User talk:Piotrus/Archive 28

Ongoing edit war
There's been a slow edit war on MechWarrior (video games) that has escalated into a violation of the three revert rule. Could you step in, please? --Scaletail (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

FA review notification
nominated Battle of Warsaw (1920) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Novickas (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

C-Class
It is great to see such diversity in the Military History WikiProject. Even though we don't agree I still respect your opinion and it seems that one of us will have to bow to the consensus of the WikiProject. I am so glad to see that people are really showing that they care about the future of this WikiProject, keep up the good work! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 04:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories
Thanks for the heads up. I agree that the names are ambiguous. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

pl:Mieczysław Bielski
Mieczysław Bielski 83.28.11.158 (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Witaj, zgłosiłem ten art. do poczekalnia, bo nie chce mi się wierzyć, że admin może wstawić coś takiego...... Pablo000

Adding a new category for SURVIVORS of the Holocaust
Hi Piotrus: Regarding the two CfDs at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 12 and Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 12, while I agree that the categories need to be sharpened, but if they are going to become categories about people who DIED only in Category:People who died in The Holocaust and Category:People who died in Nazi concentration camps respectively, then in all fairness and following good logic and historiography, following that reasoning, there should now therefore be two categories. ONE for those who DIED and one for those survivors who LIVED such as Category:Holocaust victims who survived and Category:Survivors of Nazi concentration camps that would allow for that. I am positive you will agree and kindly take a look at the two above CfD discussions again and note that that should be so, that both those who died and those who survived and lived, and who were/are of course notable, such as Elie Wiesel; Joel Teitelbaum; Yekusiel Yehudah Halberstam and many others that I know as being important to Jewish history, and there are many others like this from many other groups. It would be a great shame and travesty if those names were expunged only "because" they survived and escaped the fate the Nazis had wanted for them by having lived and not died in the Holocaust and/or the death and concentration camps. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
— Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  16:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Question
Could you please comment at Media_copyright_questions? I can't seem to figure out whether or not such images are copyrighted. Thanks.Smallman12q (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Makówki issue
Someone is again pushing German names in articles concerning Silesian cousine. What is worse he does a constant mish mash in the talk page - puts things up and down regartles of their chronology and role in the discussion see here and here. Can anything be done about it?

Best wishes 213.238.122.164 (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You could help by registering, and keeping order on that discussion talk page. You can also bring the issue to WP:PWNB and its German counterpart. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009  Unsubscribe &middot; Single-page &middot; Full edition &raquo;  — 16 March 2009


 * News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
 * Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 23:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

w sprawie Barbary Radziwiłłówny
Is there any reference that Barbara Radziwiłł spoke Lithuanian or it's just another assumption of Lithuanian "historians"? It looks like Lithuanian nationalists are at work as one of the users commented article about Barbara Radziwillowna in the German-language wiki. Could you, please provide any link to it or any book title with the page (in English, German, French, Polish, Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Czech, Russian. etc) where prove of her proficiency in Lithuanian can be found? What is the language which is called in the article "White Russian"? And why the Polish name "Nowogrodek" but not Belarusian "Navahradak" is used in the text? This looks idiotically when one sees the name "Vilnius" (which appeared only in the 19th century (see Tomas Venclova "Eseje") in the same article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.102.112.40 (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please ask the question on article's talk page; that's the correct venue for such a question and discussion. You may want to consider asking it on WP:PWNB and its Lithuanian counterpart. Also, please consider registering before you do so. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing conduct
Hi, I've just left a note to User:Xx236 at Talk:Centre Against Expulsions about editing conduct again. I expect you would agree with what I have suggested to him, but if you have any more advice to add that would be appreciated. The problems are now spreading to several articles and the accusations becoming more unpleasant - it is time for a return to more constructive editing atmosphere. Knepflerle (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to reply - that is helpful advice I will bear in mind. Thanks once more, Knepflerle (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar question
Piotrus, the Geography Barnstar that you introduced nearly three years ago had arguably the coolest design of any barnstar I've seen. But last year it was replaced by a far-inferior design. Do you know why this occurred, and is there any way to bring back your original barnstar? Un sch  ool  18:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC) == Wikipedia Signpost : 23 March 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
 * Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
 * News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Poland
Praca administratora na ro: niestety pochłania zbyt dużo czasu, żeby móc jeszcze zająć się polską tematyką tutaj. :( Remigiu (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Honorary member! I like that! &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 19:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

New film
Hi Piotrus, Excellent film coming up soon.--Jacurek (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks Piotrus for the nomination, I will join soon.

P.S. I'm judging this move by its trailer, looks really promising.--Jacurek (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Poland
I would be happy to write for the Project Poland again. Currently I am seriously busy with pl-wiki, but as soon as it is done, I will try to make at least one article a month. Pozdrawiam serdecznie belissarius (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Zaraz to zrobię :) belissarius (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Osiadłem" w pl-wiki w 2004, gdy wydawało mi się, że jest stanowczo zbyt mało tłumaczy z angielskiego. No i do czegoś się tem chyba przyczyniłem. Teraz jestem w trakcie tłumaczenia całego cyklu o wojnach maoryskich i generalnie o historii Nowej Zelandii. To mi pewnie zajmie ze 2-3 tygodnie, bo materiału masa, a polska wiedza o tym zakątku świata mizerniutka. Ale jak tylko skończę, to się zaraz zabiorę. Mam nawet znakomity temacik w tym przedziale, a mianowicie "Polonia in New Zealand". Moje "działki" to historia, geografia, Polonia, Chicago, ale tu bije mnie na głowę Orestek. belissarius (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

My reply: WikiProject Poland
''Congratulations. WikiProject Poland has reviewed your contributions and decided you are an active member. Thank you for your encyclopedic contributions! But creating content by yourself is only part of the collaborative Wikipedia user experience, there is an active community of editors discussing how to better improve the Poland-related content; please consider joining our discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland. There are many editors who would like to work more closely with you, benefit from your insight, and help you with their experience! PS. Please also consider editing your entry in our participants list to state your areas of expertise/interest.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)''

odpowiedź Piotrze, a gdzie moja laurka-gwiazdka? :):) Poza tym, od dawien dawna jestem wpisany/zapisany/aktywny. Patrz Tadeusz Gronowski. answer Piotrus, where is my barnstar? :):) Besides, I have been listed/acting as an active member since forever. And see Tadeusz Gronowski. Trzym się / Take care, --Mareklug talk 00:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion articles

 * Several articles about expulsions have been intensively edited by User:Skäpperöd, who quoted the book Kriegsverbrechen der alliierten Siegermächte by Pit Pietersen, rejected as unreliable in Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I'm a single human being, not a team of historians and administrators as you seem to expect. Wikipedia claims that anyone can edit it. There are two worlds - the one of people who understand Wikipedia to impose their POV and the majority of common editors like me. Many projects (de)generate creating conflicts between such groups and your task as an administrator is to recognise such problems and to solve them rather than to believe in false ideal image of this project.
 * You don't have any right to criticise my edits as unconstructive or something. I do what I can and I don't get much support from Polish editors and administrators. I happen to know many subjects and opposed a number of manipulations. I have explained almost any subject of the Skäpperöd conflict in Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II. If you believe that the discussion should be linked in another articles, you can do it. I do what I can.
 * When I limited my edits User:Skäpperöd attacked User:Gwinndeith. Are you sure that I was responsible for the conflict with Skäpperöd? Read his Arbitration enforcement demand, it's an ad personam attack, the longest part of it copies attacks against me which I collect on my page. BTW - the conflict was about English language summary of a short text. Qualifying it as Eastern Europe conflict is an example of discrimination and your acceptance or even participation in such solution is hard to believe. Skäpperöd did a series of biased edits, e.g. quoted Nazi propaganda as a source. It's beyond my understanding that he hasn't been punished for his edits and you accept his behaviour as better than mine. I asked for help in Editor assistance/Requests. Xx236 (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Gia Long
Replied.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 03:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Added some more.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 03:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Vilnija and P-L relations
I thought about it that way but I think in general it sets a bad precedent. All kinds of extremist views could be included in various articles with the excuse that they are labeled as such. In addition to the fact that there are some people out there who don't mind admitting that they're extremists who would use this as an opportunity to disrupt and pollute articles, this practice would also tend to blur the line between extremist and non extremist sources particularly on topics where there isn't a lot of people with general knowledge. Extremist sources should be used on articles about those extremist sources. So I guess it could go into the article on Vilnija though even there I'd be careful about the presentation.radek (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC) PS. Good job on the Pilch article. I was going to expand it after you stubbed it but you got the job done so quickly I hardly had an opportunity to contribute.

Commenting on A-class noms
Thank you for taking the time to comment on some of the reviews! Every little suggestion helps :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do; it seems like the only regular reviewers are Cla, Bryce and Joe N. I'll take a look at your article tonight or tomorrow; I have work in 2 minutes...literally. :/ — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Adolf Pilch
--Dravecky (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Kyryl Studynsky
Shubinator (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland
Hi Piotrus, thank you for notifying me about the Project Poland, and your kind message left on my talk page. I enjoy editing Wikipedia, it is a lot of fun. If only it had existed 10 years ago, when I had more time and was a happy student in one of Polish universities... Greetings. Tymek (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification, I've recently been more active on pl-wiki, although it is possible the tide will change in the future. How is your thesis going anyway? Pundit | utter  07:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

EVE-online, 'tanks' category
Only about half a dozen articles that would fit this category. You sure there's demand for it? -- Eirik Ratcatcher, 26 march 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.253.220 (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Prośba
Proszę o zablokowanie (semi-block - blok tylko przeciw edycjom IP) mojej strony użytkownika na czas "indefinitely" (na zawsze) z powodu masowych i ciągle powracających się wandalizmów od IP. LUCPOL (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Syrenab activities
Piotrus Please note that I made 4 minor revisions to Poland related pages in March 2009 Syrenab Syrenab (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Eastern Bloc economies
Shubinator (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

A favor to ask of you
I know you are a native Polish speaker; would you be willing to take a look at Sebring (Floryda) to sanity-check the first paragraph for grammatical coherence? I am a non-Polish speaker trying to add articles to the Polish Wikipedia through cut-and-paste-and-pray, and the baffling array of cases and declensions in Polish really makes my head hurt. (grin) I'm pretty sure that the rest of the article is okay (its boilerplate that somebody translated from User:Rambot's additions here), but the first paragraph is my verbiage, with help from Google translation. Thanks in advance.  Horologium  (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

status update
hi, true, the job market is tough nowadays. There's always Europe, right? :) I'm in the process of my tenure/associate professorship/"habilitacja" review, I hope to be done with it till the next academic year... Pundit | utter  15:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Eastern Bloc politics
== Wikipedia Signpost : 30 March 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
 * Special report: Community weighs license update
 * News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Boleslaw II Szczodry or Smialy (Generous or Bold) debate
Dear Piotrus, attached are the sources for my claim of Boleslaw II's nickname being Szczodry meaning Generous:

Anonim zwany Gallem przekazał, że Bolesław II nosił przydomek Szczodry (Largus). Powstał on za życia władcy lub w najbliższym czasie po jego śmierci. Uznaje się go za jedyny autentyczny przydomek tego władcy i jest używany przez literaturę naukową.

Bolesław II z określeniem Śmiały pojawia się po raz pierwszy w późnym Poczcie królów polskich. Określenie to było traktowane przez historiografię XIX i XX w. jako przydomek. Badacze wskazują, że epitet nadany kilka wieków po śmierci danej osoby nie jest przydomkiem. And the bibliography behind these claims: K. Jasiński, Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, s. 152-153. T. Grudziński, Bolesław Szczodry, Toruń 1953; Z. Kozłowska-Budkowa, W dziewięćsetlecie śmierci Bolesława Szczodrego. Zapiski z nekrologów i grób królewski, "Studia Źródłoznawcze" 28, 1983; K. Skwierczyński, Treści ideowe monet królewskich Bolesława Szczodrego, "Wiadomości Numizmatyczne", 1994, z. 3-4, s. 141-155; J. Wyrozumski, Dzieje Polski piastowskiej, Kraków 1999, wg indeksu; Piastowie. Leksykon biograficzny, Kraków 1999, s. 57; S. Szczur, Historia Polski średniowiecze, Kraków 2005, s. 108; T. Jurek, Agnes regina. W poszukiwaniu żony Bolesława Szczodrego, "Roczniki Historyczne", LXXII, 2006, s. 95-104

I appreciate the linguistic sensibilities of wikipedians - most of whom may not be polish, but in light of primary sources calling the monarch "Generous" I think it is reasonable to entitle him as such, not as what the wikipedians feel is his correct nickname. There is a correct nickname and it has been established by the scientific community of the country this man once ruled, it is not subject to polls, referendums or someones widzimisie. I for one, am for a change of the the heading to Boleslaw II the Generous (Rob Aleksandrowicz (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Thanks for your quick answer. The reason is simple: I am not an experienced wikipedian and quite honestly I'm in the dark when it comes to all this "talk" stuff. Thank you for your help though.

Pozdrawiam (Rob Aleksandrowicz (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

Thanks
Thank you for your fine script-generated message to me. I will read the notice board and try to help with the articles. Wyklety (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Territorial changes of Poland

 * this is really strange. Could you describe it more, and preferably add a month to place it chronologically in a series of maps we have for the Polish-Soviet War? See also commons:Category:Maps of the Polish-Soviet War.
 * It's based on this map of March 1919 of the Polish Soviet War-- Esemono (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, thanks. A good idea is to note in map description what sources (other maps) it is based on. Same applies to maps about this.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I did on the main, Animated Territorial changes of Poland 1635-2009 page but I'm still getting around to doing it for each individual slide. -- Esemono (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it strange that you have chosen Jurgów (File:Territorial changes of Poland 1920c.jpg) to put on a map of such a scale; why a map for Polish–Czechoslovak border conflicts would be nice, Jurgów was just a village of little importance in a small part of the disputed territory. The map is misleading as it suggests that Jurgów was of some major importance. To a lesser extent, this same confusion applies to File:Territorial changes of Poland 1925.jpg.
 * The article is, Territorial changes of Poland, not Major changes of Territorial changes of Poland -- Esemono (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, and I can see a map with a village useful for a very limited purpose (history of the village), but wouldn't it be more useful to show affected regions instead of selected settlements? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would if I could find a map of the region. I don't really know the Polish area or villages.  So I just find a village that has a wikipedia entry and geo stat.  I wish there were maps like the 1951 for each adjustment-- Esemono (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the chunk missing from this map?
 * It's the Border Agreement between Poland and the USSR of 16 August 1945

 File:Bssr1944.PNG|Byelorussian SSR before adjustment File:BelarusHrodnaRegion.png|Byelorussian SSR after adjustment 
 * 1948 transfer was about more then Medyka village, see pl:Korekty_granic_Polski_od_1945_roku, so File:Territorial changes of Poland 1948.jpg is misleading (in the same way that the Jurgów and Ostrava maps are). The proper way to do it is like you've done on the 1951 map (I really like it).
 * I would love to do it like the 1951 map but I can't find any more information on those border changes. -- Esemono (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On another side note, I've added your maps to various articles on en wiki (you can check their usage on commons via usage tab); feel free to add your maps to other articles you think would benefit from them. It's often a shame that nice maps are forgotten as their creators don't bother adding them to articles - it is not always the case that article editors like me will spot them soon, particularly if they are not properly categorized.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks man -- Esemono (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

re
The 1941 annexation of Bialystok was somehow different as Bk. was not included in or made a Gau/Reg.-bez. Have a look at how I integrated it now. To make that table a template, there are too many redlinks and too a few articles that could use it - though I was surprised when I saw how many redundant articles there are covering WWII in PL (at least "Administration, "Occupation, and "Hist of PL (1939-45) are imho all redundant and should be made one main article, and the various subarticles also partially overlap). I am not for reducing content, but for better structuring there, but it is too far out of my scope so I won't get involved there now. You are right, the administration article looks like a good place to integrate the table, so I did. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Vilnius
That's a separate question, of what to use in derived name, which WP:NGCN should address. I'll add something; the obvious example to me is the Battle of Eylau, which does not depend on the present name of Preussich Eylau. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Apolinary Hartglas
Piotrus, just to let you know that Radek (secretly) created another great Bio article. Some Wiki decoration due perhaps ;)?--Jacurek (talk) 07:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Mathias
Hi, for talking to museums and archives the master is Mathias. The press kit isn't ready yet, but he has the stats on the Bundesarchiv high resolution image sales. Best regards, Durova Charge! 00:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 6 April 2009 ==


 * Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
 * News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
 * Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject China
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Your debate with FP
Dear Piotrus, when your Wilno/Vilnius poll ends, expect something like that in order to disqualify the Polish vote. After all you're a "nationalist". We've been there, done that with this person.--Avg (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone here has something against experimentation using Guinea pigs? Just asking. Dr.K. logos 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

New developments on Honorverse articles
Somebody has proposed Imperial Andermani Navy for deletion. On the discussion page an option for a merge has been mentioned. The latter might be advisable.

That same editor has tagged List of organizations in the Honorverse with what could lead to another deletion proposal, and that is already too much IMHO.

I feel your input is necessary. Debresser (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

First draft
Przepraszam za głupie pytanie, ale nie mogę znaleźć tego, co w pl:wiki nazywa się "brudnopisem"? belissarius (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Czyli jak, bom nadal guuupi: mam sobie, w swoim userbox stworzyć cokolwiek, skąd będę mógł ściągać do strony głównej? I am still fine stupid. OK, zakładam u siebie stronę "X" i tam umieszczam swoje wypociny. Czy po zasejwowaniu pokaże mi to obraz taki, jak w pl:wiki, czyli quasi-prawdziwy artykuł? I am still confused... belissarius (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No już sobie poradziłem. Zrobiłem jak Ty i działa. Dzięki wielkie. Przedtem obrywałem joby pisząc wprost na stronie, ale taraz wziąłem się za medalówkę ( w dużej mierze moją) i nie mogę sobie na to pozwolić. Przy okazji: będę potrzebował pomocy, bo mój angielski jest może dobry w mowie, ale w piśmie różnie z tym bywa. Pozdrawiam serdecznie i wracam do tekstu belissarius (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No to dla mnie coś nowego! Na pl:wiki byłem co rusz "opluwany" za pisanie wprost, ale jest tam takich głupot znacznie więcej. Na razie będę pisał w "draft", tym więcej, że art jest spory objętościowo - ostatecznie medal - i roboty przy nim sporo. Maybe you do not know me, but I am a sort of perfectionist i chciałbym, by moje artykuły były tak samo dobre tutaj, jak i tam. belissarius (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A możesz spojrzeć na to, co dotąd nasmarowałem? belissarius (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Link? Ależ proszę bardzo: Sandbox. Pozdrawiam belissarius (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Dobra, sejwuję to jako "new article" i dalej będę skrobał na "open"... belissarius (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Haihowak
Zajmujące, nieprawdaż? Picus viridis (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

wwii anniversary
I do not want to alter your post at the PL-NB, so may I ask you to fix "60'th anniversary" yourself. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Poland talk page
Seems a bit quiet (see my question over there), so I'm posting here instead. Is there another place I can go if I have questions about articles on Polish topics? Carcharoth (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Vilnius compromise
Would you be willing to back a community compromise, and encourage other Polish editors to back a compromise, as follows: I'd like this blackhole of wiki time to be corked shut, and for your group and the Lithuanian group to spend time doing more productive things. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Before 1795, Vilnius
 * Between 1795 and WWI, Vilna
 * Inter-war, Polish rule, Wilno
 * Post-war, Soviet rule, Vilnius


 * I think we should sort Vilnius out first, and after that you can generalise the results on guideline pages. As there is no consensus for Battle of Vilnius (1655), I can't think of any cut-off date before 1795. "Vilna" may very well be less offensive to both, but its use in English seems to be mainly in writings where the main topic is Russia or Muscovy, and when we have divergent usage we have to fall back on the English name. What do you suggest for the "war itself". Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "War itself" was the term you used, so you'll need to tell me. It is clear that the bureaucratic language of the GDL after the mid-1300s has little consensual weight on the naming of Vilnius. I'm trying to get you to reach a compromise and help generate consensus, not restate your position (with which I am certainly most familiar). Could you tell me if you are happy to use Vilnius before 1569? If you are, further discussion can be concentrated in period from 1569 to 1795. You are by far the most important editor here, and if you can bring yourself to make some concessions to other opinions a solution is very possible here, and we can thereafter isolate the most extreme strands. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm trying to see it from both your point and theirs. I don't understand why you'd want "Wilno" before 1569 ... I've never heard you argue this. Anyways, my view is that it is unreasonable to call it anything but "Vilnius" before 1440 or after 1945, probably should be Wilno when under Poland in the Interwar and probably Vilna under Tsarist rule. For me the other territory is probably less firm, as the sources use Vilnius or Wilno (and sometimes Vilna), as the discussion at Battle of Vilnius (1655) showed. However, for the Lithuanians they'd argue it should be Vilnius always (as that is their name and the English name), but I suspect they'd accept Wilno or Vilna after 1795 and before 1945. We'd have to ask them anything more specific. But it's pointless asking them at all if there's no decent compromise. I thought what I suggested above might be a decent start. If that offer is totally unacceptable I'd like it if you proposed another. The very least we can achieve is to limit conflict between their group and yours, even if we can't eliminate it. If you do propose another, I will open a discussion page for the topic. We don't need a poll, we just need consensus among the interested editors in the two groups. Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 03:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I tried. I asked three times for you to make suggestions, but it really seems all you're doing is trying to use my efforts to strengthen your position. Don't you want peace on the topic? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Saying stuff like "Wilno is the correct term for the entire period of pre-1795, and Vilnius is not" was not encouraging, I hope you can appreciate that. ;) I"m guessing you guys don't clash too often pre-1569 the issue of Polish dominance isn't a great one. If we leave that period with Vilnius, that is a great and reasonable start. All I want you to do is to draw up a proposal (like the first post I posted above) which you believe might have a reasonable chance of being an acceptable starting point for Lithuanian users. Please have good faith here and understand that I am really trying to construct a stable modus vivendi on the issue. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad map


This map is plenty of faults, showing Royal and Ducal Prussia after 1466 as separated entities from Crown of the Polish Kingdom. What can we do with this? Mathiasrex (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Polish 1st Light Cavalry Regiment of the Imperial Guard
Zakończyłem. Potrzebna jest korekta, ale może pomoże mi w tym mój anglojęzyczny syn, historyk zresztą, którego nie mogę jakoś zachęcić do pisania tutaj. A szkoda, bo ma dużo wiedzy i niezłe pióro. Rzuć okiem. Dziękuję z góry belissarius (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rozumiem, że T:TDYK to odpowiedznik polskiego "czywiesza", a co to jest to drugie? Jakiś ranking? belissarius (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Dobra, zrobię to w poniedziałek. Dzięki za wskazówki :) belissarius (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrzuciłem i tu i tam. Zobaczymy co z tego będzie :) Teraz siedzę nad pl:medalem "Bitwy polskiego średniowiecza" i jest mi ciut trudniej, ale w dwa dni pewnie się uporam i Battles of Medieval Poland będą ready to go. Pierwsze rozdziały juz do obejrzenia. Pozdrawiam w Drugi Dzień Świąt belissarius (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Help
Hey, I saw you requested help and anyway, see this and this as a start. Good luck with the rest and Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion vote
Hello, looking at the talk page of File:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG I saw oppose that image; it would be of great help if you'd list your opposition to it. Thank you.HP1740-B (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Trela Mazur request
In Polish Culture during Second World. The pages of the sources are 89-125.--Molobo (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Jan Kwapinski
Piotrus, I'm gratified by the number of hits this article is now getting. I plan to research his life a bit more via London & NYC archives this year. How about a pronunciation link for his name, as for those of Mikolajczyk and Sikorski? As a nonPolish speaker, I'm adjusting my pronunciation in accord with them. Btw, British Library now has a sign up forbidding photography of their Polish WWII stamp collections in glass leaves in the main hall. I got some of them before that--tho' it was difficult, due to the glass, & I don't have a polaroid lens for the camera I was using. The one from the concentration camps are most poignant.Alethe (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 13 April 2009 ==


 * License update: Licensing vote begins
 * News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
 * Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II
Thank you for your note. It isn't clear to me why Lokyz thinks some of the sources are dubious, because she/he didn't explain. Based on my review of the source, your edits seem solid. — Malik Shabazz 18:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Nazi-era ghettos
Since the main article is Ghettos in Nazi-occupied Europe, you might want to rename the list List of ghettos in Nazi-occupied Europe. I think the Holocaust template looks fine, but if you want to add or remove a few ghettos, be bold. The worst that can happen is that somebody will revert you. — Malik Shabazz 18:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Dano-Swedish War (1658–1660)
As you're our foremost editor on Polish military history, I'd much appreciate your opinion on Dano-Swedish War (1658–1660) if you have a minute over. A slightly convoluted conflict, but both our respective countries were involved - on opposite sides nonetheless. :) henrik  • talk  19:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Pilecki
Well done on improving article. Tom B (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

New Barnstar
Hi.

First of all, the reason why i choose to ask you of all the members of the awards project is because i always feel more relaxed with an brother Otaku.

You see, i`m a member of the Album Wikiproject and we don`t have a Barnstar of our own, i was thinking on the lines of a star-shape of the Sgt. Pepper or maybe of an LP, but before getting all picky, could you do me the favor of making the Star for the Project?.

I`ll wait for your reply, thanks in advance. Zidane tribal (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I see, that`s too bad, so are mine. Oh, well, I`ll ask someone else, someone you can recommend me?. Zidane tribal (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Operation Reinhard
It isn't clear what categories which ones you think are missing, or which ones you think are inappropriate. If you think there's a need to fine-tune the category structure, go ahead. I don't really follow the category business too closely. — Malik Shabazz 18:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Honorverse concepts and terminology
I have nominated Honorverse concepts and terminology, 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/Honorverse concepts and terminology. 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.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --EEMIV (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That which I feared has now happened. User:EEMIV has successfully pushed the merge of Imperial Andermani Navy‎ and now has
 * 1) tagged Technology in the Honorverse and Weapons technology in the Honorverse with PROD’s;
 * 2) blanked (that is, turned into redirects) Office of Frontier Security and State Security;
 * 3) tagged for deletion (as AfD’s) Treecat, List of treecats and Honorverse concepts and terminology
 * 4) Is about to do the same to Elysian Space Navy, Royal Manticoran Navy and probably others. Debresser (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you support me here, please? Debresser (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Battles of Medieval Poland
Surely I will not, but first I have to finish it. I need some 2-3 days, I guess. :) belissarius (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

re east upper silesia
I thought about redirecting this to Regierungsbezirk Kattowitz, but since minor parts were administered within Regierungsbezirk Oppeln, I decided to rather stub East Upper Silesia as for this reason it was unprecise to just redirect to the Kattowitz government region. However, I would not object strongly if someone says these articles should be merged, as East Upper Silesia and Reg-bez Kattowitz for the most part do overlap and eg Heinemann uses the terms synonymously. Either way another redlink is blue now :) Skäpperöd (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Lakhva Ghetto
That's not how consensus on Wikipedia works. You were WP:BOLD, another editor objected to your changes and reverted -- you now need to obtain consensus to move forward with your edits. See WP:CYCLE. I'm not necessarily opposed to the change, although personally I would need convincing. Raise it on the talk page. Best regards, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your edit summary comment "of course the subject is notable and deserves a separate article". Don't disagree with the notability, but I'm not sure that is the criteria for an article split in this case.  That's why one needs to discuss major changes like an article split.  I don't fault you for being bold, but since concerns have been raised in respect of your major change, it would be great if you discussed them first.  And I agree with your talk page comment that any split article should actually be at Łachwa Ghetto, assuming we get to the point where we agree on a split. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am also not sure that I agree with your suggestion that a small ghetto does not merit inclusion in the template. There are actually two sources saying that it was the first uprising, with another suggestion that it might have been. I'm not sure that size or lack of sources justify its removal, but I would be happy to discuss it.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for agreeing to discuss it, and I will add my thoughts where you suggested. Please wait for the discussion to play out before merging histories, etc.  The 2006 split was more odd than anything else, a cut and paste job that left both articles virtually identical, by an editor that was subsequently banned.  It may be later in the day before I get the chance to comment - I'm not ignoring you, I just need to be somewhere right now.  Thanks.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do. I'll post it a bunch of places this afternoon.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

News on the GURPS front
Catherine has processed the adoption request 8) --Roguebfl (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!
Appologies for deleting the names from your list of Poles. I just assumed that was allowed (I didn't notice on your main page of the list indicating not to do that). Also note that in that edit where I removed some of the blue links, I fixed the links to two of them, as one lead to a disambiguation page (Karol) and one lead to the wrong person (Mikola). Anyway, keep up the great work!Calaka (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Polish Light Cavalry and Polish Medieval Battles
Nie dałoby się umieścić info, że w polskiej wersji oba artykuły mają medal? belissarius (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: I have no slightest idea what question in the case of battles I should put in the TDYK... Any suggestion? belissarius (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I found it already, so, no problemas, gringo! :) belissarius (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 20 April 2009 ==


 * Book reviews: Reviews of The Wikipedia Revolution
 * Wikipedia by numbers: Wikipedia's coverage and conflicts quantified
 * News and notes: New program officer, survey results, and more
 * Dispatches: Valued pictures
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Film
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Help on RS queery
Hi, I'm posting to some uninvolved editors who have been active at WP:RSN to see if there is any clear consensus on some sources used on a BLP. The discussion is pretty brief but I'd like more opinions to ensure a strong consensus is reached one way or another. If you have time please visit the thread so this could be more quickly resolved. Thank you in advance for your time. -- Banj e b oi   20:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

B Class
I am not familiar with all those classes. Could you explain to me what it means that the Battle of Yevenes article is nominated as the B Class article? I understand that the very first is FA, next GA, then A, B, C etc. classes. Is the nomination final? Or it is to be later reconsider. My question is because in the TTDYK someone gave "the brillant article" quotation to this, and then I have the B Class. How could I understand these? belissarius (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Warsaw
I see you have started adding some refs. Do you want some more time?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The IPN minibio appears to be a #3 source.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

??  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 06:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relpied on my talk  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 05:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Still no time for Battle of Warsaw?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Czegoś tu nie rozumiem
Nie rozumiem przede wszystkim, dlaczego nikt Ci na propozycję nie odpowiedział. Dla mnie jest to znakomite rozwiązanie, chociaż nie wszystko zrozumiałem (zbyt pobieżne czytanie, wezmę się za to jutro). Ale pozwól, że wrócę do klasyfikacji: z tego, co rozumiem, jeśli mój art został sklasyfikowany jako "B" lub "start", mogę go, po wprowadzeniu poprawek, zgłosić raz jeszcze. Am I right? Jeśli tak jest, to jak szybko mogę to zrobić? Prawdę mówiąc nie bardzo dbam o Battle of Yevenes (niech sobie będzie B), ale na szwoleżerach i bitwach polskiego średniowiecza raczej by mi zależało. To są "medale" na pl-wiki i dobrze by było, gdyby ten sam status osiągnęły tu. Jest to możliwe? belissarius (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My Maps
Cześć Piotrus! I saw your message on my talk page - no I haven't disappeared from Wiki-life! I've just been working on one particular map that has taken a loooong time to get right. You can see it here Kingdom_of_Hungary_1941-44_Administrative_Divisions. I also have another map of Romania in 1941 nearly done. But at the moment I am working on maps for my own country (UK) after I saw the rather sketchy ones that are currently on Wikipedia. Once I have completed that project I will be looking back to finish off some of the Poland/General Gouvernement work you suggested. I don't know at the moment how long that will be, but they are still on my list. I will try to make the small corrections to my other maps sooner than that though. XrysD (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Royal Manticoran Navy
I have nominated Royal Manticoran Navy, 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/Royal Manticoran Navy. 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.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jack Merridew 04:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A favor
Piotr, there’s a couple of little points in your last edit here. Paragraph about deportation trains was moved just above Wannsee conference, which is contrary to natural progression of events (conference preceeded deportations). Secondly, the first sentence about Shoah, important in my view, was removed in the process of editing, and the lead got a bit stubby as a result. Would you please fix it for me? Thanks. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  06:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are more then welcome to keep editing the article. My edits were intended, per WP:LEAD, to ensure that lead is a summary: in other words, I moved the text that was not repeated below the lead into the main body of the article. Feel free to expand the lead with summary of the article, and feel free to rearrange the body into a more logical flow! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me the go-ahead Piotr. I just wanted to make sure that you don't feel particularly attached to your own last edit. The mention about the trains and the ministries in the opening statement is justified, as per wp:lead, because they are written about in detail at the bottom of section "Ghettos and the extermination program" along with Dehomag and other things. On top of that, I think the article is long enough now, after my latest expansions, to justify more than just one short opening paragraph as per Guide to writing better articles. Anyhow, I'm fixing it to sound more less like the first extended version. Cheers. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  15:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Lista planet i gwiazd w Honorverse
Cześc,

kawał czasu temu pisałeś do mnie w sprawie zamieszczenia na wkikipedii mapy skompilowanej przeze mnie http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:The_Honor_Harrington_Universe.PNG Miałem wtedy jeszcze bazę danych o wszystkich planetach i systemach wspomnianych w książkach w wersji pdf. Długo leżało to odłogiem ale w końcu po wydaniu SftS zdecydowałem uaktualnić to wszystko, próbowałem wciśnąć to na Honorverse na wikia, ale tamtejsze formatowanie pokonało mnie i poddałem się. Na szczęście udało mi sie założyć stronę na wikispaces. Co prawda nie wygląda ona tak pięknie ale powinna zdawac egzamin. Jak byłbyś zainteresowany to można to skopiować na wikia. Adres pod którym jest strona to: honorverseglossary.wikispaces.com Na razie nie jest ona ukończona, załadowałem i sformatowałem wszystko co do AAC udało mi sie zebrać, dane z obu książek Jane's i SftS mam juz zebrane i planuję je dodać w przeciągu tygodnia, później wezmę się za mapy. Jak masz jakieś pytania lub uwagi daj mi znać przez wikispaces, lub baen's bar
 * Hejka - nie podales jak konkretnie sie z toba skontaktowac, wikia i bar sa dosc duze :( Polecam wcisniecie tego na Honorverse wiki na wikia, sluze pomoca jakby co, tam jest wielu aktywnych edytorow ktorzy chetnie ci pomoga! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

W barze mam nick havoc, a co do wikispaces to myślałem że na mojej stronie można skorzystać z opcji dyskusja.
 * Mozna, mozna, tylko ja nie wiem gdzie ta twoja strona :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

http://honorverseglossary.wikispaces.com/
 * Dzieki, fajne, ale dalej nie wiem jak ci tam zostawic wiadomosc (nie widze odpowiednika user talka jak tutaj... ). Wrzucilem posta tutaj, honorverse wiki jest MediaWiki, tak jak Wikipedia, czyli glowny typ wiki. Jak kilkunascie milionow edytorow Wikipedii moze potwierdzic, da sie ten system opanowac :) Bardzo zapraszalbym do przeniesienia twoich stron na Honorverse wiki - lepsza jedna, glowna Wiki na dany temat niz kilka mniejszych. PS. Jakbys zalozyl sobie konto na Wikipedii, to moglbym ci tam zostawiac wiadomosci zamiast tutaj... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Polish culture during World War II FAC
I own a copy of Korboński's Polskie Państwo Podziemne, so if any help (referencing) is needed&mdash;just let me know. If you'll need help with other articles, there's a list of all my books related to the Polish underground during WW2. Have a nice day :) Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, forgot to mention. I have uploaded today a vector version of the Polish Barnstar of National Merit -- have a look. However, I don't know if I should replace the current PBoNM, 1st class in Template:The Polish Barnstar of National Merit? Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Polish ports
Hi. You've said that Port Kołobrzeg sounded better in English anyway than Port of Kołobrzeg. The same with Szczecin, Świnoujście. But there is a lots of cases like Port of Gdynia, Port of Gdańsk, Port of Hamburg, Port of Rotterdam that local name is traslated into English name at en.Wiki. So what do You think about it? Is there some general rule of that names? JDavid (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

copyedit
copyediting your Polish culture article: I did some work but I find I am not as good at this as some copyeditors who work at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_needing_copy_edit. I added a copyedit tag to the top of the article so they might look at it. Hmains (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Book you may be interested in.
--Jacurek (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 27 April 2009 ==


 * Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
 * News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
 * WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Polish Culture in World War II
I will give it a shot copy-editing it, but you probably should get someone else as I am by no means an expert. Cheers Mm40 (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust Help needed
We have a problem on the Holocaust page, there is an blatant attempt to whitewash the German occupation during the war. Please Help!!!---Woogie10w (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi please take the time to review the recent post I made to the Holocaust talk page, thanks--Woogie10w (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Victims of political repression
This is to notify you that Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_21, which you participated in, reached no consensus to delete, but has been relisted to Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_30 in order to determine if consensus can be reached on other alternatives. Your further input would be appreciated.--Aervanath (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Statuty Kazimierza Wielkiego
Hej! na polskiej Wiki zgodnie z Twoją wskazówką, starałem się scalić dwa artykuły: Statuty Kazimierza Wielkiego i Statuty wiślicko-piotrkowskie. Proponuję zlikwidować stronę o statutach wiślicko-piotrkowskich i w to miejsce dać stronę przekierowanie na Statuty Kazimierza Wielkiego. Nie jestem biegły w kwestiach technicznych, więc wolałbym tą część roboty zostawić Tobie lub innym. Pozdrawiam: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedysta:Karol_Dąbrowski —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.125.231 (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Witaj! dzięki za wskazówkę ws. stron przekierowujących, wszystko załatwione.Pozdr.http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedysta:Karol_Dąbrowski —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.86.244 (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans in World War II
Your edits the last few days are particularly disturbing. First, you added sensationalist jumble to the strategic bombing webpage, then you removed a map, citing that it was "Nazi propaganda" in spite of it representing 1910 figures and then you incorrectly accused me of violating the 3rr rule. I have deleted your unwarranted spamming of my page. Stop abusing your powers.

Upon further examination of the Strategic Bombing during World War II page, I have come to discover that your edit, which you attempted to justify as "npov" and "no useful changes" (funny how those "changes" you refered to were a reversion of what YOU just altered) has totally screwed up the page. You are being completely dishonest and using Wikipedia as a battleground to push your POV. --Npovshark (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

silesia
I removed a part of a sentence you added to East Upper Silesia, i.e. "most of West Upper Silesia was restored to Poland". West Upper Silesia is/was the Oppeln/Opole region, that is now completely in Poland, but was not in Poland before. So it was neither most nor restored. Most would however be correct for Lower Silesia, which is/was the Breslau/Wroclaw region, the westernmost parts of which are still in Germany - yet "restored" would not fit there either. The propblems with "West" and East" of Silesia are related to the problems common in regard to Pomerania: While the Germans regarded the West of each of these regions as Pomerania/Silesia proper, it was the other way around for the Poles. So Slask is used in Poland when referring to the Kattowitz/Kattowice region (East Upper Silesia), while the other regions (which were not Polish before) have the qualifications Slask Opolski (West Upper Silesia) and Dolnyslask (Lower Silesia, west of West Upper Silesia). Regards Skäpperöd (talk)