User talk:Piotrus/Archive 24

Redirect of Edward Saganami C class cruiser
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Edward Saganami C class cruiser, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Edward Saganami C class cruiser is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Edward Saganami C class cruiser, 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. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox HonorverseShipClasses
Template:Infobox HonorverseShipClasses has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --EEMIV (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

East Prussian Plebiscite
Dear Molobo, could you please tell me which source was used for the added map? It´s obviously "selfmade" and claiming a Polish majority (wiekszoszi polskiej) for almost the whole district ( with 98 % of votes for Germany ) is quiet absurd. there´s already a map, showing the district borders, so I can´t see any reason to add a biased and chauvinist map like that.(HerkusMonte (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Sorry my mistake, off course Piotrus.

Nevertheless the map is biased and chauvinist. The plebiscite result shouldn´t leave any doubts and it´s unbelievable to claim a Polish MAJORITY (!) in this area in the 1920s. Even if some Poles did not vote or voted for Germany (Polish-Russian war) a Polish Majority existed only in phantasy of some nationalists. I don´t think Wikipedia is a place for right wing propaganda.(HerkusMonte (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

The plebiscite result should really be decidedly enough (remember we´re talking about 98 % for Germany). Still claiming a Polish Majority is simply unrealistic and absurd. If this is still common in modern Polish books - it´s sad.(HerkusMonte (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Off course I see that the map doesn´t show results but ethnicity, but after 98 % voted to remain in Germany it´s absolutely absurd to claim a Polish MAJORITY ( remember the total votes :363,000 vs. 8,000), not to mention what happened later on to "Polish" Masurians. The article was just fine before that map was added and I still don´t see why we need another map in the article.(HerkusMonte (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

Map
Quite useful  --Molobo (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Józef Kostrzewski "Z mego życia. Pamiętnik", Ossolineum 1970 Wiosną 1919 r. opublikowałem barwną mapkę narodowościową ziem dotychczasowego zaboru pruskiego, ze statystyką narodowościową tej dzielnicy dla poparcia naszych żądań na kongresie pokojowym. (…) Statystyki zawarte w tej publikacji oparte były na urzędowych spisach ludności W Prusach, przeprowadzonych w roku 1910, uzupełnione znacznie korzystniejszą dla nas statystyką polskich dzieci szkolnych z r. 1911. Już od początku listopada 1918 r. pisałem artykuły w "Kurierze Poznańskim" na temat stosunków narodowościowych w Wielkopolsce i w Prusach Królewskich, polemizując z twierdzeniami niemieckimi o Poznańskiem jako terenie mieszanym narodowościowo, gdzie rzekomo niepodobna pociągnąć linii granicznej między terytorium z przewagą ludności polskiej i niemieckiej. Wykazałem w tych artykułach, że nawet tendencyjna statystyka niemiecka z 1910 r. nie może zaprzeczyć, że mimo zniemczenia zachodnich i północnych powiatów Poznańskie jako całość liczyło 67,46% ludności polskiej

Cheers, not time to format.

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
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 (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Your input requested regarding reliable sources
Any insights you might offer to this discussion would be helpful and appreciated. : ) -- M P er el  03:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Codeminion & Factor T
Welcome back ;) In my opinion, both are non-notable, so prod or afd 'em. Visor (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Expiring hook
Almost all our selections are taken from the expiring hooks, because we always have a backlog!

Basically, your hook is just about due for review now and someone will look at it and either promote or leave a comment. I don't think I have the energy to do any more article reviews now, but I will probably do an update later today and if your hook has not been promoted yet I will take a look at it then. Gatoclass (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I looked at the article and left a comment. Gatoclass (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Bogusław, Boguslaw, Bogislaw, Bogislas...
...honestly, it doesn't make sense. I'm referring in particular to the Pomeranian rulers. Certainly, it would make sense to choose one spelling at least for the main entries, and possibly mention in the article that other versions exist? I mean, look: Bogusław_XIII%2C_Duke_of_Pomerania, Bogislaw_XIV%2C_Duke_of_Pomerania. It grates! Why not change all of them to Bogislaw? I know that "Bogusław" is the accurate Polish version, but names of rulers are customarily translated, so I would opt for an English version without diacritics. --Hburdon (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I can't prove it. For whatever reason, when I researched the problem originally a year or two ago, I decided it was the most common, but I can't remember the rationale now. Would you agree, though, that it would make sense to unify the spellings? If yes, then I'll try and look up some English sources next time I'm in the library and see what spelling is used in proper printed matter. --Hburdon (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, we do translate names of monarchs and rulers though. Besides, they were Pomeranian rulers, was Polish their first language or was it German? --Hburdon (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Bogislaws of the duchy of Pomerania should be adressed as Bogislaw, as this is how they called themselves - though the Latin form was also used as much of the bureaucracy was done in Latin. Starting with the late 12th cty, the language spoken was the Pommersch variety of Low German; before, Pomeranian language (Slavic, "sth between" Polabian and Polish) was most probably used, as the first records of the duchy are of the early 12th cty. Besides the use of (Low) German as their every-day language, the Bogislaws might have spoken other languages, too, as there was plenty of intermarriage with nobility all across Europe... Skäpperöd (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Read policy on Original Research please. --Molobo (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OR policy has nothing to do with this. Assuming good faith, I will not get deeper into the purpose of the above statement and just welcome anybody to read about Pomeranian history. I will not further participate in a personal debate with Molobo here as this is the wrong place to do so, eod. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have requested a comment on talk:Dukes_of_Pomerania, you are invited to post further arguments there. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skäpperöd (talk • contribs)

Census in Germany
I just looked at the German article about census (Volkszählung), but it concentrates on the census of 1987, which caused an important political discussion in Germany. There are only very few informations given on historical pre-war censuses (and especially pre WWI censuses), you are (am I wrong?) interested in. But I´ll try to expand the current article a little.(HerkusMonte (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

God's Playground
Hello. Yes, I will expand it but currently am too busy. However, I have the academic vacation coming up July thru September so will read the remaining chapters and put the summaries up there. Czesc. Ivankinsman (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

More detailed years not always correct
"in Poland" etc will follow when I get to fixing Years in Poland and other Years in due course. Can only do one full Year in category at a time. Of course, you could always fix it yourself in the meantime. Ardfern (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
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 (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Pogróżki od LUCPOL
Chciałem przekazać Panu skargę w związku z obraźliwym i niewytłumaczalnym zachowaniem użytkownika LUCPOL od którego otrzymałem pogróżki i zapowiedź rewertowania moich edycji per se.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:81.106.128.119 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.128.119 (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sociology in Poland
Hello Piotrus. You are a creative genius. Sociology in Poland is a very good article and it has a potential to grow. Good job! Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh! I think you have a Master's degree in Economics. I hope you will expand the article. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why you write so many great articles!! You study at the University of Pittsburgh. You live in Pittsburgh. The University of Pittsburgh is a well-known American university. I think Wangari Maathai studied at Pittsburgh. I am mainly interested in management and social sciences. I don't say too much about me mainly because Wikipedia is a public website. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack from IP 81.106.128.119
Zobacz sobie to: (cały rozdział) oraz to:  (odpisałem Ci). Ten IPek atakował mnie na pl.Wikipedii i przyszedł na en.Wikipedię. Napisałem mu w dyskusji tylko tyle - widocznie on takie coś uznaje za atak osobisty, choć to ostrzeżenie że jego POVy będą rewertowane. On dokonał spamu (napisał o tym do kilkunastu osób!!! ) oraz dokonał poważnych ataków osobistych np. "to znaczy, że jesteś zwyczajnym śmieciem...", "nie ma miejsca dla takich idiotów jak Ty", "Twoje brednie...", "Twoje schizofreniczne..." "Twoje chore majaki", "chore, pomylone neo-nazistwoskie teorie", "A tak na marginesie świrze" - większość tych zdań jest wciąż w jego dyskusji, do dwóch zdań podałem diffy pod twoją wypowiedzią:. Treść jego postów jest nie miła (ale za to się nie blokuje), ale za ataki osobiste (które zacytowałem) już tak. Jeśli nie chcesz się zająć tą sprawą to przekaż pałeczkę innemu adminowi wraz z tłumaczeniem cytatów na język angielski. Bo to już za wiele. Mogę czytać negatywne posty do mnie (sam też takie czasem piszę) ale takie ataki osobiste, których dopuścił się IP nie mogą być bagatelizowane. LUCPOL (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * IPek nic sobie nie robi z próśb i zasad Wikipedii - przed chwilą odpisał. Tutaj już chyba co najmniej dwutygodniowa blokada wchodzi w rachubę. LUCPOL (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dobra, przekazałem pałeczkę Miszy13 (choć On od kilku dni jest nieaktywny). Proszę jednak, abyś dokładnie przemyślał moją pierwszą i ostatnią wypowiedź. Nie miłe teksty nie są karane, WikiLove nie jest zasadą Wikipedii i nie może być powodem do blokady. Stuprocentowe ataki osobiste są już powodem do blokady. Pierwszy raz się spotkałem z taką reakcją admina. Owszem, możesz poprosić (w ramach WikiLove) abyśmy się miło do siebie odnosili jeśli chodzi o niemiłe posty, a nie 100% ataki i przezwiska, ale jak ktoś już łamie prawdziwą zasadę Wikipedii - 100% wyzwiska typu nazista, świr czy śmieć to już to działa niezależnie i blokada powinna być. Dodatkowo niepokojące jest jego zdanie "Poczekam sobie spokojnie aż sam ukręcisz sobie bicz na własny zadek... no może czasem troszkę Ci w tym pomogę" - teraz już są jasne jego intencje. LUCPOL (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, I also received a request from the IP to look into the dispute with LUCPOL. I don't speak Polish, but I would appreciate if you could give me a brief explanation of what's going on. Cheers.&mdash;Perceval 16:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response Piotrus. Let me know if I can be of any help.&mdash;Perceval 19:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oj, zawiodłem się na Tobie. Jeśli nie masz czasu zająć się problemem to chociaż nie ładuj do jednego worka usera z dużym wkładem piszącego że będzie rewertował nacjonalistyczne edycje IP oraz IPka wielokrotnie używającego przezwisk typu nazista, świr czy śmieć bez żadnego wkładu w projekty Wikimedia. Napisałeś userowi Perceval że używam "flame", ale IP używa "flame" oraz prawdziwych ataków osobistych. O "flame" IPka się nie pluję, ale o ataki. Tego już mu nie napisałeś :( Trzeba było w ogóle nie odpowiadać niż odpowiadać w ten niesprawiedliwy sposób. Jak chcesz napisać prawdę to pisz lub nie pisz w ogóle nic, ale nigdy nie pisz nie całej prawdy. LUCPOL (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 49
Good news! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 49 is now available. Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.


 * Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!
 * Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!
 * Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!
 * Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!

For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODU P bot  23:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

zgłaszanie błędów na en.wiki
Witam serdecznie! Jestem użytkownikiem pl.wiki i interesuje mnie gdzie na en.wiki można zgłaszać błędy jak w PL:Zgłoś błąd w artykule

Pozdrawiam Krzysiu210 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.94.204.61 (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Dzieki za podpowiedz! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.94.204.61 (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Locator request
Uploaded via Wiki Commons, I hope that's okay for you? --DWRtalk 11:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Polish Charter
I would be grateful if you could check spelling and grammar. OldEnt § 16:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will do it. :') OldEnt § 20:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted image
IRC malfunctioned on me, so I couldn't get the link to the photo. I'll look at it and see what is going on, if you can tell me the image name on Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

ITESM project
Hi... yes, it is still ongoing although on hiatus for the summer. Advanced B is the class the contributes the most and will start in full gear in Aug. Thanks for asking.Thelmadatter (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed
As per your request It's not the first time wikEd does such a thing.--Lokyz (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. So why do you use it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It really helps a lot, just sadly has some oddities.--Lokyz (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Communication
Well thanks, but i`m not useing GG and i`m not sure what you mean by activateing my e-mail. Mikołajski (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, now i`m waiteing for the confirmation e-mail. Mikołajski (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Assistance with Tank
As a long-time FA producer, I wonder if you could please help me with tank. I'm trying to get it back to FA quality. I saw the impressive list of references on Blitzkrieg - quite rare in the MilHist sphere. I'll happily port the relevant references over but I don't have most on hand so I'm stuck with respect to inline citations. Help. Please. Dhatfield (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Talerhof
I contest the removal of Talerhof from the history of Poland category. Although Talerhof is not in Poland, the people interned there were from what is now Malpolska. One reason that they were imprisoned was that they wanted this area to be an independent state, or failing that, an autonomous province of Czechoslovakia. It is part of the history of ethnic minorities in Poland. See also Petro Trochanowski for current relevance.Pustelnik (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In-universe and notability
See WP:WAF and WP:N. In short: the Royal Manticoran Navy focuses on in-universe plot summary; save for the lead, the article takes the form of what an Honorverse character might read in a history text. Articles about fictional topics should contain minimal in-universe plot summary and trivia and instead focus on the topic's critical reaction and development. "Notability" for fiction refers to the fictional topic being the subject of significant coverage in multiple third-party sources. The Royal Manticoran Navy probably is not notable, since that particular fictional group I doubt has been the subject of scholarly research or even been the focus of critical commentary. I am restoring the maintenance tags. --EEMIV (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Horodlo Union
Czołem waszmości. Właśnie próbuje coś zrobić z tym artykułem i jeśli mogę, proszę Cię o tłumaczenie kilku zdań z tekstu unii (domyślam się że całość to jednak zbyt wiele). Zależy mi na zdaniach: ''"...wszakże chcąc ziemie owe litewskie i Królestwo Polskie starają się zburzyć i knują ich zniszczenie, w większym bezpieczeństwie i obronie postawić oraz zapewnić im wieczny pożytek, ziemie te, które zawsze pełną władzą i wszelkim prawem dotąd posiadaliśmy i posiadamy od przodków naszych i z porządkiem urodzenia naszego, jako prawy pan – z wolą i zgodą panów, szlachty i bojarów rzeczonemu Królestwu Polskiemu powtórnie znowu wcielamy do wnętrzności kładziemy, przywłaszczamy, złączamy, przyłączamy, sprzymierzamy i na wieki przywiązujemy." ..."Panowie, szlachta i bojarowie ziem naszych litewskich mają na równi z panami i szlachtą Królestwa Polskiego używać i korzystać ze wszystkich udzielonych im przez nas nadań i przywilejów, o ile są katolikami i poddanymi Kościoła Rzymskiego oraz mają nadane klejnoty herbowe." ..."Ustanowione będą na wieczne czasy dygnitarstwa, krzesła i urzędy podług tych które są w Królestwie Polskim, mianowicie wojewoda i kasztelan w Wilnie, Trokach i w innych miejscowościach podług uznania i woli naszej." ..."Po śmierci Aleksandra, czyli Witolda, obecnego w. Księcia litewskiego, panowie i szlachta litewscy nikogo innego nie wezmą ani wybiorą na wielkiego księcia i pana Litwy, lecz tylko tego, kogo król polski lub jego następcy z radą prałatów i panów polskich i litewskich wybiorą i ustanowią. Nawzajem, gdyby król polski zszedł bez dzieci i prawych następców, prałaci panowie i szlachta Królestwa Polskiego nie powinni sobie obierać króla i pana bez wiedzy i zgody naszej, tj. wielkiego księcia Aleksandra, oraz panów i szlachty ziem litewskich"''

Rozumiem, że to mimo wszystko trochę pisania, a i język nie jest współczesny, więc jeśli nie możesz, nie masz czasu, lub zwyczajnie nie chce ci się, to zrozumiem :) Pozdrawiam Mikołajski (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rabka
Na jakies 75% oceniam szanse na razie, ze będę miał wolne miejsce z Katowic i z powrotem. Te 75% wzrosło do 100%, czy malało do 0%? Byłbym zainteresowany. Pozdrawiam. Nemo5576 (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Z zza miedzy, czyli z Zabrza ;) Bez problemu mogę dojechać do Katowic. Nemo5576 (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Harassment
I don't know why you have begun a campaign of harassment against me, inclusing using threats of blocks for my having removed BLP violations, and filing bogus 3RR complaints, but I request and strongly suggest you stop. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I strongly recommend that you cease the harassment, as well, be advised that false claims such as you made on my talk page are a violation of WP:CIVIL. As an admin, I would hope that you would have a better understanding of WP:BLP, 3RR, as well as the impropriety of misusing admin authority for the purposes of harassing editors you disagree with. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz
Please about protect this article, because there is editwar and there are lies and qutoes without Neutral Point of view. But maybe better option will be talk about this article? What you think? Alden or talk with Alden 22:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi - the 3RR report wasn't clear to me as the diffs were quitrte different - I think you need to clarify your report. Regards--Matilda talk 23:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate at WP:3RR it states A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. To me it might be that you are inefficient at undoing an edit and take two edits to undo two different bits of information. I don't think that constitutes breaking the 3RR because he hasn't removed the same content.  That is my view - otehers may vary.  However, because it isn't clear, some clarification in your report might help.  Its just so much easier when the diffs cover exactly the same changes and that isn't the case here. --Matilda talk 00:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Returned
I wanted you to be aware that the "Doctor" has returned from his whirlwind trip to Russia. Interestingly he spent ten days in Jarosław. Well known for his pro-Russian and bolshewik sympathies, he is working with Ghirla now to make more trouble. Please make note. And I can provide telephone transcripts from hospital (his department) made to Russia not from long ago. Good wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.241.230.3 (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear anon. I have no idea what Russia-touring doctor are you talking about, and why would anybody want to know the content of his presumably private telephone conversations? I am not aware of any disruptive activity by Ghirla in months, and I hope it will stay this way. If you think you are in possession of some information important to Wikipedia, perhaps WP:ARBCOM may be of help, I'd suggest emailing them. PS. Also, please consider creating an account.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Cannot register now not to loose job. I hear conversations in broken Russian for Andrei and trip to Russian. Much anti-Polish laughing and to make "Springtime front" plans later. How to tell Arbcom? Transcripts are not talkining but only telephone numbers to and from. It can proove if it is not admitted by longtime vandal kriminal. Can this help stop this?
 * By not registering your IP address is visible to everyone. You should also be aware that this public talk page is watched and regularly read by the editors interested in the issues you discussed above, including the ones you mention. If you think somebody is plotting to damage Wikipedia, you should contact ArbCom (via email); there is nothing I can do here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Arrested defendants of the Polish Post Office in Gdansk.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Arrested defendants of the Polish Post Office in Gdansk.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ochrona przyrody/Protected areas
I thought it was a pretty useful link, since it covers much of the same subject matter, even if the article titles are different. Do you know of a better page to iwlink to?--Kotniski (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Może i powinna, ale dopóki nie ma takiego artykułu, niech będzie ten przydatny link, który będzie pomocny i dla czytelników i dla edytorów, zwłaszcza tych będących w stanie rozszerzyć ten artykuł na coś podobnego do polskiego. Nawet botom nie będzie przedszadzać, bo nie ma konfliktu linków.--Kotniski (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Tag for unsourced maps
Just inform me where to go when you suggest it again, sounds reasonable to me. --ThePiedCow (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Battletech cover legendofthejadephoenix.jpg}
Thank you for uploading Image:Battletech cover legendofthejadephoenix.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Battletech cover patriotsandtyrants.jpg}
Thank you for uploading Image:Battletech cover patriotsandtyrants.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Battletech cover stormsoffate.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Battletech cover stormsoffate.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Socialist Party
Hi. I noticed you've put a merge tag on Jewish Socialist Party. Is there any concrete indication that this was the same as Poalei Zion or is it just an assumption? --Soman (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Although if we can indeed conclude that this is the same as the JSDP 'Poalei Zion', then I'd prefer that the article was moved rather than merged. I think we should keep the Poalei Zion article for the international movement, and retain separate articles of the affiliates of the international movement. The organizational relations of the PZ needs to be clarified, for me the present PZ article is very confusing. --Soman (talk) 06:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But if this is the same as JSDP(PZ), then how to explain the merger into Bund? PZ certainly remained, both the left and right factions, in Polish politics during WWII. --Soman (talk) 09:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Am reading Rick Kuhn's biog of Grossman. They are completely different parties - perhaps Polish wiki is wrong? JSPD/ZSDP was break from social democratic movement, and highly critical of PZ. Am trying to edit relevant pages with material from Kuhn's book. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz
Please unprotect this article, because there are write rot by some sysops and this article has been protected by Gamaiel. I think that his edition in this article are..few stupid or few not-think, so can you unprotect it? Alden or talk with Alden 21:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Piotr! Thanks for the kind words on my talk page.  I was just talking with Boodles about the Engel article, and he generously provided some quotes from it on his talk page.  The material might be helpful in getting a viable compromise about the quote/thesis of the book; there should be some stuff at the piast institute giving the opposite POV.  Cheers,John Z (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wawelberg Group
Why have you speedy closed the proposed merge discussion after just a few hours, rather than let the discussion develop for a consensus at Talk:Wawelberg Group? Please revert your removal of the {merge} tag until a proper consensus is reached. JGHowes talk  -  23:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Alp38
User:Alp38, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alp38 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Alp38 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

All good
Hi Piotrus, glad all is sorted about the mfd. Perhaps you could design a bi-lateral tag for your project group's pages when it's a combined wiki-uni thing. (A suggestion arising from the discussion.)

Just a comment on your user page – and I don't know, it might be because I use Safari, but your yellow ("You have new messages") box repeats vertically on the left, covering the nav information but behind the search box, and the blue one ("Please add new ") also repeats vertically, but on the right. Thought you might like feedback on how it appears on this browser, cheers. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Kategoria
W tej kategorii co jakiś czas rozrabiam :) Ale faktycznie ostatnio ją zapuściłem. Jak znajdziesz czas to zrób fotkę synagogi ;) Nemo5576 (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Page moves
A 8-day long discussion on tennis-related biographies was held and notes with links were posted on most, if not all, articles that are to be affected. The situation was presented and consensus was overwhelming, including there users involved with tennis-related articles who had initially resisted the moves. Nothing was done impromptu. Using diacritics is indeed in line with our naming conventions, as long as there is no verifiable preferred different-from-native spelling used throughout the English-speaking world, in which case the title of the article follows that spelling &mdash; I explained that to Darwinek in his talk page. The fact that it is being done on other parts of Wikipedia does not mean that it is not incorrect &mdash; as I mentioned, using diacritics in article titles can be correct or incorrect, depending on circumstances none of which can be named as "someone else was already doing it before". Further, arguments such as the one Darwinek mentioned in connection with discussions regarding Ice Hockey players &mdash; which, as I explained to him, represent different circumstances from those of tennis players &mdash; which ammounted to "it doesn't do any harm because there's always diacritics-free redirects" are completely inapt to justify the superseding of the English language on the English-language Wikipedia. That only happens if and when the English language does not have a widely used version of its own that can be verified. The moves in tennis-related biographies are following that. For other instances, such as Ice Hockey, to go back to the example I worked with when explaining to Darwinek, I cannot be certain, it may well be the case that there is no English-language preferred spelling, in which case we will correctly use the native spelling, diacritics or not. I would refer you to my comments on Darwinek's talk page once again for a lenghier explanation on that. Redux (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The criterion is: used widely in the English-speaking world. It is not the case of seeing if other spellings are used in Russia, China and Saudi Arabia and determining that those countries' populations combined are larger than the population of the entire English-speaking world.  Also irrelevant to verify how many Wikipedia users use any given spelling in their daily lives.  What matters in this Wikipedia is: a) is that spelling widely used in the English-speaking world? and b) is that verifiable?  Since for tennis the answer for both is "yes", we will use the English-language spelling.  Again, refer to my comments on Darwinek's talk page for more in-depth comments on that regard.  Redux (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Cvc42 and Jacurek
The first clue should have been when a new editor asked for an existing editor to be unblocked, and then attacked that blocked editor's opponent. As for your other edits, reverting the edits of blocked editors is not vandalism, nor is removing pleonasms. Please be more civil in the future. Jayjg (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you are incorrect. Jacurek had been banned for 3 months, and rolling back a banned editors editors is hardly forbidden by policy; on the contrary, and proxying for a banned editor is forbidden. Please review BAN, and in the future, please avoid describing the rollback of a banned editors edits as "vandalism". Jayjg (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Zaproszenie
Dzieki za zaproszeni, zapewne skorzystam w przyszlosci po dluzszym odpoczynku od wszystkiego zwiazanego z Wikipedia. Roo72 (talk) 07:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

neutral input
The entire section called "background", which I recall seeing yesterday, is now gone -- which is what I would have recommended. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Eros and (Keer)
Greetings!

Eros and Civilization was created by you? That's very cool.

--Kiyarr lls ton 23:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

page protect
Hi, could you please semiprotect Slavic peoples? Look at the history, IPs keep adding strange things (serbs are nigerians?) Ostap 00:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 50
It may not be weekly, but Wikipedia Weekly has finally reached Episode 50! Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.


 * Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!
 * Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!
 * Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!
 * Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!

For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODU P bot  00:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Sociology of the Internet
Hello Piotrus! How are you? You have created another interesting article: Sociology of the Internet. If the article can be expanded, it will qualify for the DYK. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My guess is it qualifies for barnstar for creativity and good humor, but we don't have such one yet, huh? greg park avenue (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Painter Please
I am interested in the painter of the Image contained in your article: "Jan Długosz House in Sandomierz Sandomierz, Poland. Diocesan museum. Christ carrying the cross. Italian painter, 17th century. Uses Chiaroscuro (Światłocień)".

If you can help, thank you.

God Bless, Best Regards

Joe M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.253.154 (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Joe. Please consider registering at Wikipedia, it will ease any future communication. I believe the painter is simply unknown (as I've written in my description). You may try writing to the museum and ask them for more details. If you need help with translation, after registering, try discussion of WP:PWNB, I am sure somebody will be happy to translate a letter and reply. I hope you'll stick around and contribute articles and images to our project! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
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 (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

History of Poland
Can you take a look at the History of Poland or Prehistory of Poland articles and tell me what's going on there? Orczar (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Maps
Reason pretty simple: for layout purposes. Both maps essentially convey the same info, but when both present there is a ton of white space, crushed text, etc. I choose GDL map because (a) it is in English, (b) easier to understand (can testify from personal experience), (c) more detailed (more rivers, cities, ect.), (d) more pleasing to the eye, including colors, (e) much easier to see other voivodeships. The way I see it, GDL map is way superior. Renata (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, Image:IRPŻmudzkie.PNG is inaccurate. Renata (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Map making error. If you look carefully the line is in place, but a small chunk is not colored in red. I saw your comments. Renata (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Polish witch trials
Hello Piotrus! I am interested in witch trials, and I think every country should be represented in the subject. As for Poland, it's hard to find anything about this on the net. I think it would be most interesting to have a Polish with trial represented here on wikipedia. Most countrys are alredy represented. I have heard about only two cases; two old women burned in 1793, and Barbara Zdunk, executed in 1811. These where mentioned on the net with very few words. Do you have any information about this? I do not know if you are interested in the subject, but as I saw you are interested in historical articles, I thought I should try. I truly would be grateful just for a stub - as they have a tendency to develope if they are just started - or a name to google. I have asked this question on the Poland portal as well. Hopefully--Aciram (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for taking the time to give me such a long answer! I do think every country should be represtend; one might, to give a coverage of the witch hunt in each country, name: the first and the last case; the biggest case; and the most well known and "famous" case. The difficulty to search the net for this, is the lack of specific words; if you just search on "Witch trials Poland", the chances are small. What you need, to my experience, is for example names on the people involved, or places and years, to get a chance on google....I supose you would need the same to recquest the articles? I should have added that I can't speak Polish, but I will look forward to your future stubs, if you do decide to make them! --Aciram (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a template including witch trials from alla over the Western world. It is inserted in all (?) of the existing witch trial articles here, I think, which is very practical: Template:Witch Hunt. The most developed article is, of course, Salem Witch trials. The others often need to be developed, but it's hard, as much is'nt translated to English, so this have to take a while. Though the witch hunt differed much in Europe, alla countries had them, and all should be represented, I think. Other cases missing are the trials conducted in France by Nicholas Rémy. --Aciram (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

History of Poland
This has apparently been fixed for now. Under the Piast section there is a link to "From Fragmentation to Rebirth". The article has been removed, but before it had substance in it and this text was popping up on the top of the History of Poland and Prehistory of Poland articles, some technical problem I guess... Orczar (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Pilecki photo 1947.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Pilecki photo 1947.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. BJ Talk 12:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Armia Krajowa Copyedit.
Hey, just thought I'd let you know that I've done some copyediting on Armia Krajowa today. Feel free to check it over & change any of my mistakes. Hope it helps. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 18:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
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 (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Polish culture during World War II
Congratulations and keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemlock Martinis (talk • contribs) 15:27, April 2, 2008

Image copyright problem with Image:1660 Polish Russian War.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:1660 Polish Russian War.PNG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:Alfredo Stroessner military.jpg
 * Image:303 plane picture.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions.

I've nominated the EVE Online category for renaming
Hi, Piotrus. My name's Aexus. Back in June 2006 you created the EVE Online category. To comply with the trademarks guideline of the Wikipedia Manual of Style I have nominated the category to be renamed to its correctly spelled version of Eve Online. Actually the all-capitalized EVE is correct; however, it doesn't comply with the Manual of Style. In Wikipedia's terms it's therefore incorrect. I inform you of the nomination in case you disagree and want to discuss it. You can discuss it on the Categories for discussion page. Below is the according template.

Smile!
has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Talk:Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk)
What in particular do you want me to see?

About w:commons:Image:Flaga Rzeczpospolitej Obojga Narodow.svg

 * Done! I am waiting for your new photos. Regards. Gustavo (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I was reading with interest the/your article about the Polish magnates interventions in Moldavia, don´t you think this (or something like this) may be a better and clear name? Congratulation for this article. By the way, I will take profit of this photo of the monastery right now. Gustavo (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Piotr,


 * Done!

w:commons:Image:Wieniawa CoA in Lezajsk monastery.JPG



Regards, Gustavo (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Sociology Wikibook
Piotr, glad to have you on board. Please feel free to edit any of the pages in the Wikibook. I'm a bit busy with a few other projects right now, so I haven't been spending much time with Wikibooks, but I hope to later this summer. (Also, I thought my email was enabled. Sorry about that.  Should be now.)  Best.--Rcragun (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Citizendium
The trolls are an issue, but, more fundamentally, I'm finding I don't believe in Wikipedia's models, pillars, or whatever. First, I am an expert in several fields. I am really not interested in tracking down secondary sources for things I know intimately, when I can, after credential verification, simply write on a subject. By all means, challenge for substance, but the model of "encyclopedic" here doesn't match my understanding of how some of the well-regarded paper encyclopedia articles are written: by subject matter experts.

The thing, I believe, that tore it for me was when I asked for peer review on an article, hoping for comment on the substance, and essentially got back nothing but suggestions on how to meet Wikipedia criteria for getting it to higher class, or even featured articles. It struck me that if everything I ever wrote on Wikipedia became a featured article, I would feel no different about my contributions here. It meant something when I published my first book with a reputable publisher, even more when I did a second, proving it was no fluke, and then went off to a different publisher and established I could meet other criteria. In like manner, I've felt good about doing peer-reviewed research. If I got criticism, it was specific and constructive, rather than a drive-by tag of "too long" or "not encyclopedic", with absolutely no specifics on what was wrong.

So far, I haven't missed Wikipedia. I have missed some of the people, including yourself, but, when I look at my WP watchlist, I see not collaboration on articles where I feel I've accomplished something, but vandalism, or demands specialized material "be made simple", or reverting, for it seems the 99th time, material that was deleted by someone that clearly did not understand the subject.

You mentioned impact. I really don't feel I have any on Wikipedia, when there is no qualified review of content. I stopped editing in the Computer Networking Project, about the tenth time someone reverted something I wrote because their textbook said something else -- and I happened to have been involved in the primary research. Recently, I almost went back and reverted a deletion of some technical terms about insurgency, which I stated had no expert-accepted meaning and were basically sound bytes. The anon editor cited a source, which turned out to be a dictionary, rather than any authoritative work in the field.

Why bother? That cycle repeats again and again. I simply don't find the aggravation is worth the few rewards, or that I'm actually accomplishing anything. After 40-plus years of working in electronic collaboration, I find that sort of frustration characteristic of a fully anonymous forum, as distinct from where there may be pseudonyms, but they have been verified.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as a personal article, I would be a little hesitant, although I'd be glad to participate in something with a broader scope. Setting aside readership, CZ has its own problems, one of which is taking what is acknowledged as an easier route by determining people are "editor-qualified" because they have a terminal degree in a discipline -- indeed, a bachelor's degree is currently a requirement to be a "constable", which is similar to, but different from, a WP "administrator."


 * In my mind, there can be a significant difference between being "educated" and "having gone through a formal academic process". This is especially true of newer fields of learning, and also interdisciplinary fields. For example, the first undergraduate program in computer science, blessed by a professional society, was formed in 1968. When I worked in corporate research at Nortel, my job called for a "doctorate or equivalent", but, at least in my lab, no one had a doctorate in computer science, network engineering, etc. One person had a doctorate in physics. The person with the most peer-reviewed publications was a college dropout.


 * The disciplined autodidact should be more, not less, common with the kinds of resources available today. When I first did some independent research, it started in high school (microbial biochemistry, specifically of antibiotic resistance). Literature searching was totally manual. Somewhat later, there were bibliographic systems like MEDLINE, with a complex query language, not at all "user-friendly", that would let me do things that I can't do with Google search.


 * Don't knock the 15-year-old, as I think of my own experience at 15 or 16. I started with a small interesting note in one biochemistry index, and started working out a hypothesis and experiment. At one point, I needed to refer to the Michaelis-Menten equations for competitive inhibition, so I looked them up. Since there was no authority figure to tell me that either I didn't have the background to follow something using partial differential equations, or that I had to go through a specific learning sequence, I pulled down math texts until I could follow -- not derive -- what these equations show.


 * Disciplined 15-year-olds may be rare, but they exists. In like manner, there are college undergraduates, and even graduate students, that will argue with primary sources, or even the person responsible for the primary source, because their textbook -- wrongly -- disagrees with the point the expert WP contributor wrote. Mind you, I once had an argument with one of my professors, which was only resolved when I convinced him to look at the author list of the document in question, and find me among them. I've had WP "editors" tell me that a reference that I wrote, and went through a peer review process specific to the domain, could not be used to change something on WP.


 * Publications, perhaps in a somewhat broader context than formal peer review, is one way of assessing competency. When it comes to the CZ concept of "editor", which includes subject matter expertise as well as some diplomatic ability to mentor, I have the silly idea that having written and edited books might show some competence. I also believe, in many disciplines, that demonstrable experience with building domain-specific systems is qualifying.


 * As you may know, one of my interests is intelligence, in the military and strategic sense. There are several other people at Wikipedia that have subject matter expertise. There are enough nuanced comments to recognize that (1) someone does have the real-world experience and (2) due to security restrictions, cannot source commentary.


 * I'd be happy to discuss this in email. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Anon harassment
Anon trolls are hardly a problem. Much worse are fringe and sponsored movements with specific agenda. A ny party representing sophiscated propaganda of a nationalist state or extremist movement(for example revisionists) would prove very destructive to Wikipedia if dedicated enought as they have their own sources and ideologists that could be used; to quote:

''If 20-30+ people ever figured out how to smartly work together by the "rules" of Wikipedia, they wouldn't control an article, they would be in position to launch themselves into control of nearly anything. Imagine if Microsoft or Google simply made a WP PR team. 40 editors, all coordinating. Making sure only 30% of their work was on MS or Google related content. Play by the rules, plan, wait, execute. By the time 6-12 months rolled around they could have 20 of 40 or more as admins with no one the wiser. Edit from home IPs. Cake. Next thing you know, they quietly have a consensus lockdown on any article at any time, and can theoretically cross-promote each other via RFA to adminship. Scary. Mivonks 07:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)''

Cheers...--Molobo (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Chiu Kajira
A "She" and categorized as "Jap male singers"? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 21:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL I did wonder if it was a "she-he" Dana International type -you never know!! Just kidding with you. Keep up the good work translating  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 21:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Social Scientists?
Hello Piotrus! How are you? I was reading the biographies of Émile Durkheim and Max Weber. I noticed that they have Infobox Person. I think we need something like Infobox Social Scientists. Or, we can change Infobox Person with Infobox Scientist. What do you think? Regards, Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 02:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki links on disambiguation pages
I noticed you've discussed this in the past, so I thought you might be interested in this discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Swantipolk II of Pomerania
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Swantipolk II of Pomerania, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Swantipolk II of Pomerania is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Swantipolk II of Pomerania, 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. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

prośba o info
szczegóły na Twojej dyskusji na plwiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.27.152.118 (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Co adoption
Hello, I am looking to be co adopted. My current adoptor is User:Diligent Terrier, I would just like two different critiques. I know you aren't looking for an adoptee, but I hope you will say yes to this co adoption. I am a Novice Editor, but with enough edits to be an Apprentice (it's the service time holding me back). Please reply as soon as possible, either on your talk page or mine--LAA Fan 19:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

RE:Infobox Scientist
Hello Piotrus! I think it should be mentioned in Infobox Scientist that it could also be used for social scientists. Regards, Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 05:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple instructions for "User-Committed Identity"
I saw your comment at Template_talk:User_committed_identity. Many people have asked for similar help. Please try my attempt at such simple instructions here. Hope they help. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
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 (talk) 06:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Reminder
Can you please get back to me as soon as possible? If you're unable to co-adopt, just tell me; I won't be upset.--LAA Fan 18:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Molobo
As Sciurinæ pointed out, one can count this as the first revert (an undoing of this edit). The second revert was here, the third revert was here, and the fourth was here (a partial revert of this edit). There is nothing in WP:3RR that states that all reverts must be identical, and the policy also clearly says, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." Khoikhoi 03:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a revert of vandalism, because the anon's edit appears to have been made in good faith. He left an edit summary, "war didnt start in wielun/ citation of GDR novel of 1967 is a no source." If he did not provide any explanation (if he just blanked the paragraph for no reason), then yes, I would consider the edit to be vandalism. However, he provided a rational for his edit, which makes me believe that it was not made in bad faith. As for this, it doesn't matter if he added a source or not. He still restored the material that the anon removed, and he still did this without making any comments at Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II. WP:BRD is interesting, but keep in mind that it is not an official policy or guideline, and it appears that Molobo made no effort to seek consensus in the first place. I have no objection to a CheckUser of Sciurinæ, and am well-aware of his previous interactions with Molobo. In fact I had no part in proposing an indef. ban for Molobo, which is why I only blocked him for a week. I was eventually convinced by the others at WP:AN/I. Even if he didn't break 3RR, he was definitely edit warring without discussion, something that he has been previously blocked for again and again. You also forgot to mention that he was mass-reverting across multiple articles, something that is disruptive as well. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 04:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, well it will be interesting to hear what Moreschi has to say, but until then I will stand by my decision until I can be convinced that Molobo has changed. BTW, according to the bottom of User talk:134.93.60.170, there are suspicions that it belongs to . <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 04:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Siege of Mantua
You may want to respond to the comment I made on the DYK suggestions page. Gatoclass (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

kobylanski (pl.wiki)
Moglbys prosze zajac stanowisko w sprawie edycji polskich administratorow w hasle Kobylanski na pl.wiki? Moim zdaniem nie stosuja sie do zalecen (do tej pory nie przetlumaczonych na jezyk polski). Szczegoly znajdziesz na stronie dyskusji -> w sekcji "Wstawianie kontrowersji do zyciorysu (@ Adamt)". Pozdrawiam, Uprzejmy (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Battle of Zhovti Vody
When I assessed it a whole section was unreferenced. As the B-class criteria states it should be. Sorry. <font color=#666666>weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, feel free. :)  <font color=#006600>weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  19:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Lithuania
Hi. I'm afraid the other editor may be right about the specific placement of the quote.

The sentence and its source are about the role of the Lithuanian Activist Front (LAF) and the Provisional Government in killing Jews. The quote you'd like to add, and the article from which it comes, concern an attempt to equate the violence of the Lithuanian partisans with the Holocaust in Lithuania. While those who argue that the LAF and the Provisional Government played no role in killing Jews may be engaging in historical revisionism, that's not what the head of Yad Vashem is referring to in the quote.

You could incorporate the quote into a different sentence, however, since it does address the matter of how Lithuanians remember the Holocaust (the subject of the paragraph), something like:


 * In February 2008, the chairman of Yad Vashem said that the Lithuanian government was equating the actions of anti-Nazi partisans with those of the Nazis and their collaborators, which he described as "destructive historical revisionism ... taking place in Lithuania".

I hope this helps. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

RE:Assessments
Hi Piotrus, I am always happy to expand on my comments or provide additional comments if you want them. Replies are at Talk:Polish-Austrian War and Talk:Zamość Uprising. I will get to the remaining articles on the milhist requests page soon. Any questions can be left on my talkpage, regards. Woody (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don´t
try to help others by suggesting me to be a neo-Nazi, as you did here. Fiction was taken for fact, no need to insult anyone. Thanks --134.93.60.170 (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Przemyśl
Is it correct to call Przemyśl a historic Ukrainian area? Ostap 04:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. It seems obvious but another editor apparently disputes it, I figure you know best. Ostap 04:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I wrote up a long-winded talk page defense, but I see you changed it. I suppose your version is better, I thought its Polish heritage was implied since it is after all in Poland. I guess its best to be clear. And no, there was no imperialist rhetoric intended :) Thanks for the help. Ostap 04:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Events involving the League of Nations
Seems reasonable to me... I thought I would try to build up the category a little before making too many sub-categories. Feel free to make it (and a UN equivalent) though.. Events? Conflicts? Crises? I'm not sure which name is best. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday
Idontknow 610 TM 13:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Vilna Offensive
Sure. Most of it's pretty minor stuff like tense-usage, I should be able to fix it up either today or tomorrow. Cam (Chat) 21:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've got the first two sections done, I still have to do "the offensive" and "russian counterattacks", but from a quick look-over those shouldn't take me too long. Cam (Chat) 22:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ping!. Cam (Chat) 18:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem! It was close enough that all it needed was the copyedit, glad I could help. Cam (Chat) 19:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jakub Błaszczykowski.jpg
Witaj. Na en:wiki załadowane jest zdjęcie Image:Jakub Błaszczykowski.jpg, niestety marnej jakości. Na commons mamy zdjęcie Jakuba o wiele lepszej jakości (commons:Image:Jakub Błaszczykowski.jpg). Niestety z powodu identycznej nazwy obu plików, wywołanie zdjęcia w artykule powoduje wyświetlenie wersji z en:wiki, czyli o wiele gorszej. Czy mógłbyś zmienić nazwę pliku na en:wiki tak, aby można było do artykułu wstawić fotkę z commons? Mógłbym ją przenieść, ale jest tak marnej jakości, że nie uważam tego pomysłu za najlepszy. Pozdrawiam, pjahr (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Masz w ogóle zamiar coś z tym zrobić, administratorze? pjahr (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Karol Adamiecki
Przepraszam, I believe you are confusing priority with cause. The Michał Kalecki page is also special pleading rather than NPOV. What tends to happen is that at a certain stage in culture, different people have similar ideas because they are looking at the same problem. Do your reference books specifically state how Henry Gantt got to hear of Adamiecki's unpublished work and then stole it? If so, it is legitimate to say the Gantt chart is a modified Harmonogram. If they just assert it or note it was around earlier, then it is a slander on Gantt. I was about to write (based on the Marsh article which I have) what the harmonogram was and how it was superior, but I don't think I'll bother now. (And why does the Polish Wikipedia not have a decent article on the harmonogram?)Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't agree. They indicate independent invention on the pages you cite.  Only the first reference (is the author by any chance of Polish origin?) in any way asserts they are the same, but does not give a reason on the page you cite. I stand by my statement that (for the purposes of an encylopedia entry) the most which can be confidently said is that the Harmonogram is similar to the Gantt chart.Chemical Engineer (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RSUE - Non-English sources
There's a bit of discussion at WT:MHCOORD and a couple of drafts. Input there would be appreciated prior to taking this to WT:V. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 22:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You may be interested in this proposal to revise the text for articles using non-English sources. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 06:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Murowana Oszmianka
Hi, you may have missed this but I provided a GA Review for the article some days ago and placed the article on hold. The seven day period for improvements will run from today.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Lithuanian-Soviet War
Not following what you are trying to say. See Lithuanian Wars of Independence. Renata (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The wars and maps are on my (humongously long) to-do list. Lithuanians were part of the Daugpils battle, just don't know to what extent. It's obscure topic and needs some digging. Renata (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The lines & states are there because the source map had them. I do not have enough data to move the frontline to where it was in February (in any case, January is supposed to show greatest extent). Some goes for Belarus SSR borders. If you have any maps that can be used for that purpose, let me know. Renata (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ouch.
From User:Piotrus/RfA review: Unless you are a nobody, you will face objects due to not being perfect.

ouch.

 Horologium  (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618) FAR
Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Berkunt (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Serious concerns have been raised regarding the near complete lack of in-line citations in the article that is being reviewed, and it has been suggested that the prose of the article also needs a lot of attention. In its current state, the article will likely be downgraded from FA-class.  Contributions by you regarding the review would be appreciated.EasyPeasy21 (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrative divisions overview
From what I see, the administrative division of Polish territories after partitions article is supposed to serve as an overview of administrative division of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, administrative division of Duchy of Warsaw, and administrative division of Congress Poland, correct? I can't say I like the existing implementation all that much (there is too much overlapping and intertwining between the articles on administrative divisions and the general history articles), but the idea itself seems to have merit. The name of the article definitely needs changing, though; to what exactly, I have no opinion, but you'll have to agree on the new title based on the existing academic studies of the subject (only if it is impossible would the article fall under WP:SYN).

I'd have to agree with the removal of Polish names here, primarily on the grounds of this being the English Wikipedia, in which English names matter the most. Polish names can be added to the articles on the actual governorates in cases where doing so is warranted.

In this edit, I understand Irpen's intent, but it doesn't seem to agree with what the paragraph intends to convey: it does not claim that all of the territories in the list were Polish or Lithuanian, but rather lists the governorates into which the territories that were Polish or Lithuanian had been incorporated. I can see how the list can be misintepreted if one takes the current title of the article into consideration.

All this is strictly my personal opinion, of course, but I hope it helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Vin americanii!
Hi, Piotrus. Do you know of a similar phenomenon to the one in this new article of mine having taken place in Poland? (Apparently there were similar hopes in other Eastern Bloc countries, but my sources deal mostly with Romania.) If so, and if you have material, it could be an interesting subject to explore. Biruitorul Talk 22:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Polish articles
I think I have retired from Polish articles. You know I can't just copyedit but need first to read sources to find the right wording and so it would be a massive undertaking, after which one is criticised for bias by the usual crowd. You seem to have the leather skin required for this arena, but I have found quieter waters. I'm sorry to chicken out. qp10qp (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

move by mistake
please correct your move by mistake, see Talk:Lębork-Bytów Land. thank you Skäpperöd (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
By the order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of your outstanding contributions to Polish military history, including the creation of numerous Featured Articles, A-Class articles, and Good Articles on the subject. For the coordinators, Kirill (prof) 01:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hill forts
A question regarding this - don't you think that it would be better to split them into articles by the regions, and provide links to main article, that describes the general concept. Because for now it seems that moving all references into one place would create a bigger mess than it is now.--Lokyz (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
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 (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Cold War Culture request
Hello...I saw that you made some comments in the Cold War FA reqest talk page, so I'd like to ask for your help with the Culture during the Cold War page, as it does not have a world-wide point of view, and I'd like for it to have a less US-centric view. Do you have information that you can add? Or do you have contact with others than can add some information that is from some other point of view? Thanks! Hires an editor (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And another request, if I may - surely you have an opinion on this? Maybe this too? Biruitorul Talk 13:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Hello Piotrus. How are you? I withdrew my nomination. Thank you for supporting my RfA. Most editors who opposed my RfA expressed that I need to argue better in AfDs. I will take care about the concerns raised by them and apply again after sometime. Regards, Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 12:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And if you have any suggestion for me, please post a note on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 12:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

an attempt to earn an extra point : )
Here is a link to the diff of my edit (I hope it works!)


 * 


 * See you in class tomorrow.
 * Abby Koch : NurseAbby (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Class Edit Diff- zlj2755
Here is my edit for our class. It is under "Sergei Gonchar." He is a hockey player for the Pittsburgh Penguins. Here is the link showing the difference.  Zlj2755 (talk) 05:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Technological singularity GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Technological singularity and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages of a few other editors and several related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Kazimiera Szczuka
Zerknij, jakiś Czech (chyba ?) rozrabia, w każdej wersji doklejając link do "śmiesznego" filmiku, wandalizuje mi też stronę na pl. Przynajmniej jedno konto ma wulgarną nazwę. Pozdrawiam, Szwedzki (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not connected with vandalism at pl, I only read discussion at cs, where you lost and failed to prove your dubious claims. --Markéta Svobodová (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Election sejm of 1632
The article Election sejm of 1632 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Election sejm of 1632 for things needed to be addressed. Skinny87 (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Template of admin divisions
I would counsel using "Poland-Lithuania", remember at the time of the initial union Poland was the smaller state (as I recall). Given the to-and-fro of the "great" (at the time) powers over central/eastern Europe over the centuries, I definitely support the notability and usefulness of the template. —PētersV (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)