User talk:Piotrus/Archive 2

Wladyslaw Carem

 * Dolaczysz do Michael I of Russia i Vasili IV of Russia? Ja dzis juz nie moge rv-towac--Emax 08:58, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * W artykule jest juz wyjasnione ze nie posiadal praktycznie wladzy, ale wybranym carem byl (sami go wybrali, nie zostal narzucony). Co do Szwecji jest pewna roznica "...also hereditary king of the Swedes, Goths.." :) Ten caly Gje-cos tam cos tam, juz pokazal swoja klase w artykule o bitwie nad Orsza, u mnie jest juz na liscie ludzi ktorzy nadaja sie tylko na reverty ;)--Emax 11:14, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Co sadzisz o tym by stworzyc mailing list, dla polskich uzytkownikow z ang wiki - w celu obgadywania roznych spraw?--Emax 22:30, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Moze i byc na yahoo, postaram sie dzis zalozyc.--Emax 22:53, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Aha, cos to za konspirowanie i frakcje-szmakcje tutaj? A jak zapukam do UB ? Rozmowa kontrolowana... Rozmowa kontrolowana... :) Mikkalai


 * No i w&#322;a&#347;nie dla takich kwiatków wol&#281;, by&#347;my pozostali z list&#261; na wiki, a nie poza ni&#261; :) Halibutt


 * To by&#322;o urocze. Space Cadet 11:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * O tak. Glosuje za uczynieniem Mikkalai'ego modem tej grupy. Co wy na to? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:20, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * :) Wlasnie poto ja stworzylem, bo tutaj sciany maja uszy ;)--Emax 16:28, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Polish-Soviet War
When seeing the initial draft of the article, I noticed it was a bit over the board, portraying Pilsudski as the savior of the civilization. History is full of "if"s. Here is another "dreamable future". Suppose Bolsheviks took over the Europe. As a result, inevitably the Bolshevik party would be flooded with Europeans. Unlike Russians, there would be plenty of skilled politicians, who would manage to keep Stalin at bay. Also, there would be no Hitler, and hence no WWII, no holocaust, &c, &c, &c. (I know I am saying nonsense, relax.) Therefore I understand the worries of 172. This initial clash always happens when a controversial article is started at one side of the fense (i.e., almost always). So I see no reason for panic. I will join the discussion, of course. Mikkalai 02:58, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Naming Wars II?
Hi there, Piotrus! Thanks for your work on Marina Mnishek (pardon my Polish here and below :))! There's a slight problem, however. I noticed that you put Polish names for different Russian cities and places (like Nowgorod, Pskow etc.), when they have well-established names in English (Novgorod, Pskov etc.). The way I understand it, it is perfectly fine to do this in Polish Wikipedia, but not in the English one. I'm sure you are not doing this on purpose, but could you please pay more attention to English spelling of Russian or other names? If you are not sure how to spell certain names in English, try doing research in the English Wikipedia. I also noticed that one of the users - Ghirlandajo - is kind of upset with it. I suggest we avoid it in the future, because we all hate naming wars. And once again, thank you for the work you do on Russo-Polish history! KNewman 19:26, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Cape Colony
Hey ... I added referenecs to the Cape Colony series. What do you think? Páll 22:18, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rusznica
Tak z ciekawo&#347;ci: sk&#261;d Ci si&#281; wzi&#281;&#322;o okre&#347;lenie 7.92 mm Rifle Anti-Tank Mascerzek? I kim by&#322; ów Mascerzek (bo przypuszczam &#380;e to osoba...). Tak czy siak - jest ju&#380; artyku&#322; na Karabin przeciwpancerny wz.35. Halibutt 03:15, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Przypuszczam &#380;e musia&#322;o to by&#263; przekr&#281;cone nazwisko konstruktora (patrz: artyku&#322;). Tak czy inaczej poprawi&#322;em. Co do naszych numerycznych bezstronnych przyjació&#322; - my&#347;l&#281; &#380;e da si&#281; jako&#347; z nimi dogada&#263;, cho&#263; b&#281;dzie to mozolne. Jak dot&#261;d Twoja rozmowa ze stosiedemdziesi&#261;tym drugim przypomina walenie grochem o &#347;cian&#281;. Wskoczy&#322; facet od razu na wy&#380;yny swej wiedzy i wygl&#261;da na to, &#380;e to my mamy jego przekonywa&#263; do swojej wersji, a nie odwrotnie. Ale, cho&#263; mozolnie, co&#347; si&#281; z tego wykluwa. Dobry znak.

A tak z ciekawo&#347;ci: czy to ja jestem jakim&#347; nacjonalist&#261; i oszo&#322;omem, czy te&#380; dobrze mi si&#281; wydaje, &#380;e misja francuska to raczej detal a nie jedna z najwa&#380;niejszych cech tego konfliktu? Bo sam ju&#380; nie wiem...

Co do Wojny Obronnej - obserwuj&#281; dyskusj&#281; i czekam a&#380; si&#281; kolejny ponumerowany wypowie na temat Twoich argumenów. Naprawd&#281; jestem ciekaw, bo w jego wypadku troch&#281; mi to wygl&#261;da na czepianie si&#281; dla samego czepiania. A zawsze my&#347;la&#322;em &#380;e to nasz narodowy sport... --Halibutt 15:49, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Dymitriady
Sposób numerowania przyj&#261;&#322;em taki, jakiego mnie uczono w ogólniaku (takiego samego u&#380;ywa PWN). Czyli: Pierwsza Dymitriada to kampania wsparcia pierwszego z Dymitrów - g&#322;ównie przez magnateri&#281;, a wi&#281;c 1604-1606. Druga za&#347; to wsparcie w latach 1607&#8211;09 drugiego z samozwa&#324;ców (a trzeciego z Dymitrów w ogóle :) ). Halibutt 07:53, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Please see the changes that I have made to my proposal in order to bring it closer to your version. 172 11:14, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jan Nowak-Jezioranski
Jego &#347;mier&#263; jest wpomniana nawet na pierwszej stronie internetowej BBC a tu na Wikipedii o nim ani s&#322;owa. Czy s&#261; jacy&#347; ch&#281;tni do ekspresowej wspó&#322;pracy by stworzy&#263; o nim artyku&#322;? Balcer 17:03, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Cancel that, widz&#281; &#380;e Halibutt ju&#380; tym si&#281; zaj&#261;&#322; pod Jan Nowak-Jezioranski. Balcer 18:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Nareszcie mog&#322;em by&#263; w czym&#347; pierwszy... Napiszesz do RWE o zdj&#281;cie? Halibutt 16:47, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Opis rv
Gdy ktos sie wyzywa, lub jak ten azjata poprostu kasuje pewne czesci artykulu, i krzyczy o polskim wandalizmie (ogladalem jego strone "contributions", czesto to robi) opis jest moim zdaniem zbedny. :)--Emax 14:14, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Krzysztof Zbaraski, a merchant?
''Could you point to any source for that member of the mercantile class...) (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Krzysztof_Zbaraski&amp;diff=0&amp;oldid=9605561|(...)? There was a vast gulf between merchants and nobility in PLC. While it is possible he was nobilitated, I'd like to see some source on that?''
 * That was my (no doubt facile) interpretation of the Szlachta entry, which was only how Zbaraski was identified in the original version of the article I attempted to clean up. And "merchantile" isn't exactly the same as "merchant", but in any case, on second thought I probably would have chosen "gentry" instead. This being Wikipedia, just clean up any misinterpretations I left behind. --Calton 12:31, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Davies quotes
Just letting you know that some of the passages you pasted into the Polish-Soviet war from the Talk page are direct, verbatim quotes from the book by Davies. The article may now be violating copyright. We should reword the offending sections. Balcer 16:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Commons BattleTech image
Heya, I noticed you uploaded a nice BattleTech image. While the source says "If you have a website, feel free to grab the logo which will fit your site and slap it on your main page.", this sadly does not mean that the image is in the public domain. With this being the only information for the picture, it is not even suitable for commons. For example, we also need information whether one is allowed to modificate the picture or to publish it on other places than on websites. If you don't have that information explicitly, the image has to be deleted from commons. You could still upload the image to the english Wikipedia tho, as the uploading guidelines are not that restrictive here. Best wishes. --Conti|&#9993; 14:18, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, Piotrus!
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Krag-Jørgensen
WegianWarrior has fixed the notes... does this look good now? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration of the week
Military history of the Soviet Union is this week's Collaboration of the Week. Please contribute to it to help make it a feature article

Great A'Tuin
Hey there. I note that you've recreated the Great A'Tuin article. Do you plan on expanding it at all? I placed it in Discworld (world) because I didn't see how it still warranted an article of its own. violet/riga (t) 23:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nominations objections (Russia)
I've gone through all of your objections on History of Russia. Let's work through whatever objections remain, and I can look into resolving some of my objections to Battle of Warsaw so that we can get both important articles featured. 172 00:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * All of your specific objections to History of post-Soviet Russia have been addressed as well. 172 01:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure. Replied on your talk page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moskwa
Czy przypadkiem adjective od Muscovy nie brzmi Muscovite? Pytam, bo na List of Polish wars zobaczy&#322;em mas&#281; do&#347;&#263; dziwnych linków. Halibutt 22:29, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, the adjectival form of the noun "Muscovy" is "Muscovite." Logologist 07:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. "Muscovite" can also serve as a noun (English is a strange language):  as a native or inhabitant of Muscovy.  Logologist 08:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Michal Glinski
Czy moglbys zwrocic uwage na ten artykul? Dwoch starych znajomych ze wschodu, chca zrusifikowac marszalka PLC, coraz zabawniej sie robi.--Emax 13:43, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Moglbys looknac na http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#3RR_by_Emax - Gene sklamal ze revertowalem 4 razy, przyszedl Chris potwierdzil klamstwo i mam bana.

Pierwszy raz poprostu zmienililem pewne czesci artykulu co nie jest revertem, a zostalo mi policzone jako revert. Zreszta sam sprawdz na Michal Glinski - Emax


 * Dzieki--Emax 12:34, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

battle of warsaw
Nice job. I left comments in talk:Battle of Warsaw (1920) section of article. Almost perfect. alteripse 02:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Polonism
Could you take a look at Anti-Polonism and Talk:Anti-Polonism? I am conducting a long discussion with Emax and it is not going anywhere. The basic problem I have with the article is that the word anti-Polonism, controversial even in Poland, practically does not exist in English usage. Emax is determined to push it through, and is becoming rather emotional about the issue. Balcer 04:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a look. Indeed the revert issue was about mentioning the occurence of the word in Polish sources, but as the discussion makes clear, I have more general problems with the article.  Still, it is curious that even Polish Wikipedia (already 50,000 articles) does not say a word about anti-polonism.


 * The basic issue is still the fact that the word anti-polonism does not exist in English. Why should some people insist on this term, which is completely foreign to all readers of Wikipedia except Poles?  The only explanation I can think of is that some users (eg. Emax) have an agenda and want to push the word anti-polonism and force it into general acceptance.  One might agree or disagree with this approach, after all new words are introduced into general English use all the time.  Still, is Wikipedia the place to do it?  I think Wikipedia is here to describe things as they are, not as some people would like them to be.  The fact is that anti-polonism is not in general use, in fact it is used quite rarely in Polish and almost not at all in English.  The article should reflect that.


 * So I would prefer to use titles that most general readers can understand and which are less controversial. I would also think of the example Organised persecution of ethnic Germans, a title which avoided the controversial word Anti-Germanism, which some people might find offensive, and which might be misused by nationalists.


 * I would follow your suggestion, and just have articles (example titles):


 * Organised persecution of ethnic Poles (up to 1918)
 * Organised persecution of ethnic Poles (1918-1939)
 * Genocide against Poles (1939-1945)
 * Persistent prejudices against Poles (1945 to present) Balcer 19:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, I know one should write in English, but Emax is not a master of the language, so I wanted to make communication easier. As for PSW, it is on the back burner for now.  My university does not have too many materials, but the next closest one has a vast collection on Central European history.  I might take a trip and see what I can find. Balcer 19:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I am glad you agree with me that anti-polonism is not an appropriate title. If we are to have just one article, how does Persecution of ethnic Poles (or even shorter Persecution of Poles) sound as a title for it? Feel free to suggest a better title, if you happen to think of one.Balcer 21:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I just thought of another possibility: Hostility against Poles, which is the precise meaning of anti-polonism (or Hostility against ethnic Poles).Balcer 22:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Emax and reverts
Today I moved the article Anti-Polonism to Hostility towards Poles, with a careful explanation of the reasons on the talk page. I was not very surprised to see that within minutes Emax moved it back and reverted all of my changes, without any explanation (so far). Of course I have no intention to engage in a revert war with Emax, since I have better things to do in life. Unfortunately, having tried to reason with him I am slowly forming an impression that this is pointless. Emax appears not to believe in any compromise, instead he considers it a virtue to stick to his guns and make it a point of honour not to allow any changes to his POV.

You are now an admin, and you did agree with my reasoning for not using the anti-Polonism title, so you might consider protecting the page. Alternatively you might try to convince Emax to change his ways.


 * Drogi Balcerze, dyskutowalismy bardzo dlugo, wszystkie Twoje argumenty (co chwile wymyslales nowe) padly. Wiec prosze nie rob zemnie kogos kto przepycha swoja racje, bo Ty to dzis zrobiles na sile.--Emax 20:35, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Do Emaxa: Có&#380;, dodawa&#322;em nowe argumenty bo wszelkie poprzednie bezpardonowo odrzuca&#322;e&#347;. Chcia&#322;em do ciebie jako&#347; dotrze&#263;, &#380;e tak si&#281; wyra&#380;&#281;.  Wydaje mi si&#281; te&#380; chyba oczywiste &#380;e w miar&#281; zg&#322;ebiania si&#281; w temat cz&#322;owiek mo&#380;e znajdowa&#263; nowe argumenty.  W dyskusji szuka&#322;em kompromisu, wi&#281;c cz&#281;&#347;ciowo przyznawa&#322;em ci racj&#281;, ale ty to widocznie za ka&#380;dym razem uznawa&#322;e&#347; za przyznanie si&#281; do pora&#380;ki z mojej strony.


 * W moich oczach szukales dziury w calym.--Emax 21:48, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Skupmy si&#281; na rzeczy podstawowej: s&#322;owo antipolonism praktycznie nie jest u&#380;ywane w j&#281;zyku angielskim na tyle by by&#263; tytu&#322;em artyku&#322;u. Twoje przytoczenie jednego przyk&#322;adu u&#380;ycia tego s&#322;owa przez Davida Lucasa jest niewystarczaj&#261;ce. Balcer 21:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Znalazlo by sie wiecej, ale naprawde nie chce mi sie juz szukac. Ta dyskusja jest 10 razy dluzsza od samego artykulu i robi sie dosc makabryczna. Artykul tlumaczy okreslenie "antypolonizm" a nie zdanie "Nienawisc do Polakow podczas IIWS" - to pierwsze tlumaczy okreslenie, to drugie opowiada tylko historie. Wikipedia jest jedyna encyklopedia ktora uzywa rowniez tytuly, prawdziwa encyklopedia tlumaczy okreslenia--Emax 21:48, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Drodzy moi. Jak juz zaczeliscie dyskutowac na moim talku, to pozwolcie mi sie wypowiedziec. Nazwa artykulu jest malo istotna, i w obydwu przypadkach nie najlepsza, bo a) Anti-polonism jest faktycznie bardzo malo uzywanym neologizmen b) nazwa opisowa raczej nie bylalby trafiana z wpisu tylko z tekstu artykulow albo 'see also'. Poniewaz a-polonism i tak bylby redirectem, a Emaxowi tak na nim zalezy, to proponuje bysmy sie zgodzili na zostawienie tego pod ta nazwa - na razie. Zobaczymy, czy ktos zaaponuje czy moze ta nazwa sie przyjmie - fakt, ze przynajmniej raz ja uzyto w jakims artykule naukowym nieco ja nobiltuje (tj. Emax ani nikt z nas Wikipedystow jej nie wymyslil). O wiele wazniejsza jest tresc artykulu. Przejrzalem revertowane zmiany Baclera i Emax, obawiam sie ze jestem tutaj za Baclerem. Moze kilka slow nalezy zmienic - ale 90% dodanego tekstu jest wedlug mnie ok. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reverts
Yes, I guess I got a bit over-eager. Sorry for the inconvenience. Also, congratulations on your adminship! Your recent edits related to the edit wars confirm my good impression of you when I voted for your adminship :) Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 14:28, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

POV check template
Hi there,

I'd like to invite your comments on Template talk:POV check. I think this template is a bad idea, but since it's already in wide use, my only hope is a policy on its usage, and I'd like to know what you think about my proposal.--Eloquence* 00:50, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Gangtok
Hi, Please could you review Gangtok once again? I've made a lot of changes to the text. Nichalp 18:49, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

blitzkrieg
Chetnie bym Ci pomogl, ale mam bardzo skromne pojecie, jesli chodzi o historie blitzkriegu. Mysle jednak ze bez powodu wykasowal the czesci artykulu (bylo cos w nich kotrowersyjnego?). Czasem mozesz pokazac zeby, jestes teraz generalem - szczegolnie gdy ktos bez powodu kasuje przydatne informacje :)--Emax 01:54, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Niema sprawy. Co do antypolonizmu owszem, podobne rozwiazanie juz proponowalem na samym poczatku :) Mysle ze sprawa antypolonizmu jest bardzo wazna, opisane sa bitwy, historyczne fakty itd. a ten aspekt gral bardzo wazna role w calej historii Polski (i gra do dzis)--Emax 13:17, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Na pewno wycinanie takiej ilo&#347;ci tekstu bez &#380;adnego wyja&#347;nienia jest nie do przyj&#281;cia, wi&#281;c du&#380;a cz&#281;&#347;&#263; racji jest po twojej stronie. Z kolei nie wiem czy potrzebny jest tutaj a&#380; tak d&#322;ugi artyku&#322;. Ja bym ograniczy&#322; poj&#281;cie Blitzkrieg do kampanii niemieckich w latach 1939-1942. Oczywi&#347;cie powinna te&#380; by&#263; dyskusja o latach mi&#281;dzywojennych kiedy ten koncept stworzono, i kolejna dyskusja o tym jak po 1942 roku koncepcja niemieckiego Blitzkriegu za&#322;ama&#322;a si&#281; kiedy przeciwnicy Niemiec wprowadzili odpowiednie przeciw&#347;rodki. Obszerne omawianie wojny francusko-niemieckiej w 1870 czy operacji w Europie Zachodniej w 1944-1945 jest raczej niepotrzebne, bo w ko&#324;cu mo&#380;na o nich znale&#378;&#263; informacje w innych artyku&#322;ach. Natomiast dyskusja a&#380; o wczesnym &#347;redniowieczu to ju&#380; chyba lekka przesada. To raczej powinno pój&#347;&#263; do artyku&#322;ów takich jak Maneuver warfare, History of warfare itd.

Ponadto przyznam &#380;e niektóre sformu&#322;owania s&#261; nieco karko&#322;omne. Na przyk&#322;ad:

This begun to change with the domestication of the horse, invention of chariots and the increasing military use of the cavalry from approximately 2nd century AD. The next major step would be Napoleon's introduction of logistics, which changed the nature of warfare considerably. Now the invading army was not under the same sort of timing pressure to bring the opposition to battle as soon as possible. This allowed his forces to attack where and when they wanted, often giving him the advantage of terrain. It also allowed him to form much larger armies because they were no longer straining the local economies directly.

Wynika z tego &#380;e nic si&#281; nie zmieni&#322;o wi&#281;dzy II stuleciem naszej ery i epok&#261; Napoleona :). Napoleon nie wynalaz&#322; logistyki, która istnieje od pocz&#261;tku wojen. Ponadto by&#322;o raczej odwrotnie: zaopatrzenie armii bez gn&#281;bienia ludno&#347;ci wprowadzono w wieku XVIII, a Napoleon raczej wróci&#322; do starych procedur.  Ponadto Napoleon na pewno prowadzi&#322; b&#322;yskawiczne kampanie i z regu&#322;y pragn&#261;&#322; bitwy najwcze&#347;niej jak tylko by&#322;o to mo&#380;liwe.  G&#322;ównym pomys&#322;em Napoleona by&#322; podzia&#322; swoich armii na samodzielne korpusy.  Dzi&#281;ki temu armia mog&#322;a porusza&#263; si&#281; kilkoma równoleg&#322;ymi szlakami na raz i uzyskiwa&#263; zaopatrzenie z wi&#281;kszego obszaru.

Poczytam wi&#281;cej i mo&#380;e bardziej si&#281; zaanga&#380;uj&#281; do tego artyku&#322;u. Na razie widz&#281; &#380;e masz pomoc Emaxa i SpaceCadeta, wi&#281;c moje reverty nie s&#261; chyba potrzebne. Balcer 05:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Policy proposal and Blitzkrieg
I'd be happy to help you, here is a policy proposal I recently made, Graphic_and_potentially_disturbing_images, this is pretty much how they ought to look like, although this was a particularly extensive one, the one you were talking about would probably encompass just one proposition with yes and no votes sections. I'm already taking a close look at Blitzkrieg and I think I’ll give some comments pretty soon.GeneralPatton 02:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Emax
Mia&#322;em ostatnio ró&#380;ne dyskusje z User:Emax'em, z regu&#322;y coraz mniej przyjazne, ale dzisiaj sprawy przekroczy&#322;y pewne granice,. Pisz&#281; tu bo, po pierwsze, masz pewien ma&#322;y udzia&#322; w tej sprawie, a po drugie czuj&#281; potrzeb&#281; by kto&#347; w miar&#281; neutralny spojrza&#322; na sytuacj&#281;. Przyznam &#380;e niektórym mo&#380;e si&#281; wydawa&#263; &#380;e ja sam by&#263; mo&#380;e nie zachowywa&#322;em si&#281; w 100% poprawnie podczas sporu o anti-Polonism, chocia&#263; wydaje mi si&#281; &#380;e zwrócenie innemu u&#380;ytkownikowi uwagi na dany artyku&#322; nie jest &#380;adnym przest&#281;pstwem. Ale ta lawina wyzwisk i pomówie&#324; od Emax'a to chyba za du&#380;o.

Emax'owi wydaje si&#281; chyba &#380;e jest bezkarny gdy&#380; wszystkie jego obelgi s&#261; napisane po polsku, wi&#281;c nikt na angielskiej Wikipedii nie poci&#261;gnie go za nie do odpowiedzialno&#347;ci. W ko&#324;cu ilu u&#380;ytkowników tutaj wie co to by&#322;a Targowica. Tak wi&#281;c jedyna nadzieja to inni u&#380;ytkownicy mówi&#261;cy po polsku, a szczególnie ty który jeste&#347; jedynym polskim adminem (o ile wiem).

Je&#380;eli dzia&#322;ania Emax'a przeciwko mnie nikomu nie b&#281;d&#261; przeszkadza&#263;, ja sam nie mam zamiaru walczy&#263; z nim sam. W takim wypadku wycofam si&#281; z pracy nad wszelkimi artyku&#322;ami przy których mog&#281; go napotka&#263;. Balcer 20:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Po pierwsze, nie padla zadna obelga ani wyzywisko. Pokazalem Ci bardzo delikatnie jak falszywie sie zachowales. Dzialasz na rzecz tych ktorzy falszuja Polska historie, oslabiajac wiarygodnosc uzytkownikow, ktorzy pracowali nad Polish-Soviet War i Anti-Polonism. Zamiast prosic Piotrusia o pomoc, moge Ci podac liste nickow ktorzy Cie popral w walce zemna, sami Niemcy i Rosjanie, ale Ty nie masz przeciez problemow z szukaniem pomocy u "obcych"--Emax 20:21, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Emax oskar&#380;y&#322; mnie &#380;e nie jestem Polakiem i kaza&#322; mi przesta&#263; mówi&#263; po polsku. Je&#380;eli Emax uwa&#380;a &#380;e to dla Polaka nie jest obelga, wydaje mi si&#281; to co najmniej dziwne.
 * Widz&#281; &#380;e zachowanie Emax'a wobec mnie nie wywo&#322;a&#322;o &#380;adnego echa. Jak ju&#380; pisa&#322;em, ja sam zmaga&#263; si&#281; z nim nie mam zamiaru.  Sytuacj&#281; ilustruje powiedzenie George Bernard Shaw'a: "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it".  Tak wi&#281;c do odwo&#322;ania, lub do wyrzucenia Emax'a z Wikipedii które pr&#281;dzej czy pó&#378;niej nast&#261;pi, wycofuj&#281; sie z pracy nad artyku&#322;ami o polskiej tematyce. Balcer 16:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dzi&#281;ki za kilka s&#322;ów poparcia. My&#347;la&#322;em o stosowaniu oficjalnych procedur Wikipedii, ale fakt &#380;e Emax zwymy&#347;la&#322; mnie po polsku raczej to utrudnia. Nie mam tu do ciebie pretensji, wiem &#380;e jeden Admin nie mo&#380;e zbyt wiele zdzia&#322;a&#263;. Je&#380;eli by&#347; zbanowa&#322; Emax'a, i tak wróci&#322;by za pi&#281;&#263; minut pod innym nickiem, jeszcze bardzie uci&#261;&#380;liwy. Niestety, w obecnej formie Wikipedia ma bardzo s&#322;abe procedury dzia&#322;ania przeciwko trollom takim jak Emax, wi&#281;c jedynym wyj&#347;ciem dla normalnego u&#380;ytkownika jest usuni&#281;cie si&#281; z drogi trolla. Kiedy&#347; takie skuteczne procedury zapewne powstan&#261;, bo inaczej Wikipedia nie ma przysz&#322;o&#347;ci jako powa&#380;ny projekt (patrz ). Tak wi&#281;c, zgodnie z twoj&#261; porad&#261;, na jaki&#347; czas bior&#281; wakacje od polskich tematów.

Blitzkrieg
Took a shot at some restructuring on British and American pieces and some general copy editing. Could use more but I am hesitant without some of my references at hand. Take a look and give me some feedback. Thanks.

Battlebox
I have no particular interest in creating a warbox. I would not object to it, of course, but I don't really care one way or the other. However, using the battlebox as though it is a warbox is unacceptable. I strongly object to you referring to my edit to Polish-Soviet War as "vandalism". Whatever it is (and I'm willing to entertain the possibility that removing the box was the wrong thing to do, although I do not think it was), it was not vandalism. My reason for doing so are perfectly justified, and you have yet to explain why we should use the battleboxes for wars. john k 15:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wladek
Dlaczego wywaliles informacje o elekcjach z tabelki?--Emax 15:52, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Fauntleroy
You may find it of interest: if you follow 2 links from his colleague Merian C. Cooper's name, you'll discover that Cooper went on to become the producer of the famous 1930s movie, King Kong. Amazing what one can find in the Wikipedia! Logologist 16:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gda&#324;sk
Hello Piotrus. Do you realy support <> after '45 as I see at Talk:Gdansk/Vote? Shall this page be <>: List of cities in Poland? --:Mr. Wszedroik 17:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

translation
Hi. Could you help me and let me know what the following comment means: ''Przydala by sie pomoc na ang. wersji artykulu o Szczecinie - dwie osoby zaczely germanizowac artykul. Chodzi o wycofanie wersji tego lub tego  uzytkownika.'' I just removed this from pl:Dyskusja:Gda& and pl:Dyskusja:Szczecin. It links to User:John Kenney and my user page, and is most likely related to the vote on Gdansk. Votes on the english wiki should be done mainly by english wiki users, I think. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 03:26, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. What do you need translated from german? -- Chris 73 Talk 23:02, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Translation into English is a good place to start. It would be my pleasure to translate/update the articles based on the german version for you - tomorrow, because now is not a good time. Best regards, -- Chris 73 Talk 12:18, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)