User talk:Piotrus/Archive 26

Szczyrzyc County
I will try to expand it, but sources are always a problem. Tymek (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Earthdawn rulebook 2e 200.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earthdawn rulebook 2e 200.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Your workshop
Is this the kind of support you really want? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting, I appreciate it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the difference is that Greg is speaking on your behalf, and Boodles is not speaking on my behalf. As for cabals, I would think that the fact that nothing I could say is going to change Boodle's views or behavior should be evidence that we are two unconnected people. As for the charges of anti-Semitism, well, Greg did make an anti-Semitic remark - in my own view - and I explained why I thought so to him. He never responded, except to attack me. I'd say that behavior speaks for itself. But I know he and you are independent editors, and as I said the only reason I raised this particular comment on your talk page is because Greg made it in the context of explicitly speaking on your behalf. Again, I thank you for your own comment. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"I don't bother with our Lithuanian friends - they were pals or allies of us polacks since centuries - we always get along and will find common ground, mind just Boody and his obvious supporters/sockpuppets who seem to play Jew but they don't sound like that." The phrase "play Jew" is offensive, especially in this context where it is being used as a slur (to act like a "Jew" = bad). My initial response to reading this was not to accuse Greg of anti-Semitism. In part, this is what I wrote on his talk page:
 * The issue at hand is your suggesting someone is "playing the Jew" which is patently offensive. I am willing to wait to for more evidence to see if you are really an anti-Semite, but let's say you aren't: your comment remains inappropriate and uncivil. If an editor makes an edit to an article, the only question is, was the edit compliant with our content policies and well-written? If an editor makes a comment on a talk page, the only question is, does the comment help move towards an improvement in the article, either by raising an important issue, clarifying something, adding important facts, raising questions about the policy-compliance of article contents, etc. You can discuss all of this without suggesting that someone is or is not a Jew, and suggesting that someone is "playing the Jew" is just an ad hominem attack.

I was attempting to be constructive by pointing out that discussion based on policy or the substance of a dispute rather than ad hominem remarks would serve him better in his conflict with Boodles.

Instead of responding to my constructive suggestion, he simply attacked. His response:
 * I have already apologized to sensitive people as you, so this remark about "race-baiting" is superfluous. If I used the phrase "playing the Palestinian" you wouldn't probably object, even if Palestinians belong to the same semitic race as the Jews. Same about "playing the American" even if Americans are multi-race community. I believe all people are equal, that's why I support one-state Israel/Palestine as you can see on my user page. You may believe some words are holy as "Lord" in Second Commandment and should be used only in reverence, but don't expect me to believe in that crap and save your sermon for someone who wants to hear just that. You're shopping in the wrong store. greg park avenue (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If it is not evident to you how this response itself is offensive, I quote in full my reply.


 * Greg, please consult our WP:AGF standards, because you ought to be taking what I wrote in good faith. You have just in effect declared - and this is only our first interaction - that you will not comply with our WP:AGF policy. You are refusing to assume good faith when you say I am "sensitive" - what I wrote was about policy, not about my own sensitivities. Also, you did not apologize to me, but then again, I did not ask you to apologize to me and I do not know why you insist on making this personal unless it is just a function of your refusal to WP:AGF. You also show contempt for WP:AGF when you put words in my mouth, so to speak, when you write "If I used the phrase "playing the Palestinian" you wouldn't probably object." What did I ever write that suggested I would not object? I ask you to tell me why I would not object to this. You have made an accusation against me, now back it up with some evidence or reasoning. Why di dyou write this about me? You also write "You may believe some words are holy as "Lord" in Second Commandment and should be used only in reverence." Why do you write this? Why do you think I believe such words are holy? "but don't expect me to believe in that crap" - but I never wrote that I expect you to believe in that "crap." So why did you write what you wrote?
 * Greg, I wrote a lot of things that have to do with Wikipedia being an encyclopedial, and Wikipedia policy, and you have not responded to anything I wrote. Greg, please comply with WP:AGF and respond to what I wrote.
 * Greg, instead of responding to what I wrote, you made five claims about what I think. Greg, please comply with WP:AGF and do me the courtesy of explaining why you believe I believe or think these five things. Thank you, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I gave Greg the benefit of the doubt by not concluding even then that he is an anti-Semite but by asking him politiely to explain why he continued to make personal remarks about me. He never answered my questions. At this point I can only assume that someone who insists on making a conflict personal by assuming that my identity somehow means that my comments cannot be about policy, or about attempts to work together, or how to make Wikipedia a better place, but that my identity instead has to become an issue ... well, now I know he is an anti-Semite. He is acting just like the generic anti-Semite Sartre describes in Anti-Semite and Jew. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, after this exchange you posted the following comment:
 * This is a good advice. Discuss content, not editors or their motivations. Most people edit in good faith, some get carried away. You yourself have gotten carried away and said some things that should not have been said. I suggest keeping cool all the time, and creating content - we are here to build an encyclopedia, not convince other editors of a perceived error in their ways.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

which was more or less what I tried to say to Greg at the start. I still wanted him to answer my questions (to explain why he was making the insinuations about me he made) but look, if he really were to take your advice, i would be glad. I am not sure that he is capable of it, though. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I posted this on my talk page too: Piotrus, the problem is suggesting that there is a "Jewish POV." Now, in some cases, this may well be the point (for example it comes up in the Jesus article). But there are many articles - even about Jews -in which there is no "Jewish" POV. Just to be clear what I mean, when it comes to the historical facts, and the arguments historians and others have made about the causes, of the Holocaust (i.e. when we are not talking about the theological dimension) there is no "Jewish" POV, just as there is no "German" POV. Was there something particularly "Jewish" about Boodles' edits? Not that I could tell. Why portray his edits as "Jewish" edits and not the edits of a good-faith editor refering to verifiable sources for notable points of view (i.e. notable historians)? As for Greg - as you said, his comment was offensive. Offensive remarks predicated on someone's race are called racist remarks. Offensive remarks predicated on someone's being Jewish are called anti-Semitic remarks. If he just said "You are a stupid moron with a small penis" he would be offensive, but not anti-semitic. See the dif? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, also posted on my talk page: I never said there was no Jewish POV, only that not all POVs are Jewish POVs. It is offensive to suggest that anything a Jew believes expresses a "Jewish POV." That is like calling the theory of relativity, or psychoanalysis, "Jewish science." There are lots of Jewish POVs, but Einstein's POV was that of a theoretical physisict, not a Jew. My views on AGF or CIVL or NPOV do not represent some "Jewish POV." A Jew can even have a view on the number of victims of the Holocaust without it being a "Jewish" POV, it can be the view of a historian, or sociologist. Do you think that my initial comment to Greg, in which I said that his remark about playing Jew was offensive but that I would not jump to the conclusion that he was an anti-Semite, and in which I urged him to argue over edits based on policy and sources and not based on ad hominem remarks, was the expression of a "Jewish" POV? Do you think I would have made a different comment were I an Episcopalian from Nigeria? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And are you really saying that you are only a Pole? If you prefer oranges over apples, is it because you are Polish? Do you really not believe you are also a human being, or an individual, and have views that are not "Polish" as such? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Solty.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Solty.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Fansub sites are NOT valid sources for any images. Linking to them violates WP:COPYRIGHT. If this is not an official image that can not be sourced from an official website, publication, or a legal sales site, it needs to be replaced with a valid image. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A technical question
When I am trying to access this and only this sub-page: Requests for arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence from my PC, it tells: "Redirect Loop,", "The browser has stopped trying to retrieve the requested item. The site is redirecting the request in a way that will never complete.", and so on. My UNIX computer tells: "Redirected limit for this URL exceeded... This may be cased by cookies that are blocked". Note that all other WP pages and even sub-pages of your case work just fine. Do you know what it means? You are an admin after all... Thanks, Biophys (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

WW30 etc.
Hi,

As a returning English Wikipedia user/admin I'm definitely behind the times and have only started catching up with things. No surprise I came across your WW30 interview only yesterday. Needless to say I enjoyed listening to it very much (despite your "heavy Polish accent" ;-)) and a few things you said in the interview are food for thought for me now. Oddly enough I only recently learned how prolific, distinguished and ardent WP user you are. It seems that there's something fundamentally wrong with the Wikipedia process when people like you are put through such stressful and unpleasant (to say the least) procedure.

A thought that occurred to me in connection with your "case". There should be a line drawn between examples of incivility, harassment, stalking, rudeness or name calling and (even very ignited) disputes over POV and article content. I think everyone editing in a very biased or POV way but in good faith should be given a large margin of the benefit of the doubt and not only a chance but several chances to stay active and constructive in the project. I must say I'm impressed with your composure and integrity in these circumstances because I think I wouldn't be so steadfast in a position like this.

Take care, Kpjas (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What's the deadline for my comments at ArbCom ? Kpjas (talk) 05:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Railroadtyccon screenshot.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Railroadtyccon screenshot.jpg. 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 description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 63
Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 63, an interview with Florence Devouard, has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org.  W ODU P bot  07:00, 3 October 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.

FAR: Virtuti Militari
Virtuti Militari 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. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 15:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Polish-Lithuanian disputes
Thank you very much for your answer. You are right on both observations 1) and 2) that you made, if we take them as "today, this week, this month". But as you yourself point, in the future it might be different. I believe that if we attain a critical mass of people (ok, let's add "uninvolved in disputes with you") who dislike having around a bitter Polish-Lithuanian dispute, then hopefully some action can be taken one day. Obviously, I can do nothing useful alone. But I know at least 1-2 other people erry of the existence of that dispute. I posted my comment in order it to be on the record, so that more people know that we should do something about it one day. Even if only one more person knows about it and is ready to help, that's already a plus. Perhaps it can take the form of finding a list of people (e.g. Finns, Estonians, Latvians, Hungarians, Romanians, but not only them) that both sides agree to accept as issue by issue arbiters. (yes, i do see the problem of determining who exactly is in each side, b/c outright "i am right and you are wrong" people should be excluded from "vetoing", and no, i don't know how to solve it other than to wait for more new editors to appear.) I simply want to say: if I can help in some way solve this, please count on me. (But as it is very obvious, don't count on me taking "your" side) Dc76\talk 16:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting.
Did you ever heard about this ?  --Molobo (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

MoS
MoS indicates we dont put ethnicity in the lead. "Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." You know this. Stop it. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Princesses of Bourbon-Two Sicilies
Piotrus,

Thank you for your attention given to the articles for Princess Maria Carolina of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, Princess Maria de los Dolores of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, and Countess Carolina Zamoyska. I understand the redirect with concern to Carolina Zamoyska, but as far as I know, English Wikipedia only removes "princess" from the article's title when that princess was either a queen-consort or empress-consort to a reigning king, emperor, or were themselves a reigning monarch per the conventions outlined in Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Alexandra of Denmark does not have a royal prefix because she is a former queen-consort of the United Kingdom whereas Princess Maria Carolina of Bourbon-Two Sicilies retains her royal prefix because she was only married to a prince (or infante) of Spain: Infante Carlos, Count of Montemolin who was not a ruler in his own right.

Thanks again!

--Caponer (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Translation request, etc.
I really, really hate to impose, but would you mind, when you have a moment, translating pl:Kościół św. Rocha w Białymstoku into English? I fell in love with the place when I was in Bialystok, and I'd love to see it in the English Wikipedia; alas, my knowledge of the language is so poor that any translation I would do would be horrible.

Also, I took the liberty of moving the article on "Statues of Casimir the Great" to "Statutes of Casimir the Great" - I've never heard a law called a statue in English.

--User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 19:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've taken it over there, then. Dziękuję! --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 14:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Bishop of Żmudź listed at RfD
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bishop of Żmudź. Since you had some involvement with the Bishop of Żmudź redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Suntag  ☼  17:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Creepy stalking
This is really creepy stalking. since when are you interested in this subject? Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Antypolish POV on Episcopal Duchy of Warmia
Hi, some user continiuosly vandalises the article about Episcopal Duchy of Warmia by errasing data about its Polish history from 1466 to 1772. This guy is 71.137.197.97. Check his other edits as well they most antypolish POV.Best wishes 77.253.68.65 (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Aleksander Kaminski.jpg
Hello. Can you have a look at Image:Aleksander Kaminski.jpg? It is also on pl.wiki - you can see it in the Kaminski article there - and on commons. I am not sure why this would be in the public domain ... Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. PD-Poland looks reasonable to me.
 * My apologies, I meant the comment that followed the principle. I'm sorry to say that the only one of your essays I've read is the one that explains how much work is left to do. Now that I agree with 100%. I'll try to read some of the others. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've updated the links on pl.wiki to point to Commons. Can you tag or delete pl:Grafika:Kamyk 2.jpg if there's an equivalent of CSD I8? I couldn't find the template. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've replied to your reply. For me, this would be a finding of fact and not a principle. Your mileage may vary, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Picture request
Hi Piotrus, I'm sorry this has taken so long. I completed your image rather soon after you requested it and then completely forgot about it. Anyway I uploaded it today here. I hope its okay. --DWRtalk 19:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

My name
For the record, my name is Boodlesthecat. It is not "Boody." I do not like that name, even though I know you mean it affectionately. At this time, I would like to insist that when you refer to me by name, for instance, in this marvelously entertaining running commentary on my every move(not sure how that running commentrary is supposed to help your defense against the allegations against you, but I could fret that right now), that you use my proper name, Boodlesthecat. I'm sure you would not like me to adopt some diminutive of your name without your agreement, such as, oh, say, Putrie. I would appreciate it if you respect my wishes. Thanks in advance, Boodlesthecat Meow? 06:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about History of Silesia
Hello Piotrus. I've been looking around to find an enwiki administrator knowledgable in Polish matters. Our article on the History of Silesia came up in this item at 3RR. The issue is closed, but what to do in the future is not certain. The dispute is about some variation of 'Is Silesia Polish, or when was it Polish?' Clearly the editor bringing the complaint has a valid issue with the shifting IPs of the guy on the other side, but I'm not sure if semi-protection is the right course. Maybe there is a valid national dispute underlying this? One or both parties may also be active on the Polish wiki. From your own personal knowledge you may know either the submitter or the person reported. If you can provide any background it would be helpful. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. See also Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard. At first glance, this doesn't look so hard to solve, but after seeing the Hungarian-Slovakian stuff I guess it could be bitter. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Map
Re: Why not just include the map in the article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: my first thought was and still is that this article should be incorporated into one of these articles, as I don't expect it to be very long. And the information about it will be replicated for sure in all those articles sooner or later and maybe even in the biography of the person, according to whose name the line was named. Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Still, it is conceivable somebody can search for Foch Line.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: why don't you add it? If ppl will read this article, most probably they'll read also "see also" and follow the links. Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Image
I'm trying to bring an image from the Polish to English Wikipedia, but in English it doesn't display the image, just shows a little frame with Image:file name in it. What do I need to do? Orczar (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What I understood from the answers of Alex Bakharev and Biophys to my questions
I am starting to understand better the whole picture. Alex Bakharev and Biophys are Russian scientist emigree that happen to edit on WP, not WP editors that happen to be R s e. Given the whole political turmoil involving Russia in the last 8-9 years, they are not at absolute liberty as you and me, so we must not judge them from our perspective. Consider this guy. He was a patriot, even a little nationalist (in the positive sense). But they expected from him, as a patriot, more; so when he did not deliever, he got fired. But he is a public persona; if he goes abroad and does something, he can still freely return and go again, his relatives in Russia would not feel any unease. But that's not true for everyone, especially it is not true for ordinary people, whom the guys view as assets. They are expected to deliever (in whatever activity they are assets, be it public realations, weapons experts, getting information, propaganda in the press, or simply using presonal/professional influence). If they don't, there won't be any public reprimand, in fact nothing will hapen at the surface, which is all the worse for them. Because they and people related will have difficulties. Not necessarily anything serious. But if you or a relative are double-checked at an airport until they make sure you miss your flight, that - for you as an ordinary citizen, not a public figure - is inconvenience enough. Should I continue with examples? You can ask your parents, they would recall plenty, for they also lived in the system. And it can happen anytime anywhere, and the people who would do that to you will sincerely believe you desearve it. You would say, that's not possible in the 21st century, where's the public opinion? It is unconceivable modern people, civil society, etc would tolerate! We forget that in their country 70% think this is how things should be, believe that only this would give their country order, dignity, and prosperity, that if you don't deliever, you commit treason. So, the picture here is that ArbCom has to be diplomat. What ArbCom says does not have to be exactly what ArbCom really says. Because some people have to have the record that they tried. Noone expects from them success, but if they are partiots (and only Biophys and a couple others are openly "unpatriotic") (and why not, many people truely and sincerely are patriots) they better should not be in the situation that over a long period of time they have "sided with the enemy". Does not matter if it was technically right to side. "Whom are you kidding, over several years it was always technically right?.." They must commit small moral transgressions that do not affect anyone else, other than loosing the time of other people, for the sake of keeping under the radar of "the guys". So, perhaps sometimes you/me/etc should not take every remark or small action personally, maybe sometimes it is not really meant at us, just ignore and they would be very happy to ignore, too. ArbCom should be aware of this, and also ignore. Dc76\talk 08:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * indeed, bizzare. the guy seems to know WP internals at least as well as me (which is not much, but nevertheless), he's not a newbe. Dc76\talk 22:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

decision
When will we know the outcome of the joke that is "Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2"? Ostap 17:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First people will have to stop yapping about the same things over and over. Its been a month and a half since the evidence/workshop pages opened and its still getting 20+ posts a day.  If people could just say their piece and let it stand without having to respond to every sentence of everyone elses piece it would be over quickly.  I could understand if someone responded to something someone else said because it was unexpected, but once you say the same thing in five sections across the workshop page it gets redundant.  I imagine the arb's won't bother to say anything until they think its quiet enough for people to hear them.  (Note: not an attack on any particular member.  Everyone involved is being very verbose.)198.161.173.180 (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do think it's part of the issue, yes.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Circumstantial evidence presented to gain a conviction always requires a priori verbosity. —PētersV (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Another good point.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

So can I propose "findings of fact" (Piotrus has done nothing to warrant disciplinary action, and this case is undermining and eroding a positive, productive working environment and a "remedy" (no action against Piotrus) even though I have not presented any evidence, nor am a party in the case? Ostap 02:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I felt I had to say something. Lets hope this ends soon. What a waste of time. Ostap 02:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nationalsozialistischer Reichsbund für Leibesübungen DYK
Hi. I've reviewed your DYK submission for the article Nationalsozialistischer Reichsbund für Leibesübungen, and made a comment on it at the submissions page. Please feel free to reply or comment there. Cheers, Olaf Davis | Talk 21:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Jaroszewice
Sorry, że po polsku bedzie szybciej. Autor wpisal wymyslona przez siebie nazwe niemiecka, to jego tworczosc wlasna, wioska lezy kolo Lublina i nawet podczas okupacji niemieckiej nie byla objeta akcja wysiedlania Polakow tak jak to mialo miejce na Zamojszczyznie (gdzie polskie wioski rzeczywiscie zostaly "przechrzczone" na nazwy niemieckie). W tym wypadku autor przechrzcil ta miejscowosc sam tak od siebie. Stawiam tezę że autor sobie tą nazwę niemiecką po prostu wymyślił na podstawie Jaszowice (zwane krótko po wojne Starymi Jaroszewicami, po niemiecku Alt Jäschwitz) tylko że te są pod Wrocławiem.

213.39.199.137 (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Zerkne, na przyszlosc proponuje notyfikacje na WP:PWNB.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Busza/Jaruga
This is a rare luck! We happen to have a reputable sourse in old Romanian for that online from the Municipal Library of Bucharest! The author is Miron Costin, the book - LETOPISEŢUL ŢĂRÎI MOLDOVEI DE LA AARON-VODĂ ÎNCOACE, which is a well-known cronicle to every educated Romanian. We have a 1965 book with comments and the text of the 17th century chronicle in Latinized Old Romanian of the original Old Cyrillic Script. In pages 2 to 9 they also go into detail of how the Old Cyrillic Script, based on Old Church Slavonic is Latinized.

Anyway, the big luck is that Miron Costin describes the whole thing. The only problem is it is the Old Language, and I might misunderstand a word or two.

Original Old Romanian and its translation
Capulŭ alŭ şeaptelè [Seventh Chapter]

Încep. 1. Au purces Schindirŭ-paşea şi cu Radul- vodă asupra leşilor, ce era în Iaşi cu doamna lui Ieremiei-vodă. Vişnioveţchii, unul din ginerii lui Ieremiei-vodă, murise în Iaşi, deci şi oamenii lui, carii au fostŭ a lui, să dusesă în ţara lor şi din oastea lui Coreţchii. Scrisesă Jolcovschii-hatmanul cărţi la slujitori, care nu va ieşi din Moldova loc în oastea lor să n-aibă, că întrasă ei fără voia craiului în Moldova. Deci numai cu 600 de oameni rămăsesă Coreţchii.

Zac. 2. Luasă veste doamna şi boierii că le vine Schinderŭ-paşea asupră şi le porunciia şi Radul-vodă, ca un creştin, să fugă devréme. Ce leahul, simăţŭ şi fără crieri, n-au vrut să purceagă mai devréme, ce amu dacă să apropiiesă oştile. Bine le dzicŭ de aceasta căzacii leşilor: „După pagubă, leahul înţelepţŭ“.

Zac. 3. Îndată ce au înţăles Schinder-paşea de purcesul léşilorŭ din Iaşi, au răpedzit o samă de oaste sprintenă şi i-au agiunsŭ la Drăgşani, în ţinutul Hîrlăului. Apăratu-s-au oarece léşii dintîiŭ, iară dacă s-au mai înglotit oastea, s-au răsipitŭ cine încotro au putut. Singur Coreţchii || au cădzutŭ pre mîna lui Schinder-paşea şi biiata doamna cu coconul, Bogdan-vodă, şi o samă de boieri. Pre boieri i-au scos Radul-vodă pre toţi de la Schinderŭ- paşea, cîţi era prinşi. Iară doamna la mare ocară au sositŭ, de care singură au mărturisit cătră boieri. Trecîndu cu carul, au vădzut pre boieri şi lăcrămîndŭ au dzis: „Boieri, m-au ruşinat păgînul“. La aceasta ocară au sositŭ casa lui Ieremiei-vodă şi poate hi pentru răutăţile ei, că era o făméie răpitoare, precum spunŭ, şi de vréme ce au otrăvit pe cumnatu-său, pre Simion-vodă (de va hi aşea), şi de frica lui Dumnedzău depărtată.

Zac. 4. Nu era în ceia hire singur Ieremie-vodă, ce era om întreg la toate, nerăpitor, nemîndru, nevărsătoriŭ de sînge, blîndŭ, dumnădzărescŭ, pe cum mărturiseşte războiul lui cu Răzvanŭ-vodă, cum n-au vrut să iasă din beserică pănă n-au săvîrşit sfînta leturghie, măcarŭ că-i spunè ca să agiungŭ oştile. În dzilele lui mare bivşiuguri şi plină ţara de toate. Ce de ieste vro osîndă stîngerea casei lui, din faptele doamnei sale ieste. Zac. 5. Pre doamna şi pre Coreţchii i-au trimis Schinder-paşea la împărăţiie. Coreţchii-cneadzul apoi pre urmă au ieşitŭ den chisoare cu multă cheltuială, iară doamna au fostŭ după unŭ agă turcŭ pănă la moartea sa. Bogdanŭ-vodă copilul iară în turciie s-au săvîrşit. Agiunsesă de au fostŭ la împărăţie capigi-baş. Fost-au acéstea v leato 7124

[''Obs. Year 7124 is 1616'']

Zac. 6. Trimis-au Schinderŭ-paşea după răsipa lui Coreţchii, din porunca împărăţiei unŭ ceauşŭ la craiul leşescŭ, să oprească căzacii de pe mare, carii atunceşi nişte cetăţi, ce făcuse turcii pre Nipru, anume Aslan Horod şi altă cetate luasă şi omorîsă şi oşténii cîţi era turci şi într-acéle cetăţi (şi acéste toate apoi au făcut de au venit soltan Osmanŭ la Hotinŭ) şi să părăsască a călca Muldova cu oştile- lorŭ.

Zac. 7. Au trimis şi craiul leşescŭ un sol, anume pre Cohanschii, la împărăţiie, dîndŭ pricina toată pre tătari, carii, dodeindŭ casele căzacilor, ei încă-şi întorcŭ din pagubile ce le fac tătarîi. Este şi aceasta laudă în létopiseţul lor, cum acela Cohanschii cu soliia lui au mazilit pre Ştefan-vodă Tomşea, ce nu ştiu cum s-ari prinde acestŭ lucru, că amu era domnŭ Radul-vodă în locul Tomşei-vodă, cîndŭ au trecut Cohanschii la împărăţiie. Iară pîră adevăratŭ c-au avut Ştefan-vodă Tomşea totdeauna despre leşi la împărăţiie.

Zac. 8. La anul, Schinder-paşea, din porunca împărăţiei, au strînsŭ cîtă oaste au avutŭ din păşiia lui şi cu Radul-vodă, domnul de Moldova, şi cu oştile muntenéşti şi unguréşti de la Betlean Gabor, domnul Ardealului, că era Betlean Gabor mare nepriiatin léşilor, şi cu tătarîi, au purces asupra Ţărîi Căzăceşti, să le strice pălăncile şi să-i prade.

Zac. 9. Oblicise şi léşii gîndul lui Schinder-paşea şi i-au ieşit || hatmanul Jolcovschii cu oştile leşeşti la margine, la un loc anume Buşa, mai sus de Soroca pe Nistru, din céia parte de Nistru ieste acela locŭ.

9. Guesed also the Poles the thoughts of Skinder-Pasha and has come forward the hatman Żółkiewski with Polish troups to the border, at a certain place called Buşa, upper from Soroca on the Dniester, on the other part of the Dniester is that place.

Zac. 10. Începuse Schinder-paşea a bate Raşcovul, ce, dacă au sîmţitŭ aproape de oştile leşeşti, au lăsatŭ Raşcovul şi au purces pe dencoace de Nistru, pin ţară, împrotiva locului unde era Jolcovschii, însă-i despărţiè Nistrul. Mai puţină oaste era la Jolcovschii decît la Schinder-paşea, iară mai aleasă, tot lefecii, şi să strîngea şi căzacii din toate pălăncile la dînsul. Numai fiindŭ craiul leşăscŭ la Moscŭ cu oştile, s-au feritŭ a întărîta puterea turcească. Avîndŭ treabă într-altă parte crăiia leşască, au stătut cu Schinderŭ-paşea la tocmală, la legături de pace, nedejdiuindŭ că vor ţinea turcii pacea.

Zac. 11. Capetele de pace era, despre leşi, să oprească pre căzaci să nu îmble pre mare, şi în Moldova să nu mai îmble oştile lor. Iară despre Schinder-paşea era să oprească pre tătari să nu îmble stricîndŭ în Ţara Leşască, şi în Muldova domni streini să nu hie, fără cine va hi fecior de domnŭ. Ce toate acéstè în vîntŭ au fostŭ, că bine n-au sfîrşitŭ pacea, şi au purces oştile şi acéste şi acélea îndireptŭ, iară tătarîi pre de altă parte au şi lovitŭ în Podoliia, în Ţara Leşască şi au făcut cîteva robii. Şi apoi, la anul, fără veste, mulţime de tătari au lovit Volinia, o ţară mai sus de Podoliia, şi păn-a strînge oştile Jolcovschii, au ieşit tătarîi cu mare || plean den Ţara Leşască, fără nice o sminteală. Zac. 12. Mare bănat pentru acéste toate au avutŭ Jolcovschii de la crai şi de la toată crăiia leşască pentru moale lucrurile lui. Ce la creştini nu sintŭ certări pentru unele ca acéste ca la turci.

Zac. 13. Radul-vodă spre acéste al treilea anŭ domnii sale céle dintîiŭ s-au războlit de ochi şi poate hi, vădzîndŭ că nu va putea tréce să nu să îngroaşe între turci şi între léşi lucruri de sfadă, singur s-au poftitŭ la împărăţiie să-i vie maziliia, să poată a merge la Ţarigradŭ pentru leacul ochilor. Deci i-au făcut pre voie împărăţiia, pre dînsul l-au chemat la Poartă, iară domniia au datŭ lui Gaşpar- vodă aicea în ţară, în locul lui Radul-vodă celui Mare.

conclusions and other stuff
I have to go now, but I will translate the whole thing to you in a day. In short, it is in Ukraine, on the bank of the Dniester, somewhere north of Soroca. So, between Yampil and Mohyliv-Podilskyi.

Another detail. Reproduced in break of copyright on a POV site is text that I think I saw before. The particular paragraph is from a scholar sourse, a book by Ion Nistor. The text describes the Moldavian villages on the east side of the Dniester. The paragraph mentions also names of rivers of Romanian origin. Mostly it is creeks falling into the Dniester. And Buşa is one of them. Here it is:

Dintre numele de ape din Transnistria amintim Tiligul, Ingul, Inguleţul, Baraboi, Volosica, Balacliica, Berezan, Cuciurean, Tigheci, Putred, Soroca, Ocniţa, Dârla, Udici, Sahaidac (veche denumire pentru desagă), Moldovca, Buşa, Tătrani, Humor, Merla, Uşiţa etc. [44]

Among the names of the waters [rivers] in Transnistria we mention Tiligul, Ingul, Inguleţul, Baraboi, Volosica, Balacliica, Berezan, Cuciurean, Tigheci, Putred, Soroca, Ocniţa, Dârla, Udici, Sahaidac (old name for desagă), Moldovca, Buşa, Tătrani, Humor, Merla, Uşiţa etc. [44]''

The only thing recongnizable to me personally from this list is:
 * Tiligul falls into the Black Sea,
 * Ingul and Inguleţul
 * Uşiţa falls into Dniester from N to S, somewhere between Mohyliv-Podilskyi and Kamianets-Podilskyi.

I do not know what is the correct name spelling of Busza/Buşa in Ukrainian. Perhaps we can ask a Ukrainian to locate it somewhere in the Vinitsa region of Ukraine.

I did not find Jaruga, though. Dc76\talk 02:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've followed your discussions and I guess I also have found the place in Ukraine. I have a modern detailed map of the area and right between Mohyliv and Yampil you can find the village Yaruha on the left bank of Dnister, and just next to it, to the east is the village Busha. They are situated in different raions though, Yaruha in Mohyliv and Busha in Yampil. The small river running through Busha is called Bushanka. I will see if I can find an online map with these villages. Närking (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this link to the online map should work for Busha . If not just search for Буша at . Närking (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am terribly sorry that despite my promiss I did not tend to this issue yet. I happen tp stumble on a 1737 map already uploaded to wikipedia by someone. This map I have (indirectly) at home, in a Romanian translation of the book it is in. But it is reproduced there so poorly that I cannot read anything. But, again lucky, the uploaded image is of relatively good quality. So, the map is in Latin, and the Principality of Moldavia is on it. However, sinc ethe two towns we are talking about are on the border with Moldavia, they are there: NE corner of the map, just under Mohilow, you can see both Jaruga and Busza (medieval Latin spelling).
 * Now, information-wise I brought you nothing. But we can cut a corner of the 1737 map and use it in both articles. It is also veyr interesting to see how correct in details was the 1737 map: given the fact that some of its proportions are totally incorrect, it records details very thoroughly. It is like you draw the map on a sheet of wax, and then let the wax in the son - the map will be deformed, but the details are correct. It strikes me now that people in 18th century could very well use such maps for travel and would find them very useful.
 * I also am very happy to see Närking did such a great job. :) I will tend to the Treaty of Busza article after a few days. All this (discovering material from different countries about the same things; us, three people quite appart geographically from each other) is such a perfect example of serendipity. :) Dc76\talk 03:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Polish TF and inactivity
Sorry for marking you as inactive.-- Gen. Bedford his Forest 17:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Kategorie
Witam

Mógłbyś w kategorii Category:Ship names stworzyć podkategorię dla polskich okrętów i podlinkować do niej ORP Gryf (disambiguation), ORP Sokół (disambiguation), ORP Wicher (disambiguation), ORP Warszawa (disambiguation), ORP Orzeł (disambiguation) ? PMG (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Acha - i interwiki do pl:Kategoria:Nazwy okrętów polskich. PMG (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Done
Oleg Ken. feel free to expand. Colchicum (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, just heart failure. Colchicum (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Łaski's Statute
Hi Piotrus, I commented on your DYK nom of the Łaski's Statute article here. I only count 1209 characters of main body prose in the article, which needs to be expanded to 1500. Also, since the article was actually created on the 13th, I went ahead and moved it to there from the "Oct 14" section. Cheers! Jamie ☆S93  14:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about Holocaust
Our agreement is that Holocaust scholars are speaking about "only" 6 Holocaust Extermination camps (stupid definition but ....). Our disagreement is about creation of sub section other extermination camps. With knowledge that there has been many others extermination camps and sites (I know 7 of them) question is: Will we create subsection in The Holocaust template for this camps ? Can you please hear your comments about this question in section Non involved users because maybe even Lithuania will have place in rewriten template (events in 1941)?--Rjecina (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for help. He has died of cancer in 1995 but I am refusing to add link because it is from right wing site (it is ease to find his name and Croatia or Stepinac and...). All in all my edits on wiki will end tomorow because I am going to wiki break. There is no point in continuation of that discussion--Rjecina (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Kobylanski
Can you please take part in the discussion on pl.wiki about the Kobylanski's bio. Im my opinin Polish administrators are not following the rules of editing biographies of living persons. These rules are not translated into pl.wiki. Lizut's article from the Wyborcza newspeaper is listed there as a reliable source (nr 5). In general, many parts of the bio are strongly biased and not supported by reliable sources. Best regards, Mynek (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Kielce pogrom
Witam! Moglby Pan to przetlumaczyc na angielski? Wydarzenie jest wazne dla artykulu aczkolwiek moje tlumaczenie nie jest perfekcyjne bo nie mam narazie czasu. Bylbym wdzieczny.

"Ze sprawozdania wynika nie tylko indolencja władz odpowiedzialnych za bezpieczeństwo i porządek w Kielcach, ale wręcz udział i szeregu osób urzędowych w dokonywaniu pogromu."

Moje tlumaczenie:

"we know that the pogrom wasn't only a fault of Militia and Army guarding the people in and around the city of Kielce but also a people from official government who took a role in it."

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

ZME

 * Oh, and about the deletion requests on commons, I did self-nominate those pictures. About half of those in that mass-nomination are currently on main Wikipedia under fair use (User:HoboJones/FairUsePictures) and the other half are copyvios/derivative works. Apparently, some of the original works might not qualify for copyright (something I was unaware of), but deleting these pictures would be no loss to the project. I also have a mass self-nom of photos of historical markers at Deletion requests/Images of PAHistorical&MuseumCommissionMarkers. Some guy accused me of deleting an OTRS ticket (that enver existed) and reported me to AIV. What a pain. --HoboJones (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

USS John S. McCain
Hej

USS John S. McCain - nadal jest szablon strony do usunięcia chociaż głosowanie zostało zakończone. Nie wiem co na en.wiki się robi z takimi szablonami więc zgłaszam tobie. PMG (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus 2
Hey, I saw your lengthy statement to the Piotrus 2. If there's anything I can do to help, be it evidence gathering, or just keeping an eye on things, please let m know.--*Kat* (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The case was mentioned in The Signpost under Lengthy Litigation. I remember you from Baen's bar; plus we worked together on the Honor Harrington articles. So I know that what they're saying is a bunch of bologna. --*Kat* (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh! What a mess!!!! --*Kat* (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look...
... on this, as you may probably be interested in expanding Warsaw Uprising. Thanks, --Teodor Jan Ranicki (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

long comment on foreign language
Piotrus, I was deleting a 4 years old comment, and then I noticed that you had restored twice a similar text on a related page. I see that the original commenter inserted foreign language text on many talk pages in a short period of time (indeed, all his contributions to talk pages are like that)

Can you read what the heck he wrote? Is it some important historical text that polish speakers find tremendously useful? --Enric Naval (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ok, I have restored the one I deleted and left a note so no one else makes the same mistake. Of course, this should eventually be translated, added to the article, and moved to wikisource, leaving a link to wikisource. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of a template redirect
I have nominated a redirect to a template for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 14:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Natalia Korolevska
We never edit together (not interested in Ukrainian politics?, strange it so much fun and a lot of female Ukrainian politicians are very good looking!) but still I think your edits here are not helping, if not making things worse... This seems only a problem between Kuban Cossack & Hillock65. I don't see a need to drag all wikipedians in it. I admit Kuban Cossack is not the most polite editor but there are surely more POV-pushy editors out there... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you saw what I wrote on my talkpage last night. It is:
 * I would also like to tell you that this was the first time I think you made an unproductive edit, we don't share the same interest but as far as I can tell you made some great contributions to Wikipedia, I just hope/wish/wanted this Hillock vs. Kuban struggle too be settled between them without it bringing more damage to other inter-wiki relations. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Have a good day, Mariah-Yulia (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Your heads-up on Guild of Copy Editors
Thanks very much for drawing my attention to this. I'm sure I will eventually get into this when my spelling crusade starts to fatigue. I definitely need to study the MOS a lot more.

Oh, and thanks for all you've done for Wikipedia. I consider it to be the most amazing site ever created on the web. LilHelpa (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

ga
Hi, I will look at it later this week. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Poeticbent
I don't want to get involved with this, but could you explain to this user that when you are accused of creating a battleground, its best not to respond by trying to create a battleground. Could you read the articles he created and then tell him that there is a way to write encyclopedia articles about tragic events. Could you ask him to please consider revising his articles about Ukrainian villages to meet that standard? If you would like specific examples of wording that needs to be changed I can provide them. Ostap 22:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

NSRL DYK
Piotrus. I followed your advice and added inline citations for the hook as I expanded the Sports Office of Nazi Germany article. Since this page began as a translation of the not-properly-referenced homonymous | article in German Wikipedia, it was not easy to do more. Greetings.-Xufanc (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Course of action?
Hello! Talk:Rescue of Jews by Polish communities during the Holocaust/Temp was deleted by another admin. Do you wish to restore it, or should we consider working on the article offline? Ecoleetage (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot restore a deleted Talk Page, Piotrus, because I am not an admin. (You may remember my RfA from September...when you didn't remember who I was.) Since you are an admin, however, you can restore deleted Talk Page. At the moment, all I can do is work offline on the article -- you have the toolset to bring it back.  Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 64
Hello! Good news, Wikipedia Weekly Episode 64 has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org.  W ODU P bot  05:25, 4 November 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.

These things keep coming back
Hey Piotrus, if you haven't seen it, this attack on me from last year seems at least somewhat germane to the current "case" against you. I'm sure there are others like it. Regards, Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 00:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm. I remember this one. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's that time of year again
I've created Soviet repressions. Currently, it is just a stub, but it's an important and well-documented topic, so it should have no trouble at all.

You've been working on related topics before &mdash; perhaps you'd like to help? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you check out ?  The user has been using obviously biased sources throughout a number of articles -- but I'm unfamiliar with this topic, so I do not know for sure if this edit is problematic. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also . ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Tymothy Snyder vs. Original Archival Research
Greeting! You have already warned the user in question about edit-warring. As you are probably aware of, the 3R rule is not absolute; one cannot skirt around it just by reverting once a day or every few days for months, as Jo0doe does He jkust committed another revert today:. My comments about that revert (which are repeated on the article's talk page) are below:

A classic example of article disruption by Jo0doe (talk). Here is the reversion:. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources. The article, referenced to secondary sources such as Timothy Snyder, states that: "During 1939-1941 1.450 million inhabitants were deported by the Soviet authorities, of whom 63.1% were Poles, and 7.4% were Jews.[6] Others escaped from the Soviet-occupied territories to the areas controlled by Germans. Several hundred thousand Poles died at the hands of Soviets, including Polish officers from Sovietannexed territories murdered by NKVD in the Katyn massacre, and others.[7] [8] The deportations and murders deprived the Poles of their community leaders."

Jo0doe (talk) apparently decided that the reliable secondary sources indicated that the Soviets were too brutal, so he tried to add archival data to contradict the conclusions of the secondary source : According to declassified NKVD data 309-321 thousands of Poland citizens were deported in 1940-41 from annexed by USSR Poland territory, of those 10864 was died by July 1, 1941. Amongst them non less then 80 thousands were Jews refugees. From captured and interned in 1939-40 130 242 of Polish Army military personnel 42 400 were released, approximately 43 thousands transferred to occupied by Germans territory, 15131 were executed in 1940. While according to Timothy Snyder, several hundred thousand Poles died at the hands of Soviets, including the Polish officers from Soviet occupied Poland murdered by NKVD in the Katyn massacre, and others.[7] [8].

So, we see Jo0doe (talk) using original research to try to discredit a reliable secondary source on an article page. This disuptive editor has beendoing such tricks on the UPA page and the Holodomor page for months, then engaging in low level revert wars to try to include his version. This has been going on for months. Because he has been allowed to continue, we see the pattern of his disruptions expanding into other articles such as this one. When will he finally be blocked? Any admins following this article?Faustian (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Agnieszka Baranowska
I have nominated Agnieszka Baranowska, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Agnieszka Baranowska. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Sticky Parkin 02:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Baudienst

 * Congratulations! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Alleged BLP violations
If you are really truly concerned about supposed BLP violations why not bring your concerns to the appropriate board, where they can actually get ruled on by the community, rather than unilaterally make the claim yourself in your own Arb? Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Restored
The article is back online. This is a victory of people working together for the common good. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 

Ecoleetage (talk) 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. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * Thank you for the honour. I am the first Portuguese kid on my block with a Polish medal of honour! Be well! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you note
Dear Piotrus, and Dear Eco Lee Tage,

I'd like to commend you both on your exemplary work at bringing the article Rescue of Jews by Polish communities during the Holocaust back to its proper place in main-space. I would also like to thank those who took their time to deal with its challenges in a positive, community building manner.

Please be aware that the painting of the Polish nation black is a popular past-time among many a Holocaust ideologues and so the groundbreaking effort of trying to present the full picture here in Wikipedia can be heartrending. I will not dignify with links those writers who claim that there was only a handful of rescuers in all of WWII Poland, but I do have them on my hard-drive to confirm my words. I’m sure there are also those who make a good living as educators by purporting such claims.

In contrast, the editorial effort of Wikipedians like yourself originates from a genuine thirst for knowledge, and it is also free of charge. It is however, not free from morally and psychologically damaging clashes with Wikipedians hidden behind monikers and pushing old stereotypes. That’s why I chose to distance myself from political spin off developing in talk, because for me it was the article that mattered: a collection of facts readily available, presented against the barrage of loaded messages regurgitated online by ignorant bigots. I'm not interested in killing time by bickering with phantoms anyway.

I’m very busy in real life right now, and will remain so for the next week. However, I intent to go back to this article and improve on it further time permitting. For now, please accept my sincere thanks for all you’ve done. --Poeticbent talk  19:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

cc.: User:Ecoleetage

MND-CS
Good point. Please feel free to revert the edit and then make a few changes to reflect the current situation, while keeping the detail. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 15:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Greetings
Hello, and thanks for the kind words. I'm not sure if the article is DYKable yet with almost all but the horestram section being a stub. --Brzeszczykiewicz (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply
You asked me about some Russian sources. Do you know that November 4 was a big day in Russia? That was a "Unity day", celebration of liberation of Russia from Polish occupation. Hence the sources... I enjoyed reading an essay by Valeria Novodvorskaya ("Unity of protoplasm"), but this is too difficult to translate.Biophys (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries here. I have concerns about some of the things you've said in the case, but not about that or about anything else that you've said to me. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Alleged OR
As far as you've been mislead by editors comments (while I never edit UKR:WP). I would like to point your attention that my edit based on respected NPOV scholars works and published by academic sources - see at link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia#Numbers. While using of Mikolaj_Siwicki SPS and student apocrypha in generally wrong in WPJo0doe (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Poznań
Piotrus, I did not pursue a WP:RM at the time because I felt that it had basically no chance of being supported. This assumption stemmed from the fact that you are both a well known Wiki editor and an admin. IOW, I believed any forthcoming decision would probably have supported your view because of who you are on Wiki rather than strictly on any merits of the WP:RM. There was no move or edit warring on my part because I honestly don't believe that helps Wikipedia articles.

I think you're a knowledgeable editor. But I also think in your editing that you tend to charge like a Hussar, and that, in my opinion, is problematic when the editor in question is an admin. Perhaps you don't see it from the POV of regular editors -- anytime an admin does something, the act is perceived as carrying some inherent authority. And, when said act is perceived to be arbitrary or based on personal preference, it rankles.

Finally, I think overall that you are a valuable asset to the Wiki project, both as an editor and as an admin. However, I believe you'd be more effective if you operated with a bit less conviction of being "more correct" than others on the project. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My thoughts. If everyone attempted to be less controversial on Wikipedia, then collaborative effort in the project would benefit. Yes, I believe admins should lead by example and moderate (not extinguish - but moderate) their own POV/controversial editing. As to why I mentioned this at ArbCom - it is because in our discussion on the article talk page I perceived you were giving my concerns a brush-off. Thus, I saw no point in further discussion there or on talk pages. ArbCom is a place of public discussion on Wikipedia and I see it as stating my views on a Wikipedia issue in one of the project's public forums. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Rescue of Jews by Polish communities during the Holocaust
Piotrus, I am so glad this was recognised with a DYK. It was a pleasure working with you on this. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mozambique was my birth place. It is a great place to be born...but, ooooh, I wouldn't want to live there! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of topic ban
Since you contributed to the ANI discussion that led to this, you may wish to contribute to the topic ban discussion here: Administrators%27_noticeboard. Regards,  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Small world
So, is this a sockpuppet or long lost cousin? The second I presume. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sociology
I hope I'm in the right place. I'm a newbie.

I've worked quite hard at editing the badly needed "Sociology" page, but am having trouble with using links. Please help.

Also, given the changes to content and context where I have clarified information and removed value ladden dialogue with whom do I discuss removing the: "Clean up" "Editing" and "Tone" warnings on the page? At present, it has been revamped, but the discipline is vast. I will add more as I progress and continue the edit as time permits. In the meantime, it would be nice for people to have a sense of confidence when reviewing the material now.Sociologist4life 01:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Check out my edit of the "Introduction to Sociology" in wikiversity that I created, if that helps. At the time, I used Aresthusa as my handle.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sociologist4life (talk • contribs) 01:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hej
Hej

Na chwilę przyszedłem na en.wiki żeby się pobawić i mam kilka pytań. Na pl.wiki mamy coś takiego jak pl:WP:SK. Czy tutaj tez jest coś takiego ?

ACMEC - czy te wszystkie szablony z góry muszą być czy komuś się pomyliło ?

I czy generalnie jeżeli będę miał pytania czysto techniczne (bo nie wiem jak się to robi na en.wiki) to moge pytać ? PMG (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jeszcze raz - ACMEC. Wiesz ja nie wiem jak to się robi tutaj ale na pl.wiki to wstawienie czterolinijkowego szablonu nie zajmuje 8/10 objętości hasła (które teraz ma 32 kB kodu a na oko powinno mieć jakieś 4 kB). Moim zdaniem coś jest nie tak i ktoś się pomylił (przynajmniej tak bym uważał na pl.wiki). Ale jak mówisz że jest ok to ok. PMG (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Khm - mógłbyś mnie wyręczyć ? Ja tam z en.wikowymi adminami nie gadam :>. (podejrzenie - możliwe ze wstawił szablon z substem) PMG (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Kent motorcycle society - ency ? PMG (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Kryteria sa trochę ... dziwne   . Najwidoczniej nie nadaję się na admina na en.wiki PMG (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hello, I would like to ask for your advise. I was engaged in the discusiion about the name of the Anne of Swidnica article. I still think that the situation that we have there today is wrong. I would like to ask if, in your oppinion, I schould drop it or schould I take some further steps in order to change the German name back into the English one? If in your oppinion I schould do the seccond thing what steps would you advise me to take? Maybe I am not right here but I would like to have your opinion on this matter. Best wishes Opole.pl (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invatation. I hope I will be able to help in some way. But what is your opinion about the Anne of Swidnica matter? Best Wishes Opole.pl (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me!
Always nice to see such a thing on one's page. I believe I can make some contributions to Polish topics. Cheers! Kameal (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Zaolzie
Actually this dispute is not that easy. Both sides have valid points and I can imagine the article with and without that mentioned fragment of text. Maybe it would benefit from more sources and rephrasing but otherwise it's not that much controversial I think. - Darwinek (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Civ warning
So is, I believe, repeatedly committing contested changes in the middle of a debate. There is civility and there is factuality. (I have no idea where NPA comes into this, unless you wish to dissolve the CVU for violating it with every summary) The user in question toed the line. I called him a vandal only once, and that was when I used TW which I was unaware made the label so blatant. The second time was a pre-emptive warning, I did not call him a vandal there. Have you warned the user not to commit disputed changes in the midst of a debate? +Hexagon1 (t) 22:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC) PS: I find it shockingly unethical that you reverted my changes, reverting the article away from the status quo because you disagreed with the terminology I used in my summaries. I have, as of the last rv of talk, offered the user a compromise, then you see it fit to waltz in, involve yourself by reverting and then abuse the mop in warning another involved user to back away. Please explain yourself. +Hexagon1 (t) 22:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You may note that all of the compromises I proposed have been on the talk, all of the ones Sz proposed have been in the article itself. Edit warring seemed to be an integral part of his argument, it never made part of mine. Edit summaries don't define the character of the edits themselves - if I label an edit alphabetising a list 'Cows make moo', does that make it vandalism? Szopen's edits may have had neutral summaries but they were anything but helpful to the debate itself. Please pay more attention to the discussion before involving yourself. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

questionable edit from another IP address earlier this year
I am thinking of reverting this. Do you have an opinion? Thanks. 67.122.210.149 (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC) (Note, please reply here, not on my page)

Jews and the Polish government
Hi Piotrus, I have noticed that you have removed info on Szmul Zygielbojm from the section, (maybe accidently ?) I think there should be at least a short note about him and his desperate act. If you think the same can you add short line when you get a chance? I'm not sure how to properly compose the sentence so it is acceptable to all. Here is his last letter for reference

"The responsibility for the crime of the murder of the whole Jewish nationality in Poland rests first of all on those who are carrying it out, but indirectly it falls also upon the whole of humanity, on the peoples of the Allied nations and on their governments, who up to this day have not taken any real steps to halt this crime. By looking on passively upon this murder of defenseless millions tortured children, women and men they have become partners to the responsibility. I am obliged to state that although the Polish Government contributed largely to the arousing of public opinion in the world, it still did not do enough. It did not do anything that was not routine, that might have been appropriate to the dimensions of the tragedy taking place in Poland" --Jacurek (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Full text of his note I cited will take to much space and may overshadow the rest of the article. Let's leave it out for a while then. Maybe some ideas will come up later. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Piotrus for restoring the info on Szmul Zygielbojm. Full text is not as long as I thought it will be, looks actually really good.--Jacurek (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Lithuania
Well I addressed all the issues from the previous GA - but you never know what a new reviewer might think. I got the impression when I edited it that parts of it had been written by people who's first language was not English so I tidied it up. I think it looks in pretty good shape over all. However, I have no detailed knowledge of the subject so I'm not in a position to comment on the adequacy or accuracy of the sources. If you're confident about the sourcing then its worth a shot I'd say. Fainites barley 00:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Madison on the Constitution of May 3?
The problem is that you cite Madison, but it is his editor who says it. You need to fix the citation so that it does not imply that Madison wrote about the Polish constitution in the Federalist Papers. Cite the editor. Srnec (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust again
One thing you could do - though not strictly necessary for GA I think - is do something about the multiple cites of Bubnys and Porat with different page numbers. You could try the method, (see Major depressive disorder) or, as there are only two of them, just ref + page numbers in the reflist and then the full citations below (see Reactive attachment disorder). Fainites barley 20:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Image Use
Dear sir,

I am a student doing a secondary school iMedia project based on images with an exotic theme. I would like to request permission for the use of your image “dolphins at Loro Parque 08v2”. I can confirm that it will go no further than my project and will not have any commercial use. I hope that this will reach you so that you can reply - I was unsure how I could contact you. I appreciate your time and reply as this image will make a great difference in my project

Many thanks,

Miss L. Trosser

81.152.250.108 (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Miss L. Trosser. All media related to our projects is released under free licenses. If you scroll down on the page with my image you'll see it's licensed under such licenses, which were designed specifically so people like you wouldn't have to worry about asking for permissions and could use it freely, in whatever shape, form and for whatever purpose. If I can ask for only one thing, I'd ask that you consider licensing any media you create yourself under free licenses, and that you tell your course teacher, and classmates, about free licenses and why they are useful. A good place to upload freely licensed media is Wikimedia Commons, were my pictures are hosted. Thank you, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Prehistory of Poland
I've implemented the recommended changes in the Prehistory of Poland series of articles

Orczar (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Moving quote
Hi Piotrus, I think that Litvinoff was referring to the 1500's and the fact that Poland welcomed Jews expelled from the other countries therefore there may not be place for it in the "Rescue article". Most Polish Jews were "saved" by the Soviet Union, paradoxically many were deported there by Stalin, who unintentionally saved quite a few lives.

just my opinion... --Jacurek (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 65
Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 65: Censorship while you sleep has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:31, 21 November 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.

DYK for Związek Organizacji Wojskowej

 * Great article, Piotrus! Congrats! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

about Jaime Balmes
Dear Piotr, The article about Jaime Balmes is duplicated as Jaime Balmes and Jaime Lucio Balmes, can you take note of this? By the way, his second name in Spanish was Luciano and not Lucio. Regards, --Gustavo (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see w:commons:Category:Coats of arms of families of Poland in Gniezno cathedral

Good pics, I am working on. Regards. --Gustavo (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see Sokola coat of arms. Regards.--Gustavo (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * By mistake I uploaded w:commons:Image:Sokola CoA Galczynski.PNG and Image:Sokola CoA Galczynski.PNG some days ago. You may delete the last one if you wish. It is pointed for speedy deletion already. By the way, I am working on w:commons:Image:Gniezno Cathedral - inside 40.JPG, I have some problems with the Skrzetuski's proper coat of arms (see w:commons:Image:Gniezno Cathedral - inside 41.JPG). I couldn't identify the cheqy shield on the top right. Skrzetuski's coat of arms seems to be Jasztrzebiec. May be the 4 coats of are are displayed in a wrong way. I will see... --Gustavo (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see Image:Gniezno Cathedral - inside 12.JPG and Image:Gniezno Cathedral - inside 12 RENEW.JPG. Well done the new w:commons:Category:Reliefs of coats of arms in Poland.Regards. --Gustavo (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Will the real Cabal please stand up?
This would be hilarious if it wasn't also messed up.radek (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Zegota photo in "Rescue" article gdzie wyraznie "trafily kosy na kamien".
Hi Piotrus, Do you think you could upload "Zegota" photo into the "Rescue" article when you get a chance? Of course if you also think the photo is useful there. I have troubles with doing it right. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

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) 10:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Picture Request (part two)
I'll see what I can do. I'm going to be busy for a short while off Wikipedia, so I won't be able to deal with your request right away. --DWRtalk 13:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: WP Babel
Thank you for suggesting that I use WP:BABEL, and I have taken your idea up by adding an 'en' box to my user page. I would like to continue working with you on other articles. I don't mind what we work on, though my personal preference is anything to do with modern history. Have you got an article in mind that you would like to work on with me? Terrakyte (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to improve the Wojciech Jaruzelski article. Would you be interested in working with me on that one?  Terrakyte (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Polish Air Force
I've got problem with some IP editor. See history of PAF article. according to his comment in edition summary I suspect that his editions has political background. Radomil talk 16:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just want to say that I am very frustrated at how Radomil is refusing to compromise and yes I did lose my temper. If you go back to some of my earlier edits, I tried to include his ideas and pictures. I tried to showcase the new F-16 planes and change a few of the old pics that for better quality ones and include his section of historic aircraft. Here is an example of my one of my last edit before I got really frustrated with his stubborn approach to editing... note what I wrote under comments:   ---21:13, 23 November 2008 75.149.136.201 (Talk) (39,154 bytes) (Hope this edit takes everyone's contributions into effect and includes a wide range of photos showing the past and future.) (undo)---   Please judge for yourself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.136.201 (talk)

Explanation
Because that user was reported for edit warring disruptively, and was in fact edit warring disruptively. If you believe another party may have violated arbitration sanctions, the area for reporting that is located elsewhere, please feel free to report it there. As to other users, I do look at aggravating circumstances, such as describing content reverts as "vandalism", incivility, and the use of "I didn't hear that" behavior in a discussion which aggravates the disruption. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Then it's already at ANI, so it can certainly work itself out there. Thus far, the only comment I see, being from Akradecki, is against interpreting this as a 1RR violation, but others may disagree. I personally tend to agree with Akradecki's assessment, and so will not place any sanction for 1RR myself, but it ultimately is up to consensus in that discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, that is up to the consensus at ANI. As the matter is being discussed there and one administrator has already raised an objection to blocking, I would not act without allowing that discussion to proceed further even if I did believe a block was warranted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Mieczyslaw Jagielski
I would first like to apologise for removing the info that you have now put back into the article. The removal was accidental, and I was just about to put it back when you beat me to it. Do you have any sources of info regarding Mieczyslaw Jagielski that you can link me to? I'm aiming to get this article up to a level sufficient for it to be considered for Did you know. Terrakyte (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link you provided, and thank you for offering to examine Mieczyslaw's life further. Any more help you can give regarding the article would be much appreciated.  Terrakyte (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Definetly not the most notable figure out there, but I am enjoying the challenge of trying to build up the article. :) In answer to your question, I have decided to work on this article, simply because upon reading it I felt a desire to build it up.  I can't think of anything more to my decision to work on it that that.  Terrakyte (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, I believe I have expanded the article five-fold from what it was just before I started working on it. I have now nominated the article for DYK consideration, and you can see the nom at Template talk:Did you know.  Thank you very much for all your help, and anymore work you can contribute to the article and/or DYK nomination would still be much appreciated, especially since I am planning to develop the article further.  Terrakyte (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the info you have added to the article. Terrakyte (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your kind words on my talk page. Without users like you who point others in the right direction, such as when you linked me to a selection of books which mention Jagielski, Wikipedia wouldn't be as worthwhile.  :)  Terrakyte (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Piotrus. I believe I have done all I can atm regarding improving the article.  Would you mind checking it over?  Terrakyte (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have nominated the article for GA status. Thanks again for all your help regarding the article.Terrakyte (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wojciech Jaruzelski
Excellent. It will be easier to find information that we can use for the article, as opposed to finding info for the Mieczysław Jagielski article. Thanks for wanting to work with me on it. I was thinking about how we could work together on the article, and I thought that the best way would be to work on it as individuals to a great extent, whilst exchanging ideas that may arise regarding the layout, what subjects in his life should be covered e.t.c., and I could also relay Polish sources I find to you if you're up for translating their info for the article. What do you think? I imagine I can get to work on the article in about 19 hours or so, when my next phase of free time will start. Terrakyte (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Do you think the Mieczysław Jagielski article is ready for a GA nomination? Terrakyte (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read several discussions, in which the topic was over what photograph should be put in the infobox of various articles each covering different individuals. I have gathered, though my conclusion may be wrong, that photographs with the subject of the article looking straight at the camera as opposed to looking away are generally preferred by the Wikipedia community.  Do you know if my conclusion is right?  If so, what do you think about changing the photo in the Jaruzelski article infobox, as Jaruzelski is looking away from the camera in the current infobox photo.  I have found a photo which I think could be used for the infobox instead.  Please tell me what you think of it:

Terrakyte (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad you like it. :)  Would you by any chance mind uploading the photograph to Wikipedia?  The reason I ask is because if I do it I need to state when the photo was taken, and who took it, in an information box that will accompany the photo, and I cannot ascertain that information from the website where it is located because I do not understand Polish.  Sorry to ask.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrakyte (talk • contribs) 21:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Order of the Builders of People's Poland

 * Hey, you got two DYKs today? Terrific! Always remember the wise words of the old-time Congressman Sam Rayburn: Any jackass can kick down a barn door, but it takes a carpenter to build one. You, sir, are a carpenter! Ecoleetage (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You are funny Ecoleetage :) and you are right, Piotrus is a carpenter.--Jacurek (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PZL 49 Mis.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:PZL 49 Mis.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

references in PZL.49 Miś
Hello! Your submission at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 18:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

User:PeterBln
Hey Piotrus. I'm concerned about a user called PeterBln. This user, judging by his history of Wikipedia edits, and by the numerous warnings issued by several editors on his talk page, has a history of anti-NPOV edits concerning an attempt by him to re-shape what he perceives to be an anti-German bias on Wikipedia. The user was reported for admin intervention back in August; several recommendations were made for a block, but they were not acted upon because the discussion went inactive. The user has recently started up his NPOV violations again with edits like, and. The edit summary of this edit-, is very revealing I believe. I believe that his response to a warning I issued for his NPOV violations-, suggests that he will not adhere to NPOV guidelines anymore than he apparently did after previous warnings, especially when he said "Please note, that i do not accept "warnings" for posting reliable scientifically proven facts. I consider this abuse." I'm not sure how to proceed should he commit more anti-NPOV edits. As a result, I was hoping that you could look into this user, if that is ok? Terrakyte (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response, and your advice. Terrakyte (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Prehistory of Poland
Well I went through them again, corrected a few more things and I was just trying to figure out this nominating process... I'm sure you could do it more professionally :)

Orczar (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:I wonder
Lol, I agree that I don't come across as a newbie to Wikipedia. :) I edited anon since about April, and I believed for a quite a while that if I became a proper user of Wikipedia I would get drawn in too much into the project, and that might distract me from my work in real life.  However, I decided in November to throw caution to the wind, and I created this account.  Terrakyte (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * O-oh, maybe I made the wrong choice then to create an account... :) Terrakyte (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Medal
I understand that you are involved in a request for arbitration (the reason I know is because I can see evidence of that fact from this talk page), and I imagine it might be causing you a lot of wikistress. I know that a lot of people go off Wikipedia to an extent when they're wikistressed. I'm not trying to suggest that that is definetly happening to you, but if it is, I would like you to remember that you can continue to do good for this project, just as you have done in the past as shown by the fact that many editors have rewarded you with medals and barnstars. If ever you're feeling that you want to quit this project completely, please think about the medals you have got, and then why you got them, and I hope you can see that you can continue to do the positive work that was the reason for the awards. I imagine you might view this message as containing quite a bit of what might be perceived to be sentimental dribble, and that I might be trying to pretend to understand something that I'm not going through, and poking my nose into business that is not my own. I hope you don't mind me making this message, and I also hope that you can see that my words might have a real meaning beyond sentimentality. Thanks for reading. Terrakyte (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Map of the General Gouvernment
Hi Piotr,

Thanks for the nice comment on my maps of RKO and RKU and thanks for categorising them properly! To answer your request, co-incidentally I am working on a similar format map of the General Gouvernment. With any luck it will be published this week.

Thanks,

Chris

XrysD (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Prehistory of Poland GA nominating
I tried to follow this nominating procedure, would you please check if everything is in good order. I listed the whole series only once under World history, following the format you used on September 9.

Orczar (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

thanx
And Merry Xmas to you as well. Best wishes on the dissertation. ww (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations
You've been noticed. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  22:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Even on the frontpage of slashdot! --Dschwen 18:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am still surprised that I have no vandalism to my userpages yet... probably it's too difficult for most people to trace the link from Prokonsul Piotrus to Piotrus :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for help.
Hey Piotrus. I've created an article on Tadeusz Pyka. I'm hoping that it will get featured on the DYK column, but the article is not 1,500 characters long yet, and I have exhausted all of the sources of information on Pyka that I can use. :( Is there any chance that you could add to the article?  Thanks very much in advance.  Terrakyte (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Pyka DYK hook
More hyperlinks added. Terrakyte (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

BBC tv series on Stalin, re Poland
Piotrus, are you aware of the current several series of 4 ea., re Stalin & the Allies in WWII? Good use of documentary film intercut with effective dramatizations and interviews. Not over-musicked, as so often on such things. Recent programs have concerned Poland. E.g. this one can be played on one's player:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00fy4gr/World_War_II_Behind_Closed_Doors_Episode_4/

Alethe (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Adam Stanisław Grabowski dyk
Hello! Your submission at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 01:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 66
Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 66: Searching High and Low has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 07:56, 4 December 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.

Away
To let you know, I'm going to be away from a connection to the Internet from now until December 9. Talk to you later. Terrakyte (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A question about an image of yours
Hi Piotrus, I like your image:. I would like to use this image in the article seashell. The image did not have any description information, but I examined it carefully and I think I know what it is, so I gave it the description: "Beach drift seashells and coral from a beach in the Caribbean". Am I correct that this was collected in the Caribbean, do you know? If so, do you happen to know whereabouts? If not then do you know where it was from? Approximately? Many thanks to you, Invertzoo (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Piotrus. It's absolutely not necessary to photograph each of them, but I like the image anyway. I was kind of looking for a group of shells that were all collected on the same beach. If you wanted to photograph anything from it, it could maybe be the chunks of coral rock all grouped together.... But no big deal either way. Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Garden/WikiCup
Ohai Piotrus, I see that you are listed towards the top of this page, which means you have experience with article writing and expanding articles -- getting them featured. I'd like you to check out the WikiCup, beginning in January for the fourth cup.  aye matthew  ✡ 23:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Herburt coat of arms
Dear Piotr,

I did my best in order to avoid the deletion of this stub, please see if it is enough. --Gustavo (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * w:commons:Image:Jastrzebiec CoA Skrzetuski.PNG * w:commons:Image:Nowina CoA in Skrzetuski's m.PNG * w:commons:Image:Glaubicz CoA in Skrzetuski's m.PNG --Gustavo (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please avoid leaving pointless messages which are wholly designed to support an ally with an identical idelogical agenda. Paul B (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

 * Image:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1990-1028-500, Dtsch.-Sowjet. Grenz- u. Freundschaftsvertrag.jpg
 * Image:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-2004-1104-500, General Purkajew und General Friedrich Fromm.jpg

Colchicum (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Walesa
Hi Piotrus, I added this[] to Walesa page. Please revue.--Jacurek (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Solidarity
Category:Solidarity and , which you created, have been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Jonasz Kofta
Cześć. Mógłbyś poprawić przyczynę śmierci? W plWiki jest już uźródłowiona właściwa (powikłania po zakrztuszeniu). Mój angielski nie nadaje się do poważniejszych poprawek w artykułach ;-). Pozdrawiam. Gytha (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Pięknie dziękuję za poprawkę i zaproszenie, choć poza jakimiś drobiazgami dużo nie zdziałam (patrz wyżej ;-)). Gytha (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Question on a bio page
Hey Piotr, at talk:Michael Z. Williamson someone has either removed the article or thrown such a tantrum that they have proposed removing MadMike's biography for being an author of nondescript books. This, I feel, is a gross abuse of power by any wiki moderator and I would like to ask if you can go over there and check it out. Thanks. Cordova829 (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Cordova829

Ryszard Reiff
Hey Piotrus. I created an article on Ryszard Reiff a few days ago, and I thought to let you know to see if you could improve it. I would have let you know earlier, but I have been away since Friday. Before I left, I had only enough time to get the article up to the standard necessary for a DYK, and to actually do the nominating. Terrakyte (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I got the idea to create an article on this person from the link provided in the number 6 area of your user page 'To create' list. Terrakyte (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 67
Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 67: Fundraising Interview has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. W ODU P</b><b style="color:#CC3333">bot</b> 06:58, 15 December 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.

Your images titled CountdownToSingularity are being removed from articles
The three graphs regarding the approach to a singularity are neither exponential nor singular, nor do they show any "trend". They are in fact mathematically and semantically trivial, as I have explained in the images' discussion pages. I am posting this here so that you are aware of the trivial reasoning, and also in hopes that you can be a second set of eyes just in case I missed something. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's concentrate the discussion at Talk:Technological singularity. --Petri Krohn (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well of Moses
Piotrus, was this File:Well of Moses at CMArt.JPG taken in Cleveland? Or where? It appears to be a plaster cast of the original Well of Moses. Is the cast always there? Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

DSAP
--Soman (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

--Soman (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

--Soman (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

--Soman (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Elections in Poland
speaking of the DSAP-Linke article, what was the election system in Poland in 1930. Blachetta-Madajczyk writes that the list of PPS-Lewica (List 23) was declared invalid, but on the other hand the wiki article on the election states that PPS-Lewica won one seat. Would it be possible that it was only in Lodz were the list was declared invalid? --Soman (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Question regarding alternative remedy for greg
I've voted on it now; unfortunately, I don't believe it's sufficient to resolve my concerns. Kirill (prof) 01:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not beyond pointing you to such comments as the other arbitrators have made in their votes. Kirill 01:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think there are a couple of reasons for the way the voting has gone. First, the presence of findings that clear editors rather than condemning them is somewhat unprecedented to begin with; it is very rare for us to say anything about editors that isn't related to violations of policy.  Second, it is quite rare for us to speculate on whether or not someone was acting in good faith, since we generally limit ourselves to commenting on actions rather than motivations.  Finding 25.6 was a strong statement on both counts; I'm really not surprised that it has not enjoyed wide support.
 * As far as Piotrus 3 is concerned, I'm hopeful it can be avoided (though perhaps despite rather than because of the rulings in Piotrus 2). There are avenues regarding arbitration enforcement and content disputes that need to be explored going forward; I think we may have reached the limit of what can reasonably be done with our current approach to conduct rulings. Kirill 03:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll read them. The reason I don't want to comment on "good faith" is not because I have a general cynicism of it or have a specific suspicion about you, but because some of the allegations here involve off-wiki activity. I think that if arbitrators go into this type of stuff, people will be encouraged to try and spy on each other, or pretend to befriend people and run sting operations off-wiki, or to turn on people. I have seen a few guys join up with a few other guys off-wiki (only revealed afterwards) and they seemed happy with each other, and groups A and B seemed united in dealing with group C. Then after group C left, some of group A posted a pile of supposed correspondence on-wiki [which contradicted themselves] and then banned some of their former buddies [later overturned]. I'm not sure if they had always intended to report B after C had been thrown off and only intended to team up with B so that B could fight for them, or whether they changed their minds on a whim, but after that it started a horrendous brawl within the said WikiProject, with some folks sending emails to one guy alleging some guy did a certain illegal thing and then sending emails to another guy saying other things, and trying to play mind games with different people as to who to report [possibly falsely] and who to cover-up in return for political favours. After that the WikiProject went into a recession for a long time, basically, and even 18 months later is basically not growing much at all in terms of FA, and that was one major reason for it, although other big-time writers slowing down was another. I think that if there is a problem with some guy, it's better to deal with it in a straight manner, instead of trying to do off-wiki tricks, which can lead to mass distrust. So that's why I don't really like to make a big deal about it, in case people try to start to raise the stakes about off-wiki business.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As for Piotrus 3, I don't know why people want to take POV-disputes to AC. I certainly wouldn't, otherwise I would have done a pile.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 04:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

PPS zp?
what is meant by 'PPS zp'?, --Soman (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Like in, and . It also appears in the book I use as source for DSAP-Linke. --Soman (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That would make sense. Is it possible that 'PPS zp' would have been a branch of PPS or a separate party within the German state? --Soman (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I found pl:Polska Partia Socjalistyczna Zaboru Pruskiego. --Soman (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Martin Kromer
Polls are evil, Piotrus. You wouldn't want to sort it out without a WP:RM? What about Martin Kromer, keeping the modern Polish K? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't answer the question? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of dispute tag
Can you explain in light of this?. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Polish II Corps in Russia
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  00:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies that have been adopted are as follows;
 * Should resume editing Wikipedia, he shall be assigned a volunteer mentor, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.
 * is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
 * is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
 * is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
 * is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
 * is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about under any circumstances, except for any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution.
 * is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
 * is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
 * Should make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
 * is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about under any circumstances, except for any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution.
 * is cautioned to avoid using his administrator powers or status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent.
 * is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
 * shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.
 * is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
 * Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world disputes, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary. Wikipedia cannot solve any of the national, ethnic, historical, or cultural disputes that exists among the nations and peoples of Eastern Europe or any other real-world conflict. What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated.
 * Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may best devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious. For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Group X and who finds himself or herself caught up in edit-warring on an article about a recent war between Group X and Group Y, may wish to disengage from that article for a time and instead focus on a different aspect of the history, civilization, and cultural heritage of Group X.
 * Administrators who utilize the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel (or other IRC channels in which Wikipedia-related matters are discussed) are reminded that while the #admins channel has legitimate purposes, they should bear in mind whenever using it:
 * (A) That discussing an issue on IRC necessarily excludes those editors who do not use IRC from the discussion (and excludes almost all non-administrators from the discussion if it takes place in #wikipedia-en-admins), and therefore, such IRC discussion is never the equivalent of on-wiki discussion or dispute resolution;
 * (B) That the practice of off-wiki "block-shopping" is strongly deprecated, and that except where there is an urgent situation and no reasonable administrator could disagree with an immediate block (e.g., ongoing blatant or pagemove vandalism or ongoing serious BLP violations), the appropriate response for an administrator asked on IRC to block an editor is to refer the requester to the appropriate on-wiki noticeboard; and
 * (C) That even though the relationship between the "wikipedia" IRC channels and Wikipedia remains ambiguous, any incidents of personal attacks or crass behavior in #wikipedia-en-admins are unwelcome and reflect adversely on all users of the channel.


 * Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will open a general request for comments regarding the arbitration enforcement process, particularly where general sanctions are concerned. Having received such comments, the Committee will consider instituting suitable reforms to the enforcement process.
 * Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will convene a community discussion for the purpose of developing proposed reforms to the content dispute resolution process.
 * Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will publish guides to presenting evidence and using the workshop page.

Please see the above link to read the full case.

For the Arbitration Committee,

 Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Polish-Georgian alliance
Hello Piotrus and thanks for the article. I'll add more info as soon as possible. Polish-Georgian relations is also a much needed article. I will try to start it in a week or so and hope to get an input from you. :) Best wishes, --KoberTalk 18:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Bolesław_II_the_Bold
I have made a comment that may interest you at the above page. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 03:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

A Class Review of Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)
Hello!

I noticed that you have left comment on the A class review of this article. I am hoping that your comment of no de.wikipedia equivalent is not "Actionable". I am afraid German is not one of the languages I know. I won't be able to do any kind of translation for de.wikipedia. I'd appreciate your support for this article. Could you please let me know if you found the article satisfying the Class A Criteria ? Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right. I did go looking for that article originally and couldn't find one. At the time my intention was to look for sources. Yes I am aware that your comment is not a vote. I was hoping you could offer some feedback. Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which! Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. Best, Risker (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
<div style="background:crimson;border:5px ridge lime;color:gold;font-family:monotype corsiva;font-size:200%"> Hello Piotrus! I just wanted to wish you and your family a merry Christmas! May this Christmas be full of great cheer and holiday spirit. Have a great day and a wonderful New Year, from  The Bald One       White cat 11:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

What I can do with Poland is help transwiki them from Polish wikipedia. What I can do is make a decision on what is notable and then stub them on here. They may begin very short or useless, but by placing Polish trnaslate tags on them I hope that Polish editors will come across them and help translate! Incidentally I was going to finish stubbing the User:Dr. Blofeld/Poland Polish painters in a few days The Bald One       White cat 11:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes
Best wishes for the new year, and congratulations on bringing to a satisfactory, if not ideal, close a challenging 2008 and a four months' ordeal at the hands of some of the most vicious characters that prowl the halls of Wikipedia! Nihil novi (talk) 11:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

re:
Wesołych Świąt! --Soman (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Bundesarchive captions
I want to inform you that:
 * The Bundesarchive mentions clearly that they copy the text descriptions from original archive names and captions. In some cases they use their own version, but they also rely on suggestions. This means that


 * A:All photos need to be judged case by case.Caption given by Bundesarchive can be copy of the original archive caption as noted in their explanation.


 * B:Bundesarchive pictures can have non-reliable captions.


 * C: They are hardly dedicated scholary project to show captions as evidence in support of contested claims.

From Bundesarchive page: http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/index.php?barch_item=en_help#a15 ''The Federal Archive describes pictures - where available - with the original text. If no original text is available, the picture is described by the archivists of the Federal Archive. In view of the large number of pictures, of course it can come to discrepancies in individual cases. We are always grateful for notes and additions because of this.''

I hope this will help you. --Molobo (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Dziekuje bardzo za Zyczenia Swiateczne i cudowna choinke. Zycze Ci Piotrus rowniez Wesolych Swiat i szczesliwego Nowego Roku.--Jacurek (talk) 16:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas!

Dear Piotrus,

I wish you more love and happiness in the coming New Year!

Biophys (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Dear Piotrus,

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a great New Year. Thanks you for your help in the past year and hopefully in the coming year I will be able to contribute to Wikipedia to repay your investment.

Regards

Jniech (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Xmas
Najlepsze życzenia Wesołych Świąt i Szczęśliwego Nowego Roku. Kpjas (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a fact for you
Did you know that we have the same birthday? I found out here. -- Dylan 620  Contribs Sign! 13:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

RfArb
Hi there Piotrus - I hope you've had a nice holiday. Just to let you know, I've brought the Lokyz issue up here - hopefully it will be sorted out by the arbitrators quickly. -- Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Belated wishes for a merry Christmas from down South
Speaking of which...I visited Warsaw, today...I have to confess it's changed quite a bit since last I was there. For one thing, they replaced the Palace of Culture with a dinky little colonial-style courthouse...

(By the way, you might appreciate the fact that just down the road, also in Richmond County, is a community called "Wilna". Never been there...maybe next year.) --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 07:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.


 * There's a similar problem with Austrian partition.  Sandstein   14:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
A belated Merry Christmas from --Folantin (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Google books links
I've noticed that you are adding many links to the specific pages in google books. While it provides easy access to specific page, long refs make text of the article very hard to read and edit.DonaldDuck (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

File:17 sent 1939.jpg
Hi, a useful image has been listed for deletion. Could you please help me? --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Dark Matter
My suggestion is to make it plain and simple, most readers in the English speaking world have a very limited understanding of Polish history. Partitions are not within in the scope of their knowledge, the partitions are Dark Matter outside of Poland.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC) I have an authentic 1794 map of Poland showing the partitions on my wall, its a great motovation to get a historical discussion started with guests.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)