mindful of WP:3RR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning it. Mordoor broke the 3RR rule being the last editor to that contentious paragraph. Thatâs why I stopped and was just about to report him but you beat me to it with your friendly warning. I donât know how it works, but Iâd rather ask you than to talk to strangers. Why is he rewarded by breaking the rule? -- Poeticbent   talk   23:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no reward other than a report to Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. But first read the WP:3RR carefully. I think you both broke the rule, you should both stop, apologize to each another and try to reach a compromise. PS. I am not reporting either of you, but treat it as a warning not to engage in revert wars. They rarely help.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What I mean by 3RR reward is the fact that at least temporarily his version with his number of victims sticks, and my careful approach does not, even though the "300" number is not supported by his new reference either. The same thing happened with the Krakow pogrom, with Mordoor's persistent promotion of inflated numbers to the point of sheer fantasy. Iâm tired of having to deal with this sort of thing. -- Poeticbent   talk   23:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Check WP:CONSENSUS. Nobody wins by reverting, everybody has to compromise and consensus needs to be reached. As I trust TTyre uploaded the document in good faith, I also believe that wikisource has the real thing, and I can't help you in this case: I agree it needs to be verified, but I also don't see the reason to remove all references to it. If you think specific references violate our policies (see particulary WP:NOR), please elaborate on that on talk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As of now, the article states: "The American mission led by Henry Morgenthau, Sr. published the Morgenthau Report on October 3, 1919. According to the findings of this commission, a total of about 300 Jews lost their lives in this and related incidents." At the time when I removed all references to that article, no other proofs of its authenticity were provided yet. It looks better now, so I donât mind the change, but the quoted numbers are still up in the air. However, Iâd like to leave it up to you from now on. -- Poeticbent   talk   00:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

From the report
Within the boundaries of Congress Poland only 18 Jews lost their lives, while in the whole territory now controlled or occupied by the Polish Republic the grand total of deaths from excesses in which antisemitism was a factor has not exceeded 300.. Again I agree completly a source of the text is needed, but that's were the number 300 comes from, I think.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Btw, I can't find the text online other than in snippet view of Google Print, but checking selected parts seems to verify them:, .--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The report has been proven to exist, which is fair, but the only source for the number of dead victims set at â300â is the text at wikisource.org slated for deletion because of its total lack of verifiability. So, why exactly is my warning tag no longer needed? Apparently you agree with Irpenâs decision, or do you? Because I donât. Nevertheless I donât intend to go even near that article anymore. -- Poeticbent   talk   03:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with him, but you could certainly use a break from it. Check this for a verification for 300.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. That looks better. Iâm glad to know the report by Morgenthau does exist in its original form and that it has been confirmed through internet sources other than the text at wikisource.org slated for deletion because of its lack of verifiability. At the time when I placed the tag at the top of the page there were no alternative links there confirming the existence of the report at all. Nevertheless, my tag was not about the report, but about the claims made at Pinsk massacre, based on that orphan. Since then, a lot has changed. Apparently I challenged other editors into doing more legwork, only to their own benefit. -- Poeticbent    talk   04:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
An excellent idea;!!DGG 06:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Battletech cover patriotsandtyrants.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Battletech cover patriotsandtyrants.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Battletech cover legendofthejadephoenix.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Battletech cover legendofthejadephoenix.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Tnx
Czesc Piotrus and thanks for your welcome message! I apologize for the lateness of this reply but I am still figuring out my way around wikipedia and havent had a lot of time to do so this month because I was actually in Poland visiting my relatives.

I appreciate your invitation to help and your advice.

Dziekuje,

Onlywithcitations 03:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Railroadtyccon3_screen2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Railroadtyccon3_screen2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 13:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Morgenthau report
I have left my comments on this page: Talk:Pinsk_massacre. Let me know if I need to dig deeper into the source of this document. --Ttyre 14:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am quite sure it was an electronic document I have accessed online through a local library. I was planning to visit that library during this weekend and will check for the Morgenthau Report source as well. --Ttyre 00:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

user's privacy
As per your claim of being such a proponent of privacy that you even refuse to answer very serious and relevant questions about your wiki-related activity, I am surprised to see your pressuring other users publicly to reveal personal information. Please desist. --Irpen 05:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Consider nominating Babel for deletion if you don't like it. It is perfectly normal to ask a user to consider using a useful Babel userboxes on their userpage (and where's the pressure? it's his choice), it is completly unnacceptable to launch an inquisition into a user's private communication spreading on public noticeboards and other pages. At the very least have a decency to stop disrupting my talk page with such claims after I asked you to several times. PS. You don't have to reply.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:BABEL is for users who choose to post it. I don't want to delete it. Users should not be pressured to reveal anything about themselves. As for your "private" communication, I have no interest in it. As for your "alleged" communication aimed at achieving new victories in wikiwars, it is a separate issue. ArbCom will rule on the circumstantial evidence since you refuse to admit or deny, for instance, who campaigned vigorously off-wiki to derail an RfA of a respected editor and who fed #en-admins, particularly, David Gerard info about me behind my back, a forum where I could neither see such slander no respond to it. You are free to answer this any time and end the matter. --Irpen 05:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My post is not any pressure, it is simply informing that user that WP:BABEL exists and that s/he may want to use it. Your undoing of my message that does not concern you in anyway to another editor is a gross violation of wikicivility.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, feeding #admins IRC behind my back where I can neither see nor respond is civil because it is off-wiki and no diffs exist (and this is exactly why it was off-wiki, so that it can remain shady) is civil. Campaigning against the respected editor off-wiki emailing one link from long time ago and having no decency to at least post the diff at the board in the open (or even admit it) is civil. Pointing to you quite openly that your actions are reprehensible is uncivil. Why? Not because this is worse but because it is not behind the curtain, diffs exist and can be seen by anyone. Are you still saying that you did none of that sort? --Irpen 06:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Read about concepts such as presumption of innocence. All your claims are based upon bad faith and not a single shred of evidence. EOT.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Presumption of innocence is deeply ingrained in the western law. It still does not prevent another concept called circumstantial evidence which is often a basis of conviction. If in the evening the dirt was black and in the morning it is covered with snow, it is reasonable to infer that there was snow overnight even for a person who slept all night long and did not look out of the window. You could have easily said that you did not do any of this or admit to that and (if you feel ashamed) apologize. If you are saying that this is slander, you can only mean that these conclusions are false. If so, why not say this directly? Anyway, you live with your consciousness and your notions of ethics and I live with mine. I do not expect you to answer this anymore. --Irpen 06:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S.Huh? So it was not slander. I thought so. --Irpen
 * I have answered you above. But perhaps you need this to be spelled out. I did not campaign against Errabee's RfA on IRC. Nor did I send any emails regarding his RfA. Happy, now? P.S. Regarding your huh: unlike you I don't see it as a good form to threaten your opponent with ArbCom during discussions. If that civility is lost on you, it's your loss.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In the "answered you above" there was not actually an answer about sending emails about Errabee. This right here is the first time you answer the question about Errabee's RfA campaign run by email. --Irpen 06:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

BABEL Userboxes
Hi, Piotrus â no problem with the message you left. But sorry, I'm a bit leery right now to put those Babel boxes on my userpage. I used to have them, but then a rather obnoxious editor used that info to make untoward inferences about my nationality, implying bias on my part based on that, all in a rather vicious tone. At any rate, I found the whole episode quite disturbing, and took out any personal info from my userpage as a result. I know it's not the best solution, but that's all I can do for now -- I may add things back later, though. In the meantime, if you have any specific question, I'll be happy to answer it on your userpage. Turgidson 13:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you ask, here are the comments that I found very disturbing, and made me more leery in engaging in candid discussions on WP talk pages. I don't know how to deal with such vitriol â my tendency in such a situation is to pull back, and let go.  (If you have better advice on how to deal with such things, please let me know.) As for your message -- no, don't worry, I didn't feel pressured in any way.  It's only that it reminded me of that disturbing episode, which unfortunately has affected the way I think about WP.  But I do agree in principle with you that having detailed userboxes is helpful to other editors â as long as they all act in good faith, which, unfortunately, does not seem to be always the case.  Turgidson 18:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow! I didn't know about the block.  So, there is some justice, after all!  Thanks for letting me know, it's something that had depressed me for a while.  And, thanks for the pointers -- I'll keep that in mind if such a situation recurs. Cheers â  Turgidson 19:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Jerzy B.Lewandowski
thanks for helping; I've asked you at the AfD about the universities he is affiliated with--am I right that these are good second-rate, not really the top level in the country? DGG 04:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Articles_for_deletion/Jerzy_BolesÅaw_Lewandowski

Image copyright problem with Image:Strike_Gdansk_1980.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Strike_Gdansk_1980.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK x2
Thanks! Sean William @ 15:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Piotrus.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Place name?
Hi, could you help me to find a proper name for an old castle? I know it stood where Nogat separated from Vistula, but the name in my book (Zantir) does not Google and I cannot find anything similar on a map. Thanks! Renata 17:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, great. That solves it. FYI, it's for Prussian uprisings (just wait till I save my edits). Renata 18:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

pytanie
Witam, klania sie Tymek 19:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Mysle o napisaniu artykulow w rodzaju "Lwow Rail Station in 1930s" albo "Wilno Rail Station in 1930s".

Ale nie wiem czy tego rodzaju artykulu nie beda usuniete przez nadgorliwych adminow, gdyz moga byc zbyt szczegolowe. Co sadzisz o tym jako admin?

Czy istnieja artykuly na temat tych stacji i ich historii? Sorki ze glowe zawracam, ale siedzisz w Wiki, jestes zawodowcem. pozdro Tymek 20:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 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 07:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Constitution of Belarus
Can you add fact to anywhere that you deem needed? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I fixed the citation issues you mentioned. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Request

 * Two Goofs: (my bad) Can you give these a quick burial. I've db-authored them with notes such like: "({db-author}--things are strange, so going back to status quo ante!)" I wouldn't normally rush it but the what links here indicate database corruption or such, so best to kill em quick.
 * 1) Category:Redirects from other templates
 * 2) Category:Redirects to other templates
 * 3)  This is the cat staying, I'd been trying to depreciate. I'll live without the 'S', it's easier evidently!

Thanks // Fra nkB 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently sb took care of them before me :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! The db was linking some strange pages in, so I thought it best to attempt to expedite. // Fra nkB 17:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Louis de funes rabbi jacob.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Louis de funes rabbi jacob.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Louis de funes gendarme 01.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Louis de funes gendarme 01.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Warsaw Uprising
Should this be removed from FAR or do you think you can give it the last push to bring it to keep? It's been up a while. Marskell 09:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Shocked by "Russian troll" Grafikm?
Such unfriendly language is typical of the hybrid uralic-mongolized, civil and honour-deprived mindset, so please- weÅº na to poprawkÄ, wyciÄgajÄc wnioski z najnowszej historii.
 * Well, Piotrus, I was looking for a good example of a "Polish troll" to show you, but it just came by itself... :)) -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  14:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

New article about Janusz PiekaÅkiewicz
I have translated from Polish and added some new material about Janusz PiekaÅkiewicz. Please be so kind as to take a look at it and add, change, or delete -- to make it better. Do you think it may also be another candidate for Template:Did you know since I created it just recently - June 6th? The "hook" could be something like ... A historian and author, he escaped from communist Poland by way of his passion for mountaineering and knowing the secret routes of the resistance during WWII ...  The fact that his works were not published in Poland under the old regime, is also interesting. -- Thank you -- CZmarlin 03:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 16:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sociology of the World Religions: Introduction (book)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Sociology of the World Religions: Introduction (book), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Sociology of the World Religions: Introduction (book) fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: irrelevant To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Sociology of the World Religions: Introduction (book), please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Sociology of the World Religions: Introduction (book) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 15:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

How to move
You appear to have moved an article Siemomysl of Pomerania, without checking that there were no double redirects. Please check this whenever you make a move in future. PatGallacher 23:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well last time I looked the double redirect was still there. PatGallacher 09:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

name
a rather common name, as I discovered--I myself know several Lewandowskis. DGG 05:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to establish a prof test that the people at AfD will accept, but one publication is way below what people will accept,and way below what I think makes sense myself. In science, at least in the US & the UK, anyone with a PhD who has any hopes at all of an academic career will have at least one as a minimum, and, by the times he's finished the post-doc 2 or 3 years later -- which more or less corresponds to the Habiliation--and is ready for a beginning Assistant Professor job (in the UK, Reader), will have at least 2 or 3. (I had only 5, and only 3 of them were first-class journals, and consequently got a job at a third-rate university). In humanities, where there is no formal step between the PHD and Assistant Professor/Reader, one is expected to have a scholarly book manuscript accepted. My wife did not have that, and got a job at a junior college. To get tenure in science at a research university, (Associate Professor in the US, Senior Reader in UK),  one needs at least five first-rate publications; in humanities, the fixed standard is two books. Nowadays, 3 journal articles can substitute for one of the books, except at the highest level. For full professor, people don't count your publication--they count the publications of your doctoral students. (College that are not universities want much less, but even they want something published)
 * At AfD, I've with hard work over 6 months, gotten it accepted that Full Professors at good research universities will be N, and Associate Professors sometimes, but Assistant Professors almost never. For people still a post doc, it is not impossible--I think we passed one post-doc in that period, who had clearly established a new field.
 * If I had my choice, I would set the bar one step lower, at Associate professor--at a research university. I don't think an Assistant professor is actually committed to an academic career--if he doesn't get tenure, he looks for a job at something else, or at a lower-grade school. At that point, I became a librarian.

So the problem with Lewandowski is A/ what is the level of his university, B/ what is the academic level of his books, and C/ where were the papers published. A Technical University (Technische Hochschule) can be as good as the universities, but not all are. B/ --they looked like textbooks or symposia, none from an International publisher, C/ No international journals. The subsidiary factor of PhD students made the difference, as I saw it. To be blunt, for countries where we don't know the quality of national journals or publishers, I look for internationally known ones. DGG 19:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Józef Lipski
Czesc Piotr, Thanks for your input on my article about JÃ³zef Lipski.... but I do not understand your suggestion (I am a newcomer to all this)... do you find the story about Lipski refusing to get out of bed lacking in credibility? And thus are you suggesting that I add an explanation as to why he did not bother? Cheers, Adrian. PS London Weather Clear, cool, but nice evening Sun. CanadrianUK 19:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Czesc Piotr, Is it better now? I have tried to put the odd incident into context, without making it into trivia. Also added more other detail. The dead link to the 'Danzig crisis' is there to rmind me to write that article sometime... London weather: Hazy, cool, nice. Cheers, CanadrianUK 10:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Czesc Piotr, Thanks for the input... Having read 'How to Deal with Poles' I must point out that your change from "the return of The Free City of Danzig to Germany" to "that Poland agrees to German annexation of Free City of Danzig" is a change to the other extreme of the realpolitik of the day... it might be just a tiny bit biased to use 'annexation' instead of 'return'  ;-). London weather: still damp from overnight downpour; expecting more.CanadrianUK 09:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I have to disagree. 'Annex' has a negative connotation, at least in my mind (not quite 'overrun' or 'occupy', but close). It must be a negative word, at least in this context, because territory which is annexed must always belong to someone else at the time (and if it wasn't 'annexed', we would say the territory was 'bought', 'traded', 'conquored', or whatever, to accurately describe he means of acquisition). Further, Danzig (rightly or wrongly, but undeniably) was part of Germany (Prussia) before the Versailles settlementand, so 'return' is not biased, it is simply factual. It concedes that someone else had Danzig at the time. I'm certainly not trying to condone the annexation of Danzig (and I use the word now for its negative connotations) by saying 'return', but I think it is a less loaded word than 'annex' (and I have been to Hel and back!). By the way, if I were to post this as a thread, rather than a separate entry, would you still get a message waiting notice?CanadrianUK 23:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But won't polling the Poland-related editors risk the same bias? Don't forget, I have read 'How to Deal with Poles'. Is there not another arbiter we can consult? (And I am not suggesting the German editors ;-) ). Is there an English Usage page? .... Further, be assured I am not really that bothered, but I am enjoying the debate over my first article. Makes me think there really is a Wikipedia community.


 * DzieÅ„ dobry. I have posted our discussion (edited) to the relevant talk page, where it all looks a little bit petty. I am not wishing to concede, but I am sure fellow editors have better things to spend their valuable time on! So I am happy to let 'annex' stand. Incidentally, my next articles will be about British Chartism, so you are unlikely to be interested. Nonetheless, it has been a great pleasure meeting you. Expect me to come to you for help in the future... Here's one question right away: when does a stub cease to be a stub?CanadrianUK 09:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 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 02:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC) -

Karfunkel
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Karfunkel, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Karfunkel fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: Housekeeping - cleanup per WP:SU To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Karfunkel, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Karfunkel itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 11:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Blood_Bowl_cover_photo.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Blood_Bowl_cover_photo.JPG. I notice the image 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. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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. ShakespeareFan00 13:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

GA
Hey, thanks for nominating those articles for GA. So far, you've nominated two of the articles started and worked by me for GA: Stefan Bathóry and the Night Attack. Night Attack could use some extended work to it, but it's summer now and I'm being lazy. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 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 09:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL
I deliberately answered the question as a general principle, and deliberately did not examine the page. DGG 18:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC) The purpose of this is that I do not want to get involved in editing this; my intention in coming at the start was to help all the people there edit it themselves, and again I think so--dead links are a continuing problem and will not be limited to this particular instance.DGG 18:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

4 children picture
There was an interesting article in a prominent Polish newspaper recently stating that the photograph was taken in 1924 and was of 4 children who had been murdered by their deranged mother who was of Roma ethnicity.

Four killed Roma children tied to tree by their mentally ill mother after her husband was arrested and her Roma group dissolved. The murder took place in night of 11/12 December 1923

The alleged barbed wire are just folds in the photograph. http://www.rzeczpospolita.pl/news.rol?newsId=1680 --Bandurist 02:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick question
Hi Piotrus, I've got a quick question. What is the Polish Wikipedia's equivalent of special:prefixindex? I searched about a bit but figured that asking a native speaker is easier than checking everything on Strony specjalne. Thanks. Picaroon (Talk) 18:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrative division of Congress Poland
Thanks for the pointer. I'll have a look at what I have tomorrow and will let you know if I find anything that might be of use to you. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't seem to have anything useful about Poland of this period. The few sources I have tend to regard Poland as a whole, without going into details on its divisions much.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy birthday
...or did I get the date wrong? :)  // Halibutt 07:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Signature
I think your signature is broken. Check out. The green box has ate my comment. Yum. -Andrew c 03:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Polish order of battle maps
Hello Piotrus. Looking at the website no other maps have been added. I will email him requesting he post an update on soc.history.war.world-war-iior reply to me directly. I will let you know what he says – John 18:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been 7 days since I emailed him and there's been no response :-( John 16:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

ignoring the enemy
is not a good rhetorical strategy, and calling opposing views crank does not speak highly for objectivity. The way to deal with peculiar positions is to give all he sides and expect the reader to have some sense. This time I think you're wrong--not that you are any less my friend. DGG 01:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 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 07:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo has removed my message from your page, see the history
Xx236 13:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Jak przypuszczalem, to Ty nominowales artykuly a Janowej Dolinie i Magistrali Weglowej do DYK. Zawsze to milo jak moj artykul znajdzie sie na pierwszej stronie, ale najwazniejsze jest to by swiat dowiedzial sie jak najwiecej o Polsce.

Good job Piotrus. pozdrowki Tymek 17:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

jeszcze jedno
Czyzbys urodzil sie pieknego dnia 21 czerwca? jesli tak, to witaj w exkluzywnym klubie (hehe). Dodatkowo, jestesmy imiennikami, Tymek to imie jednego z moich synow, ja sam mam na imie Piotr Tymek 17:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Happy belated birthday :-) Appleseed (Talk) 17:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Stanisław Chełchowski
HI sorry to bother you but a translation is needed please can you help?:

PLease can you translate: http://www.cbr.edu.pl/rme6/stronki/55.html

This article has high potential -also Polish wikipedia has info - it would be superb if you could make it another DYK -congrats for your excellent work!!!!

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 20:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Granatowa
Witam! Peragne pogratulowaÄ‡ pomysÅ‚u i Å›wietnego wyykonania jakze cieÅ¼kiego zamysÅ‚u "uÅ›wiadomienia" ludzi uzywajÄ…cego tego dziwnego jÄ™zyka w sprawach polskiej historii:) Mam prosbÄ™: mÃ³gÅ‚bys przetÅ‚umaczyc na angielski stronÄ™ o granatowej polcji?? Dzisiaj (tj.15 czerwca) skoÅ„czyÅ‚em ja uzupeÅ‚niaÄ‡ i mysklÄ™, Å¼e moÅ¼na ja Å›wiatu pokaazaÄ‡.

Pozdro MarvinSS

Dobry! Pisałeś że mam zrobić przypisy - szczerze mówiąc nie mam do czego,artykuł redagowałem sam a literatura podana na końcu to tylko pozycje uzupełniające, ostatniej pozycji nawet w rękach nie miałem ;p

Pozdro MarvinSS

hm.
Thanks for massage You send me. I want to take part in wiki, and in fact I logged in already, but in polish section. And it seams I must sign in here to, because my login doesn't work here. Im new so veery green :/.

Julian Dobrowolski
ok, to tak... Pisze artykul of Julianie Dobrowolskim, ale jakos nie moge tego zrobic. W Polskiej wikipedii jeszcze nie mialem czasu nic napisac a juz skasowali, a na englishwikipedia nie jest lepiej... nie wiem co mam zrobic, chociarz podaje linki do artykulow w gazetach itp.

Cookies
Hello! I just wanted to give you a plate of cookies for being a Wikipedian. I hope your Wikistress gets better! Peace, Neranei 02:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Settlement
Czy nie lepiej opisywać miejscowości powyższym infoboxem zamiast tym dziadowskim Template:Infobox City Poland. Ani on rozwojowy, ani wyględny. --Hiuppo 14:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Na razie nie widzę szans na merge, wobec faktu niekompatybilności kodowej obu szablonów. Po prostu trzeba wszystko podmienić ręcznie - choćby z uwagi na toporny system podawania współrzędnych. A to jest kilkaset artykułów do podmiany i stale dochodzą. --Hiuppo 19:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome from Overix
Hi Piotrus, thank you for your kind welcome on my talk page. I think, sometimes I will ask your help because I am not any Wikipedia expert. On the other hand, I am an expert, but only in the fields when I contribute.

Of course, the same things are possible to express in many manners, but some their properties have not to be omitted from the information, knowledge, ethics and cultural reasons. - This viewpoint motivates my personal Wikipedia activity. I think I will add you later some my reflections on the Wikipedia: "how does this thing work?!".

- Best. --Overix 19:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, could you see the current article function (engineering), and its previous version. I am very curious your opinion from your impressive interdisciplinary and systemic (?) viewpoint.

Signpost updated for July 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 08:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Soviet university
The result of your Mergtefrom was the complete removal of my article Soviet univwersities. I used to study in a Communist university in Poland and worked there. Xx236 10:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review: Prussian uprisings
Hi Piotrus. You recently nominated Prussian uprisings for GA review. I have just gone through the article and come to the conclusion that it is indeed very close to GA-status, but a few things need to be done first - see the article talk page. Thanks. - 52 Pickup 12:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

pytanie
witam myslalem o nominowaniu artykulu Luxtorpeda do DYK ale nie wiem jak sie to robi help me bo czas leci a szkoda by przepadlo pozdrowienia Tymek 13:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Polsteam
Hi. I see you redirected Polsteam to Polska Żegluga Morska, arguing the latter name is more known in English. I rather disagree; a close acquaintance of mine is a former high-ranking executive of the company and he never refers to PZM other than "Polsteam". Besides, Polsteam is now the official blanket name for all activities of the group.

Oh well, not an important issue anyway :-). Have a nice day --Targeman 15:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
Has the matter been resolved?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No. // Liftarn

Re:Stanisław Chełchowski
Excellent work!!!!! Thanks a mill! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 19:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Pikasch started a half line stub - I was new page patrolling and cleaned it up and found the photographs. But it still looked poor but it doesn't now!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 20:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you know anything about List of Polish films? I can't remember whether you said you did or not. I started the list but haven't gor around to developing it yet. If you know of some films by all means feel free to add them. But you deserve a lengthy break now!!!!! Keep up the good work ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you" Contribs 20:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks thats very helpful. I happen to share your philosophy on wikipedia. Give this ten years and it will become one of the greatest works ever and a leading global source for information. Just imagine how many articles are possible!!!! This has huge potential -this is why I also put a lot of work into it and it is great to see the progression even other several months. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 20:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Polish Three Year Plan
P - please see Talk:Three-Year_Plan.

Granatowa
Witam! Peragne pogratulowaÄ‡ pomysÅ‚u i Å›wietnego wyykonania jakze cieÅ¼kiego zamysÅ‚u "uÅ›wiadomienia" ludzi uzywajÄ…cego tego dziwnego jÄ™zyka w sprawach polskiej historii:) Mam prosbÄ™: mÃ³gÅ‚bys przetÅ‚umaczyc na angielski stronÄ™ o granatowej polcji?? Dzisiaj (tj.15 czerwca) skoÅ„czyÅ‚em ja uzupeÅ‚niaÄ‡ i mysklÄ™, Å¼e moÅ¼na ja Å›wiatu pokaazaÄ‡.

Pozdro MarvinSS

Dobry! Pisałeś że mam zrobić przypisy - szczerze mówiąc nie mam do czego,artykuł redagowałem sam a literatura podana na końcu to tylko pozycje uzupełniające, ostatniej pozycji nawet w rękach nie miałem ;p

Pozdro MarvinSS

hm.
Thanks for massage You send me. I want to take part in wiki, and in fact I logged in already, but in polish section. And it seams I must sign in here to, because my login doesn't work here. Im new so veery green :/.

Julian Dobrowolski
ok, to tak... Pisze artykul of Julianie Dobrowolskim, ale jakos nie moge tego zrobic. W Polskiej wikipedii jeszcze nie mialem czasu nic napisac a juz skasowali, a na englishwikipedia nie jest lepiej... nie wiem co mam zrobic, chociarz podaje linki do artykulow w gazetach itp.

6WW
Hello Piotrus, this is mshieh from sixthworldwiki. Unfortunately, Adam Jury is the real admin of sixthworldwiki, and he can be hard to track down. I'd suggest the mailing list.

Eve Wiki
I have been working on a private Agent Wiki which works IGB. Is there anyway you can default the Eve Wiki to a skin that works IBG. I would bring all my work on COSMOS and Event agents over to your site if I can edit from the IGB. Getting the item DB to autolink is another detail I wanted my Wikka to perform smoothly too. Contact me at Uni Zueto on the Eve Wiki site

Reliable Sources noticeboard
Just letting you know I replied to your comment, but in short, I think the discussion is stale, but I'd say the situation remains unresolved. FrozenPurpleCube 21:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS
Hi Piotrus. As suggested, I have thrown together a draft of "Why RS is important" here. I'd be happy to get your input on it. semper fictilis 14:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock on Open Proxy for Account Creation
We never unblock open proxies to enable account creation, we could have a situation where a number of accounts are created during the time the account is unblocked, so we do account requests via e-mail, just get the person that's blocked to send an e-mail with the details of their block (and mention the fact they wish an account to be created for them) to [mailto:unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org] and someone will happily create an account. It helps us keep a check on accounts being created from blocked IP's too. Nick 17:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Pennsylvania
Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:
 * Contact us on IRC at #wikimedia-pa
 * Join our mailing list
 * Visit our blog at http://wmfpa.blogspot.com

Thanks and I hope you join up!  Cbrown1023   talk   04:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fromowner_documentation
Image:Replace this imageb.svg has been listed in the Fobuild pages for some time and I'm lookiong to get rid of Image:Replace this image1.svg long term. At present that is the limt of the fromowner system.Geni 17:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * find a maps wikiproject prepared to commit to looking after the copyvios and we can work on putting something together. Not sure that would work to well. Maps are not the sort of thing most people have around.Geni 18:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Obwód białostocki
Yes, this one I can help you with. "Obwód białostocki" refers to "Belostok Oblast" (Белостокская область). In the 19th century, some of the oblasts were administrative divisions which had a status roughly equal to that of the guberniyas; i.e., they existed independently from the guberniyas, not as their parts as it used to be the case in the 18th century. The "region not guberniya" part most likely refers to the fact that Belostok Oblast was an oblast ("region"), not a governorate. Belostok Oblast was abolished in 1843 when it was included into Grodno Governorate. Does this help?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, a governorate is not the same as the governorate-general. A governorate-general would comprise several governorates and would have one Governor-General overseeing the Governors (not unlike modern presidential envoys oversee the governors and presidents of federal subjects :)).  As for Chełm Governorate, I don't have anything specifically on it; sorry.  Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 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 08:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

FAC
Eek, I'm hopeless at responding quickly to things (bogged down trying to help prepare William Shakespeare for another go at FAC at the moment). I've got to work and sleep for the next 12-14 hours and then I'll have a look at the copyediting issues. I know nothing about image copyright, though.qp10qp


 * It looks like the article is going to be in for a rough ride, but although there are some formatting issues to look at, I have total faith in the article and also in Raul's ability to keep his wits about him in these circumstances. As you know, I have always been willing to meet objections from Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians if they make good points, and especially if they bring sources or overlooked information; should they do so here, I would simply add the extra information to the article where required.


 * You have no reason to take advice from me, but I'd just like to suggest that the best approach here will be to avoid any wrangling about side-issues, and to pretend that any disputes you had in the past never took place, and simply to address any substantive points anyone makes about the present article and the present article only. If we keep to that agenda, it will help, I think. If on the other hand, bickering and point-scoring breaks out on all sorts of side issues and former articles, Raul and other impartial reviewers may just yawn and move on. So we must resist the temptation to take any bait and then pick out the serious points and address them. We can use the nuggets of constructive criticism to improve the article, as we did this afternoon.qp10qp 18:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

uwaga tak sobie
przyznac musze ze dyskusja z obywatelami krajow bylego ZSRR, szczegolnie przedstawicielami nacji wschodnioslowianskich jest niezwykle ciezka. Sowiecka szkola skutecznie zatrula im umysly na wszelkie kontrargumenty oraz sprzeczne z ich pogladami wizje dziejow Tymek 18:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * akurat jakiekolwiek wypominanie splywa po mnie, nietolerancyjni beda mi wypominali brak tolerancji. smiechu warte. pozdrawiam Tymek 19:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Battletech cbt 20year tri 800.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Battletech cbt 20year tri 800.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad moves
Hello, Piotrus. I wonder if you could help me fix a slight error I made: I moved History of Communist Albania and History of Communist Bulgaria to their prior locations by cutting and pasting, and then I noticed I lost the history. If you agree with my move rationale, would you be so kind as to ensure the history remains? Thank you for your help. Biruitorul 01:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I was referred to WP:SPLICE; hopefully that will work. Thank you for your words of support regarding the story, and good luck with your FA nomination (which has unfortunately drawn some concerted opposition). Biruitorul 02:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit
I don't recognise that edit. What on earth is going on? qp10qp 12:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like in doing one small edit, I reverted a ton of other stuff. But how? How can you edit and revert at the same time? qp10qp 12:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you noticed a little (undo) in brackets appearing now on the history page? I think it was probably to do with that: must watch out for that in future. Btw, thanks for the Shakespeare edit: you're much more of a multitasker than me: I've rather let William go to pot since yesterday (if you think watching Polish pages is a handful, try William Shakespeare, and I promise you will go grey rather quickly).qp10qp 12:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Śląsk"
Właśnie zdobyłem zdjęcia zespołu ;) commons:Category:Zespół Pieśni i Tańca "Śląsk" - na razie malutkie, ale jak się artykuł ukaże jeszcze w kilku wersjach językowych, to myślę, że łatwiej mi będzie o większe poprosić. pl:Zespół Pieśni i Tańca "Śląsk". Przykuta 15:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Stanisław Chełchowski
Front page top article!! Great stuff! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 18:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Author
He's not being used to cite anything controversial, since we know that the Soviets did undertake negotiations with the allies. Also the point is referenced to others. Since I cannot assess the reliability of non-English sources, I am quite useless on this; but where I do not know enough about a source on a tricky matter, I have doubled it with a source I can assess. In the end, the important thing is to verify facts, and if a doubtful source says something that we can verify elsewhere, then we can presume that they are at least reliable on the point in question.qp10qp 21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

GG
uzywam, prosze bardzo i pozdrowki 3387884 Tymek 21:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC) mozesz pisac teraz, jestem dostepny

Soviet invasion of Poland
About the article that is on FAC, I just want to suggest try and use photographs that don't have a watermark (mainly so we have something for the main page). Just one would be fine, to place it in the infobox. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggested a clarification for the intro on the Soviet public position justifying invasion, on the talk page. :-)  &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Review of the invasion
I did not want to oppose on the FAC page (so you would not think I am doing it in bad faith) but the article earns an automatic oppose (besides other serious issues) for an utter and complete mess with the citations. Three separate citation mechanisms are used, and none with consistency. For example, note b resembles and article by itself, note j drops in five external links without even bothering to introduce them. Reference section should use cite book throughout. Citations cannot make up its mind whether to cite books in full or just name & page; several notes are also mixed in the middle. Citations also badly need to follow standardized citation templates (cite book, cite journal, etc.).

The more I look at it the more I am convinced it needs a thorough re-write. It seems the article was written to cram in as many facts, dates, names, terms, and other blue links as possible without giving a reader a moment to catch a breath and understand what on earth is going on. Besides un-linking some over-linked terms (like nationalities or rivers), some facts can simply be omitted (two quick examples: ... forming the Commonwealth of Independent States with the Russian Federation... and ...where the combined KOP forces under general Wilhelm Orlik-Rueckemann routed the Soviet 52nd Rifle Division...) as they are non-essential. Another tip: try organizing some facts (like dates and durations of battles) into a table or timeline or infobox-like structure. This way it will de-clutter the main text freeing up space for general commentary while still providing the same info in much more reader-friendly manner. (a mini example is at Prussian uprisings with tribe conquest timeline). This is especially needed since the article does not strictly follow chronological order. Another good candidate for such a table is all the agreements/treaties mentioned in the text (and they all have very similar names).

Also, the article needs a better structure. I suggest the simplest: chronological. See, ==Military campaign== is organized something like this: Soviets invade -> let's go back to see what Germans were doing -> back again to Soviets -> but, wait, in the meantime Poland is no more. How about this? Germans invade -> chaos -> Soviets invade -> more chaos -> Poland collapses :( Aftermath needs clearly-defined subsections (propose: reaction in the west, repressions against locals, Ukrainian and Belarusian reaction, interpretations. Also aftermath section lacks info about the rest of the fighting during the WWII (the invasion is just the tip of an iceberg) and how it is viewed these days (good stuff on soviet period).

Some minor points: there is no so controversial in the first sentence of prelude to require six refs ([8][14][15][16][17][18]). "though Polish specialists suggest..." -> specialists? [11][1][5][45][1] -> same ref cited twice (go back to the utter mess with citations). "The NKVD acted quickly to discipline such rogue elements" -> you don't need to borrow terms from soviet propaganda. The article also needs a copy-edit.

Hope that helps. Renata 02:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My two cents: Although I like the article a lot (as I said on the FAC page), I have to agree with some of the (quite constructive) criticism by Renata.  I did some copy-editing today (nothing major, just cosmetic stuff), but indeed more could be done: the more one digs, the more one finds little things that can use some tweaking--though hopefully the process converges.  I don't really know how time pressure works here -- is there still time to improve the article before the FAC decision comes?  Is it OK to do try and help now, with all the discussion going on -- or should one wait till the dust settles?  At any rate, good luck, I'm keeping my fingers crossed.  Turgidson 04:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(Very) Quick reply: Renata 12:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Use whatever citation mechanism you want, just use it with consistency
 * I saw the bullet list with all battles in previous version - and bullet lists are ughlee. I am talking about a neat table summarizing everything.
 * The article tries to follow chronological order, but slips quite in a few places.
 * Short & stubby sections are bad. Short sub-sections are ok.


 * I agree with Renata about the format mess, and I would fail the article on that at present; though, having been involved in a fair number of FACs, I would pass it on the writing and information. But I also agree that the removal of section headings in response to another reviewer has made "Aftermath" appear too long. (I differ from Piotrus in that I wouldn't necessarily carry out a reviewer's suggestions; the article comes first, and if I feel the reviewer's suggestions don't help, I would ignore them, and sod the possible "support" vote.) On chronology, it's impossible to tell a chronological story here, except for the battle action; I fear the article might fail because people find the information difficult to absorb, but I find the subject very difficult to absorb when reading the source material, too.


 * As far as the references go, I made clear to Piotrus a long time ago (peer-review-type comments on talk page) that there is a great deal of mess here. The FAs I've been involved in all had impeccable reference formatting, so the state of these is a complete embarrassment to me. My trouble is that I cannot read the non-English sources and have no means of knowing what can be discarded; but even I can see from opening up some of these Polish links that they are ephemera, probably left over from accretional editing long before GA. However, one precaution I have taken is to double up as many of those references as I can with English-language sources in many places, and so if Piotrus would permit me the effrontery of ditching sources in Polish where English-language sources cover the same information, perhaps I could rid the references of much débris very quickly.qp10qp 14:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just going through from the top: we have several PDF file sources, which is an unnecessary obstacle to the reader: they won't bother; Google Book links are likewise unprofessional, though they are helpful to some readers (like PDFs, not to others). Different refs are set out in different ways (and you can by all mean fill out my shortened refs with full books details, but at least they follow a recognised CMS system in relation to the bibliography; what we need is the same system for all refs). Now, we start with this: Edukacja Humanistyczna w wojsku. 1/2005. Dom wydawniczy Wojska Polskiego. (Official publication of the Polish Army). I cannot tell from this the connection between the first two parts, on either side of the date. All foreign language should be provided with a translation on Wikipedia; I presume "Official publication of the Polish Army" is a translation of the second part. But what about the first (humanist education something?). The next ref is set out differently: '"(Polish) Kampania wrześniowa na Polesiu i Wołyniu (September Campaign 1939) from PWN Encyklopedia. Please note that the above link is the Internet Archive version, mid-2006. The new PWN article is significantly shorter." Now even I can see that there is no 1939 in the Polish there. But this is followed by what sounds like authorial advice about this source. Then there's the question of reffing encyclopedias; I never do that because there's no need. Soon there is this reference: (Russian) Молотов на V сессии Верховного Совета 31 октября цифра «примерно 250 тыс.» (Please provide translation of the reference title and publication data and means); here the article reader is confronted by editorial comment. Now let me mention a very messy piece of formatting which nonetheless contains excellent sources: See telegrams: No. 317 of 10 September: Schulenburg, the German ambassador in the Soviet Union, to the German Foreign Office. Moscow, 10 September 1939-9:40 p.m.; No. 371 of 16 September; No. 372 of 17 September Source: The Avalon Project, at Yale Law School. Last accessed on 14 November 2006; (Polish)1939 wrzesień 17, Moskwa Nota rządu sowieckiego nie przyjęta przez ambasadora Wacława Grzybowskiego (Note of the Soviet government to the Polish government on 17 September 1939, refused by Polish ambassador Wacław Grzybowski). Last accessed on 15 November 2006.


 * I can't even begin to comment on that. Some way needs to be found of writing it in a way that matches the way standard references are set out. For example, we have no principle for where any noting ahould be positioned in relation to the reference details.


 * Then this: "...230,000 or more became prisoners of war".obozy jenieckie żołnierzy polskich (Prison camps for Polish soldiers) Encyklopedia PWN. Last accessed on 28 November 2006. One sees here that not only is this reffed to an encyclopedia page but even an English reader can see how flimsy that page is.


 * Well, you get the idea; I won't go on. And I am still not out of the lead.


 * In case this seems very harsh, may I say that the sourcing itself is overall very good, and some of it is exceptionally good; but entries like the above may quickly convince the reader who dips only here and there, that the reference section doesn't quite know what it's about. And impressions are important. We need to think like this: would a book set out the references and notes in this state? The answer is, no. I wish you had warned me that you were going to put this up for FAC because then we could have sorted this out in advance. It's sortable and do-able, for sure. The best thing would be for you to allow me to try some drastic measures, which you could always revert where you felt that the article had been compromised. qp10qp 15:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your quick response on those; I haven't checked them yet, and I've got to go offline for a few hours. I think we need to make a decision on the order of information for notes/refs. My suggestion would be this: if the note provides a quote or paraphrase from the source, we should put that note or paraphrase first and the reference details second; ie: "The biggest house in the world". Jones, 57. But if we have editorial comment, it should go afterwards. Jones, 57; Read archived version here. (Or full refs,if you wish, of course.) I think we should avoid editorial comments as much as possible, though. You are welcome to write out all the full references in the notes/refs, but this will make that area more, not less inchoate. I would strongly advise against removing the booklist, which is a professional element similar to that which you find at the back of books. More of the references could be added to it, if you find it not complete, but my reason for not adding other references there was that in Polish I could not always tell who the author, publisher etc, were, etc. That list is a tremendous resource for the reader; it provides and alphabetical reading list; I go to Wikipedia articles specifically for such bibliographies. In a non-alphabetical list, the reader would have to scratch about to find a book. And I have to say that that neat list is not the problem Renata is talking about. See Mary Wollstonecraft for an example of the dual system at its best. Take heart on one thing: the type of referencing and formatting used is not a factor at FAC; only consistency.qp10qp 16:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Other sources can go on the list, since it is called "References"; but I would keep encyclopedias, websites, primary docs, etc. off the list, on the whole. Good academic web sources could go on there, though; for example, Cienciala.qp10qp 16:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * By drastic measures I mean dropping several of the refs to the first line of "Prelude". And going through the notes removing bitty editorial phrases and what not. Author quotes are crucial in a complex subject like this, so they are untouchable (for example, we have Sanford calling this an invasion), however long; but bitsy editorial remarks here and there can surely go.qp10qp 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been picking through the references, trying to improve the formatting and consistency and chucking out dud refs or superfluous refs; I've gone about a third of the way through so far. One or two that I am not happy with, you might be able to help with:


 * Fischer, Benjamin B., "The Katyn Controversy: Stalin's Killing Field", Studies in Intelligence, Winter 1999-2000.


 * This seems dead. I've found the article elsewhere online, but it only seem to ref two of the four items it points to.


 * The Vickers Mk.E Light Tank in the Polish Service. Private Land Army Research Institute. Retrieved 11 March 2007


 * I don't feel this page is good enough for referencing this sort of article. And it's a diffficult page, so I never did find the exact reference on it.


 * http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/bb/bb-078.html Part of the British War Blue Book]


 * Not enough information given in the note. I can't tell from the page what it is, who published it, or what.


 * Incidentally, we don't need to worry about Renata's point about templates; they are just a method, and Raul won't judge this matter on what method we use. What Renata is getting at, however, is that those templates impose a system on the reference formatting. So long as we have notes like the last two above, we are a mile off consistent formatting, because anyone who looks at those will not see what they require: who wrote this, when, and who published it?

qp10qp 02:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that we could drop the claim. I find these "biggest/second biggest" claims on Wikipedia always a problem (I remember getting bogged down on Jog/Wlad trying to source the assertion that his pontoon was the biggest since antiquity, and in the end just dropped it.


 * The Blue Book reference isn't set out informatively enough, and I'm not sure that it can be. And even with the link you gave me, I still can't find enough information to make this referenceable. Who published this? Who originally wrote it? Who edited it? Without these details, I feel we would be falling short of professional standards in accepting it as a source. For this reason, I have removed it and referenced the same document to Stachura.qp10qp 18:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, he uses the word "specialists" for the source of these figures. Looking at the references, I think he has consulted archivists and museum curators as well as historians. It does seem an odd word; but we could easily get round this by quoting Sanford's sentence in the notes.qp10qp 22:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No appologies needed
There is nothing for you to appologize for. I chose to write in the ArbCom, b/c the atmosphere is very stiff. I do not warry about being attacked more for choosing to write there, b/c if I write or if I don't, they still blame and accuse the same.

1-2 people of that loose group note an article and contest the editors as anti-Soviet, "anti-Russian" and "ultra-nationalist" (they only abstain from calling "fascist", but they suggest that as much as they can). They never disscuss specific issues in the content of the articles. Then 6-7 users more come, and without reading even 10% of the article, just pick a line in the middle of discussion and deliberate from there to infinity about Soviet vs "nationalist". The discussion usually degenerates, and b/c noone any longer addresses any specific subject, outsiders simply conclude "no consensus", which was the original aim of the attackers, b/c all they wanted is to discredit. Again, if 2-3 of them ever read the articles. So, it is always a dilema: either you don't respond and the neutral party thinks you have no argument, or you reply and the discussion inflates to infinity and non-sense. I've only been a user since last fall, but already seen this on 4-5 articles (with consequences that they follow all your edits for some time afterwards and rv just b/c it's you). Generally, I simply chose to do other articles.

I hope ArbCom can do something to improve this targetting of articles by targetting of users, but I wouldn't be so optimist as you ("solve it once for all" or smth similar). Anyway, have a nice day. :Dc76 18:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a characteristic example. Any comment is unnecessary. The editor did not bother to read even the first paragraph of intro to know that 1940 was after and because of 1939. :Dc76 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have asked a guy I met (User:Thiseye) who likes to correct grammar and spelling to look at the article. I remember that he was quite good at it, has an eye for it. He apparently did not log in to WP for the last 3-4 days, so it perhaps will take some time till he replies.
 * About Baltic states, actually I was/am not very interested. I just happened to run accross 3-4 of them, and they remained automatically in my watchlist. The one about occupation I ran accross b/c the tipping events there were 2 weeks apart with similar events in Bessarabia (and related b/c the same actors), and I was currious to learn more, but basically that's it.
 * Not many articles related to Poland I ran accross when edditing. Some that might do well with a (more) Polish input are: Battle of Obertyn, Battle of the Cosmin Forest, Battle of the Vorskla River, Khotyn, Pokuttya, Sacred Kaatan. (Also, once I did this edit based on something I read online, but forget the sourse, and latter never found it, actually didn't try hard to find.) Also, if you know or run accross info or articles about Polish minority in Romania or in Moldova (not only current, but also historic minorities), I would be interested. For example, one Polish community (from Czernowitz), which was "repatriated" in 1945, had lasting impact on the culture, and perhaps would desearve a separete article. (To see what I'm talking about, see by comparison Bessarabia Germans, Bukovina Germans)
 * However I must warn you: unlike today, in the future I will have little time for WP, so only count on me in long term if you think I can help with some article.:Dc76 23:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, at this very moment I am norther than you (assuming you are in Poland), so accidently you guessed right :-). If I can be of some help in some article where I can do it by curriousity (curriousity-about issues, not persons- is my driving force in life), and where I could "add value" (acctually I don't like this term), with pleasure. Oh, but you have exactly 45,000 edits ! That's impresive. Yesterday, if asked, I'd have guessed 1,000 or 2,000. :Dc76 00:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

President of Belarus
I have expanded President of Belarus recently, can you and others check it for possible POV? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the articles you mentioned, I can look at those. Modern Belarus is my specialty, but I can do research on the past. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

tank tops
I agree with Brian....tank tops are not acceptable in the work place. Unless you are in construction. Peggy
 * What?? Confused. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:German_Soviet.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:German_Soviet.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

FAC points
I disagree with you. A review is not a good source at all. The source should always be a work of research and scholarship where possible. But this changes nothing about the validity of the information, which is what I will tell Alæxis. It is irrelevant whether the Stachura ref is on Google Books or not, in my opinion. It contains a precise comparison of the Soviet behaviour with the Nazis. And whereas those who don't believe this comparison will suspect that review because it was written in a slightly rhetorical and emotional tone, they will have no answer to the hard scholarship of Stachura. So this may appear on the surface to be one step back, but in practice it is one step forward, because the article is now invulnerable on that point.qp10qp 23:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The ambassador note wasn't deleted; it was separated. This was because it only reffed one of the three points. I made it into a separate ref for the information it relates to, which is the notification to the ambassador. I don't agree with you about the number one, number two business, because it means precisely nothing to the reader. But I won't change it back. The idea is to try to give the reader a better chance of reading some of the obstacle-course-type notes. qp10qp 00:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I agree about the NKVD/rogue/collateral edit. I was trying to respond to Renata's point on that one. I don't know if the information is true, but I have never come across it in my reading.qp10qp 00:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Because a review is never an acceptable source, Piotrus. If the reviewer agrees with the author, we should reference the author's book; if the reviewer disagrees with the author, we should reference the reviewer's own books on the subject or the works the reviewer uses to challenge the reviewed book. Since you require backup for Stachura, I've therefore reffed Piotrowski, the book that was under review, into the bargain.


 * By the way, it always pays to make strategic concesssions at FAC, I think. The trick is to give up what one doesn't actually need, so that really one has conceded nothing at all (I wish Wikipedia had an evil smiley for me to add at this point.)qp10qp 21:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Poland
Lol:. Picus viridis 13:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

More refs
I've been trying to get the ref formatting more consistent, readable and less chunky. It's going well, and I now withdraw my comment that the article fails on formatting. Despite the fact that I am no fan of the alphabetical top-noting system, I feel the formatting is looking much more professional. A few more things to do yet, though.

Some ref questions:


 * Śledztwo w sprawie zabójstwa w dniu 22 września 1939 r. w okolicach miejscowości Sopoćkinie generała brygady Wojska Polskiego Józefa Olszyny-Wilczyńskiego i jego adiutanta kapitana Mieczysława Strzemskiego przez żołnierzy b. Związku Radzieckiego. (S 6/02/Zk) Polish Institute of National Remembrance. Internet Archive, 16.10.03.


 * This one is now probably the most chunky ref left. I wonder if you could find a way to abbreviate it, to match the others.


 * Norman Davies, God's Playground (Polish edition), second volume, pp. 512–513


 * I changed this from "second tome" to "second volume". Is that what was meant? Do you know any further details about this book? I can't begin to check it out. Is it a Polish edition in English or in Polish? The ref is unhelpful in this condition.


 * "The so-called "pacification" of the Ukrainians in Poland, which took place in September 1930, is well known all over the world to everyone who studied political events at that time. Trials and verdicts against the Ukrainians continued day by day until the fall of Poland. But the most terrible extermination of Ukrainians took place in the Soviet Russia." The Ukraine and the Present War, Litopys: Forum for Studies of the History of the UPA (electronic quarterly), Issue 1, Winter 2000.


 * I've been having a little trouble with the part about the Ukrainian resistance. I noticed that the group mentioned (Ukrainian Insurgent Army) didn't really come into existence until slightly later, nor were they wiped out by Operation Wisla, nor was Operation Wisla strictly relevant to the artcle. So I've provisionally replaced some of that with a mention of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, which were around in 1939. But I have not yet found out what happened to them under the Soviets. The main thing, however, is that I cannot see what the above quote references or supports. We need a ref for this that shows the Ukrainian desire for an independent state continuing under the Soviets and equally bad treatment for Ukrainian nationalists under both regimes (if such there was); but the quote seems to support a different point, relating to a larger span of history. I'm tempted to cut it. What do you think?

qp10qp 01:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Death of Chaimke Yizkor Book Project, JewishGen: The Home of Jewish Genealogy.


 * What is this? The reference as given doesn't provide the reader with the essentials: who wrote this? who published this? who edited this? who translated this? When?


 * Looking at the page, I find it unhelpful: just a stark page written by "SL". Who's SL? Looking at the contents page, I can't find who wrote what. Are these primary documents or have they gone through an external publishing process before appearing here? At the moment this page does not seem to me a reliable source in Wikipedia terms. I don't mean that the information is unreliable of course; but it's easy enough to ref this elsewhere from academic publications. The happy initial response of the Jewish population to the Soviet arrival is a well-documented fact and we can support it with something better.qp10qp 15:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Review of Jan T. Gross' Revolution from Abroad: The Soviet Conquest of Poland's Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia. H-net review, 2003. Retrieved 14 November 2006.


 * I couldn't check this, because I can't read PDFs (never been able to download the Acrobat reader). On the same basis as with the the Orlik-Glass review, I've replaced this ref with direct refs to Gross's book. (To my horror, I found that he gives 200,000 sq km for the area taken, not 250,000, the figure reffed by the article to the review!) By chance, I find that Gross is an excellent ref for the Death of Chaimke point too, so I will replace that with a ref to Gross.qp10qp 16:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, keep Śledztwo. What I was asking was if you could abbreviate it to look more like a standard ref (I can't, because I can't read Polish). With Davies, we need the book details ("Polish edition" is not useful, as such), if you've got them. Then I can add the book to the bibliography and create a shortened ref that distinguishes it from the other Davies book.


 * The refs are really getting there now. Of course, I dislike the encyclopedia refs, as you know (winces) and there are a few refs without page numbers (useless), but by and large the references are really looking good. I think Renata would faint if she saw the difference. If people still say that they find the three levels of reffing awkward, well, I sympathise with them; but that won't affect FAC at all, because the structure meets the criteria.


 * Thanks for the tip about other PDF readers. I've just downloaded a really light one, so we'll see what happens. (My computer is tuned to reject adware and heavy downloads.)qp10qp 18:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm; Humanist Education's been downloading for ten minutes and no joy yet. I Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate PDF files. The point about the reviews is just that they are not acceptable sources, whether they are easy to link or not. The correct source is the book concerned. Anyway, there aren't any left in the refs now, thank goodness.


 * I'm leaving the researching of that Ukrainian matter till last. I disagree that the quotation backs up the point in question. It's just a generalised statement (interesting, yes). I need to find something that refs that particular dissident group (or one like it) at that particular time. 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yaye, download complete! Miracle!qp10qp 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * On the Śledztwo ref, surely it could be abbreviated, even if all that is pure title. The CMS says that it is reasonable to abbreviate excessively long titles in citations. It's not a big deal, but that one sticks out like a sore thumb now, in my opinion.


 * I found a perfect ref for the Ukrainian stuff, and that's the last of the tricky bits dealt with, unless people raise some new questions.


 * I'm very confident in this article now. Of course Grafikm and Ghirla, both clever editors, would like more build-up material about earlier thirties diplomacy, and Renata, also astute, wanted more about later events in the World War. But I think such additions might overfill the article and add to the problems other readers have seen in the density of the material, particularly the prelude. I have looked into both possibilities; but the trouble with this period, in my opinion, is that events changed from month to month and had multiple, often conflicting causes which can't be summed up easily; and if you go too far back or too far forward, you can't be sure what is directly relevant to this short campaign. For example, it would be very complicated to go into the Nazi occupation of Belarus and Ukraine, which was to some extent a historical cul-de-sac. The Soviet policies towards the Baltic states do follow from the invasion of Poland in many ways, but they raise a whole string of different issues which would require distractingly meaty explanations. It's also clear that the Western Allies were going to fight Germany anyway, once it invaded Poland, and so we cannot be sure how much the Soviet invasion in itself affected the war, particularly since the Soviets switched sides again before too long. So I feel the present tight scope of the article is sensible and justifiable.qp10qp 13:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * About the Subtelny quote, I think we had this conversation long ago. It acts to show that the article does not omit the Ukrainian point of view. And because it sums up the situation from a historical perspective, I believe it makes the point better than we could without the quotation. I am not against block quotations in articles; and there's no policy against them. In fact, I rather miss the Molotov speech that is still in the German invasion article (though there, unlike the transcriptiion I placed on Wikisource, it is wrongly transcribed). But removing the Subtelny quotation would be a mistake, I believe; and if I was a Ukrainian, I would want to restore it. It climaxes those paragraphs about Byelorussia and Ukraine very decisively.qp10qp 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Twój wandalizm w Poland
przestań wandalizować ten artykuł, podano źródła, zapisano w NPOV, wycofywanie tego świadczy o Twoim wandaliźmie i problemie z homofobią 4 bity muzyki 14:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * przestań obracać kota ogonem, w moim poście nie ma nic z ataku osobistego, w Twojej edycji jest natomiast pełno POV 4 bity muzyki 14:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * wyocfanie edycji z źródłem z niekoreślonych (domyślam się, że chodzi o Twoją homofobię) powodów jest wandalizmem. kropka 4 bity muzyki 14:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

ok, fajnie
ok, fajnie --Krzysztoflew 16:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Polish Kamikaze
A jak sie zmienia tytuly artykulow? Wrzucilem to do DYK bo balem sie ze zapomne do jutra, jak znajdziesz czas to zmien tytul. Temat jest ciekawy, warto go po swiecie rozslawic. Pozdrowki, daj GG to kiedy zamienimy slowo Tymek 20:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrative division of Polish territories after partitions
Done.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Re Digwuren
I was tempted to unblock Digwuren per my reasoning at ANI, but nothing is white and black, and he can certainly use a little time to cool down. Nonetheless I'd like to ask you to shorten his block to 24h; this should be enough to show him he needs to be careful with his edits. PS. What do you mean by LIFO?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just go on and unblock the troll? This is consistent with your long history of wheel-warring. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Piotrus. Let me explain what LIFO means. I've stated many time at the ANI that i can't block all involved parties who have been creating havoc since a couple of months now. I have two hands. So i decided to start a new sheet. Blocking on the spot (dorénavant in French). So this explains my LIFO. Last In First Out in contrast w/ FIFO (First In First Out).
 * As per shortening the block, i'd have no problems if people at the ANI agree. Again, please note that if someone is blocked today for a period of 72h, the next block would be a week and so on. Also note Luna Santin's note re recreating (though it was not true technically) a dead article just after the AfD. I am not taking sides here as i've never ever edited related articles . -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  10:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, his unblock request has me convinced that he is acting in good faith. Anyway, I'd prefer it it would be you - the blocking admin - who would shorten his block. As I noted, his previous blocks were for 3RR, and he has been only blocked for 3h for disruption - thus the next disruption block going to a week seems too much. On the other note, if you were going to be blocking users involved in disruption related to that AfD, was he indeed the only disruptive user?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Piotrus. You are an admin and i respect you as i do respect other admins here. So i'd never argue about your actions (i.e. reducing or extending blocks) if you see it appropriate. I just can't reduce his block. As for if he is not the only offender, that i totally agree. However, as i explained many and many times, i decided to block on the spot. Other offenders have been blocked on the spot as well. I am satisfied w/ my decision. Again, if you think otherwise, go on and be bold. Don't forget that there would be always parties or a person who would oppose. Maybe you'd be accused of being an abuser. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  10:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Question: do you think such posts are acceptable on this project? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. And he got my last warning. You have the right to remove it. Please don't answer him back. Thank you. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  11:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for essay templating and categorizing my essay
I did not know of that template :)--Alexia Death 12:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Robert Biedroń
As for me, the better place for his statement about the emigration seem to be within LGBT rights in Poland, as the statement better illustrates the supposed situation in Poland than Biedroń himself, so moving it to his bio article might not be beneficial. However, it would be much better to support such claims with some (non-existing at the moment, I suppose) research, not a belief of an individual person. Anyway, if this discussion is to be continued, perhaps it should be done in the article's talk ? --Lysytalk 20:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Jagellonian and Piast concept
I intend to write something about them as they had notable influence on Polish concepts of the state, however I don't know exactly how to classify them-make two stubs ? One ? If you have any suggestion I would like to hear it. --Molobo 12:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jackal
Following the instructions in Piotrus's yellow box, and responding to: "Jackal is nonetheless a derogatory term (a filth-devouring animal, etc.) and we should avoid usage of terms that can be offensive. Consider: would you like to have your country or yourself compared to jackal? I think not. Not to mention such metaphors are not simply encyclopedic :) Countries are not lions, nor hyenas, nor wolves, nor anything alive :)"


 * I jumped in too soon and had misread anyway. I agree that we should be careful about all sorts of hurt feelings at the reference desk, including patriotic feelings, the offense of which I sometimes find very difficult to anticipate. I hold distance to all of "my" countries, who have also been compared to a selection of species throughout the centuries. I guess it's easier for me to empathize with offense being taken at racist and sexist remarks or religious defamation, for instance. Perhaps I lack the necessary empathy when it comes to nationalistic pride, but I do see your point, which is why I chose to remove my remark, and let your complaint stand.
 * (Anyway, being "fat back cat cool like a Friday afternoon martini, chillin' at a quarter after 5." aint that bad a reference. They called him 'The Jackal'". ;-) ---Sluzzelin talk  22:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Poland on the Reference Desk
I have answered the question on Napoleon and Poland, presently on the Humanities Desk; and as I promised to let you know if any questions on Poland ever appeared, here I am, Piotrus! But you already know, do you not? Clio the Muse 01:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be very surprised if Piotrus missed anything about Poland. But, actually, I rather suspect he hasn't noticed that his latest FAC Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) has quietly slipped off the FAC page and reappeared on the Featured articles page! So much for the reliability of bots.qp10qp 02:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the BS! You deserve one yourself because you were the chief cook and I was the bottle washer. But I expect you have a well-stocked cupboard already. Many thanks for all your work, for having to put up with the fussings of a compulsive perfectionist like me, and, in particular, for your resilience in the face of criticism. Now, please may I have six months off from Polish articles, which have aged me several years? (I might like to do Bona Sforza one day, though.)qp10qp 23:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nicolaus Copernicus
Page is now fully protected to avoid an edit-war. There is a dispution about this article, please add your opinion here consensus dispution.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 15:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, as you have just edited the talk page, I wonder if you just have "voted" without looking up the short but busy history of that "consensus" section?-- Matthead discuß!    O       17:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, as you have just have edited my talk page which something that seems to be a response to my question above, I strongely suggest to think about your stated opinion "You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.. Many people consider it confusing and annoying to have a talk thread separated on two talk pages. Talk pages of other can be watched "for a purpose". It is your choice if you ask a question on somebody's talk page and then "likely IGNORE" the reply to it. Don't try to make others play to your rules. -- Matthead discuß!     O       17:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 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 19:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

RE:
That is a good idea, would you do that please ?  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 20:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind peeking at an RFC
Would you mind looking at an RFC? It is about the WWII in the pacific. Talk:Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II Thanks,--Stor stark7 Talk 21:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Signature
Hi. I really like your signature, however it is at the limit for signature length. Currently it is 'legal' however please do not make it any longer. For futher reading please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SIGNATURE. Thanks for your help in this matter.  Djminisite - Talk |  Sign 07:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Living torpedoes
Needs sources for DYK!!! --Camptown 10:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome
I think you are missing something with that edit. You are assuming that the word "welcomed" will be read only to mean the official or staged welcomes, but in fact it will be read to mean the state of welcome in general (for example, if I say that the British people welcomed a change of Prime Minister, that does not mean we all went out with placards). The effect of your edit is to question whether the Belarusians and Ukrainians welcomed the change in their status at all; this would be factually wrong (and I don't think it is what you intend) but also unbalances this part of the sentence with the later part, which clearly refers to general events over a period of time rather than to welcome committees. At the very least, the information about the staged welcomes needs to be placed in a separate sentence.qp10qp

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)
(You wrote)

Just letting you know that we have addressed and/or replied to your points. Your further input is appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on your successful nomination of Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) for a featured article. Apparently, my rant on the Project Page helped you all to pull yourself up by the bootstraps in spite of initial protests. I still maintain that it is mostly battles that end in victories, not invasions per se, but it is a minor issue. By the way, I'm on vacation till Wednesday, July 25. --Poeticbent talk  15:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Arras FAC
Hey, Piotrus. Roger Davies and I have tried to address the citation concerns you raised at the FAC for Battle of Arras (1917). Would you mind looking over it again to see if everything is in order now? Thanks again for your comments! Carom 04:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPOTLIGHT
Would you like some help getting on IRC so you can collaborate with the other members? ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 21:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)