User talk:Piotrus/Archive 7

Thank you
Dear Piotrus Sorry, this rather late in the day, but back in May, when I did this work on the Roman Dmowski page, you thanked me for my work on that page. When I first arrive, the computer assigns me an different automatic number, so I did not get your message until recently. Somewhat belatedly, your welcome. Most people don’t thank me for my work, but it is nice to be appreciated.A.S. Brown 07:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm
A wiesz, w sumie czemu nie? Już dawno się z nikim nie kłóciłem, konfliktów o Danzig też już dawno nie było więc może nawet mam szansę... Halibutt 04:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Powinno być lepiej. A co do HTMLa - wczoraj zauważyłem, po tym jak dodałem sobie tabelkę na stronie dyskusji i wszystko się na niej pomieszało, tekst wskoczył na lewo (tam gdzie panel), tabelki na prawo, czcionka się zmniejszyła i w ogóle nie dawało się tego czytać... Halibutt 05:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I replied to the questions (didn't make it before Goodoldpolonius and logologist voted :) ) and listed myself where needed and took the liberty of advertising myself at our notice board. Do you think it's apropriate to advertise my candidacy at user talk pages as well? Anyway, thanks for the nomination. Halibutt 07:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

re: Halibutt's rfa
Hi - Thanks for the note about Halibutt's rfa. As you might have noticed I rarely vote on rfas - pretty much only when it's someone I've had extensive interactions with. The note of mine you observed on Halibutt's talk page was part of an effort I undertook to identify editors who have made lots of edits but aren't admins, leading to the creation of user:Rick Block/WP600 not admins (which was subsequently largely obsoleted by List of non-admins with high edit counts). When putting this list together I left a message on the talk page of every user on it (whether I knew them or not), asking them to indicate whether they had any interest in becoming an admin. This is the message you saw. I don't recollect having any direct interaction with Halibutt (and have very limited time for wikipedia at the moment), so I am unlikely to vote. Just thought I'd let you know why. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt's RfA
Hi Piotr,

You asked me to strike out the part of my vote. I have not done this, for the following reasons:
 * My later addition already weakens this argument a lot.
 * The page was still a bad idea; one that illustrates that Halibutt may have problems understanding how other people will react to his actions. In itself, though, not serious enough to oppose his adminship.
 * Most of the trouble with the Black Book was actually because of Witkacy's edits. However, I cannot check Halibutt's role here, because much of the discussion was in Polish. So I still have some doubt on his position on this point.

This last point, by the way, is an important one: the Polish Wikipedians seem very cliqueish, which is at least partially a result of the use of the Polish language, which results in you speaking behind our backs. This makes the impression that you are all the same, more or less, and any bad experiences with one Polish editor rub off on the others. This may be unfair, but "we" (the editors that don't understand Polish) just cannot read how "you" deal with the more troublesome Polish editors. I simply cannot trust Halibutt enough to support him as an admin, as a large part of his activities here are a mystery to me... Eugene van der Pijll 23:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt
Hi,

You may wish to check my userpage for my policy on RfAs. Normally, I wouldn't use a short-hand reason like "controversial", but I had already cited the opinions of two respected opposers, and didn't feel the need to add much beyond what had been said. I have no dislike of Halibutt, but I take a very hard-line on adminship because I fear that abusive admins are not subject to sufficient oversight by the achingly slow ArbCom process. If I have a real suspicion that a user might not follow consensus, I oppose his nomination. The accusation has been made that Halibutt has had problems abiding by consensus (at TfD, for example); I am somewhat familiar with that discussion, and find any unilateral action against consensus very troubling, however compelling the argument that consensus was "flawed" (in this case, I didn't find the argument against consensus at all compelling, actually.)

Many an admin likes to cite IAR as reason to ignore a supposedly "flawed" consensus. We don't need to promote an editor who already reasons in this way. I am always open to reconsidering support on a future nomination, however.

And, as a general rule, yes, controversial admins are bad. Their jobs are to enforce consensus, so nothing they do should openly defy the community. Good judges keep their egos in check. Best wishes, Xoloz 23:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, we are all human. That is why I will gladly support this editor for admin next time, assuming all goes smoothly in the intervening month or two. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 06:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Abuse?
Hi, I'd like to remark that I'm rather disappointed with your behaviour in Halibutt's case. I'm afraid that the whole vote will be rigged up, as you continue sending POV-infested notices to the talk pages of other users. While there are worse nationalists than Halibutt, his recent suggestion to reverse my edits (at user:Knyaz's talk page) is clearly far from NPOV and unacceptable for a would-be admin. Also, I think your own request for "moderating" Ghirlandajo (at mikka's talk) is rather puzzling, to say the least. And I still fail to understand why you persevere in resurrecting odious Molobo, who has been terrorizing dozens articles for the past few months. I just don't believe that advancing nationalist cause they way you do is what the admins are here for. Cheers, Ghirlandajo 00:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Vote
That's exactly what I hate about electoral campaigns. But just like during the latest Sejm campaign, one can learn a lot. For instance about the conspiracies that try to control Wikipedia. Just imagine: you, me and Space Cadet sitting on a throne (single throne, of course), with all other wikipedians at our feet... Hillarious? Not really... Halibutt 01:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, my RfA gained much advertisment lately and indeed some of the nay-sayers are people whom I never met. Some of them do have a point, others don't, yet others don't even state their point at all. Anyway, let's see how it all ends up.
 * Interestingly, I didn't learn many new things about myself. I already knew that I'm anti-Polish/Lithuanian/Russian/Ukrainian/Soviet/whatever, I'm even curious why nobody brought my anti-German and anti-Scots behaviour into play so far. What seems comforting is what I wrote at Merovingian's page: only those who do nothing or do something for themselves exclusively, wothout going into contact with other people, are not controversial. It would be much easier if my main area of interests was, say, quantum physics or astronomy. With history it's much easier to stomp into a conflict, especially concerning our part of the world.


 * What I actually learnt thanks to this RfA is what Renata wrote me on my talk page. It struck me that she remembered reading somewhere that I had something to do with the naming of Vilnius/Wilno/Vilna and hence I must be biased. However, she did not remember that it was me to expand the article on the city in question or to discuss it ad nauseam at the talk page. But that's how life is.


 * Anyway, I'm sorry that some of the mud fell on you, hopefully people will not refer to you as the anti-Russian admin. :) Halibutt 06:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Speaking of anti-Scots behavious, our common Scottish friend was my guest lately and I offered him a herring salad (one of my specialites de la maison) having completely forgotten that he's a vegetarian. Outrageous, wasn't it. Halibutt 06:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I seriously considered two probable outcomes of my RfA, but never thought of the third one: that it will never actually end :) Theoretically it should be over by today's morning, with some 71% votes in favour (discounting the Neutrals). However, since then additional votes were cast and it seems that my candidacy is in the red now if they are to be counted in. So, frankly speaking, I have no idea what to think of it nor what to do with it. Halibutt 11:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

More about the same
I really think he might. I know that everybody is POV, me included. But Halibutt seems more that an "average" Wikipedian. And the RfA page lists more things about him - some black book I have never heard about before, some template reverting, some other stuff. I just cannot completely trust him, because I know his strong bias. Yes, he is approachable, and polite, and intelligent, and knowledgeable, and dedicated, and so on, but those other things really bother me. I left a message on his talk - you need my help, just ask, but I just cannot support your RfA. Renata3 06:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I actually sent DY email saying to take a look. Let's see what happens. And as far as neutral goes... I have made my mind. Some encounters were seriously upsetting. For me RfA means trust, and I cannot completely trust him.
 * Good night... It's 1:20am here. Renata3 06:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I saw the DY vote. He made some very strong argument in the email reply. But I am not changing my vote. Renata3 03:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As for me, I'd vote neutral if there was an easier way to deadmin abusive sysops. But de-admnning somebody is tedious business (Stevertigo case for instance) so I feel we have to be very careful in promoting people with prior issues. I realise that, regrettably that I would be voting against a lot of qualified people, but given the damage a rogue admin can do to WP I have to adopt this "better safe than sorry" attitude. The black book seals the oppose for me. I've no idea why people create pages like that. I was in another editor's "black book" once", and it almost feels like a personal attack. Borisblue 06:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt
I meant just that I said a sentence before: Remove an attack page from his Userspace and do not keep similar materials for a couple of months. Sorry, if I was not clear abakharev 07:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt rfa
Hello Piotrus - as you can see, perhaps, I've currently voted neutral. Based on most of my interactions with Halibutt, and despite the fact that we have very frequently disagreed, I would be happy to vote to support him. But I remain a bit concerned about the incident from several months ago where he went on a WP:POINT violation spree with German city articles, inserting the Polish name. If he would clarify how he feels about this action and acknowledges that this was the wrong way of going about things, I would be happy to change my vote to support. As it stands, that activity, and Halibutt's refusal at the time to recognize that he was wrong (at least, this is my recollection - if it is not true, please correct me - a statement from him at the time admitting that he was in the wrong would be sufficient for me to change my vote), gives me some pause. Not enough to oppose, but enough to be unwilling, for the moment, to vote in support. And believe me when I say that I would much rather vote in support, I'm just not sure I can do that at the moment. john &#91;&#91;User_talk:John Kenney&#124;k]] 07:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I will try to reply to John's comment above by contacting him directly - as soon as time permits. I've been awake for over 36 hours now and this day will not end any time soon as we're closing the December issue today and I'm nowhere near finished with my texts. In the meantime, could you delete that darn page? I thought it could be ignored, but apparently I was wrong and was disappointed to find out that people still consider it an argument against me (not against my adminship, but against me personally as assumptions of bad will are too serious). Just delete it yourself or ask the person who moved it ~where it is to delete it. Could you? Halibutt 12:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. Halibutt 17:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Black book
I don't see how the diff is relevant. I know that if someone preserved an attack page against me, the fact that Jimbo commented on its talk page won't make me feel less offended. Borisblue 19:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well then, if it's never used, why is it so important to Halibutt that he still insists on maintaining it despite the damage it is doing on his RfA? Just because Jimbo scribbled a comment on its talk page? And I do feel that leaving this page is akin to a personal attack. Are you saying you won't feel hurt or offended being in Nohat's position? As a close friend of Halibutt's please persuade him to delete the page- I don't care if it technically isn't illegal, it's uncivil, and unbecoming of anyone even considering to be an admin. And please don't leave me any more messages regarding the vote- I can monitor the RfA page if I need more information about the issue. Borisblue 20:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: RfA for Halibutt
You wrote: Thank you for your comments. Your comment made me think - how is a controversy a handicap for a 'broom and bucket' wielder? Also, what are the traits he is lacking? As his nominator, I wonder if I missed something. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Cześć! I have no experience as an admin, so I may be wrong, but it seems to me that these repeating contraversies, if continued, would cloud the good things he could do with the additional functions (however small they may be). As to the traits, what I had in mind is the inability to sometimes distance himself from certain subjects and contain his emotions. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that's bad in itself, but ultimitely I feel it's not the way an admin should act. Karol 17:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC) P.S. Hope it's OK for me to copy this conversation to the voting page.

Just a note
Dzięki serdeczne za Twoje poparcie i konsekwentną obronę na niezliczonych stronach niezliczonych ludzi. Gdy kilkukrotnie odmawiałem nominacji, właśnie taki rezultat miałem na myśli. Chciałbym móc powiedzieć, że nie biorę komentarzy z RfA do siebie, ale to nie byłaby prawda, bo trudno nie brać do siebie sytuacji, w których moje działania interpretuje się opacznie - i traktuje jako najgorszą zniewagę (jak w przypadku kolorowego zeszyciku, w który naprawdę wierzyłem). Oczywiście, wielu z oponentów ma całkiem sensowne powody swojej decyzji, co więcej, w wielu przytaczanych sytuacjach rzeczywiście moje reakcje nie były do końca przemyślane. Jednak te akurat głosy nie bolą, gorzej jest z tymi, którzy jak Ghirlandajo wykorzystują każdą okazję do dowalenia mi, nawet jeśli wiąże się to z przeinaczaniem faktów lub wycinaniem z kontekstu. Jak to mówią "nie ważne czy słusznie czy nie, gdy się kogoś obrzuca błotem, zawsze coś z tego błota zostaje". No ale tak to już bywa.

Tak czy siak - dziękuję za poparcie. Nie wiem co z niego wyniknie, ale i tak jestem zadziwiony tym, że tak wielu ludzi mnie poparło. Przyznaję, wielu z nich nie doceniłem i nie przewidziałem, że będą w stanie wznieść się ponad nasze utarczki z przeszłości i dostrzec w moim postępowaniu także i dobre strony. To jest bardzo pocieszające.

Niestety, na koniec głosowania w mojej sprawie będę musiał zniknąć, więc nie będę mógł odpowiadać na zarzuty/pytania. Tak się złożyło, że wczoraj i dziś byłem w pracy niemal 24h na dobę, a pracy jeszcze nie skończyłem. Jutro (dziś!) z rana jadę do rodziny, a po powrocie mam jeszcze kompletnie zawalony poniedziałek... Postaram się odpowiedzieć na wszystkie komentarze w niedzielę w nocy, ale nie wiem czy mi się to uda. Cordial thanks for your support and for your consistent defence of my candidacy on countless pages of countless users. This situation is exactly what I had in mind when I declined being nominated several times in a row. I would be more than happy to be able to say that I don't take the RfA comments personally, but that would be wrong. It's hard not to, when my behaviour is misinterpreted, twisted the other way around and used against me as a grave offense (as was the case of the coloured booklet, in which I truly believed). Obviously, many of those who oppose me have quite sensible objections, moreover, in some of the situations my reactions were truly bullheaded. However, these votes do not hurt me. It's much worse with those who like Ghirlandajo take the liberty to take advantage of every single situation to present me in a bad light, even if it involves twisting facts or taking them out of context. They say whether right or wrong, some of the mud thrown at you always stays. That's how life is - and we know who is she.

Anyway, thank you for your support. I don't know what will be the result of that voting, but I must admit that I'm astonished by how many people supported me. I also admit that I underestimated some of those who did and I never thought that they would be able to rise above the skirmishes we were involved in in the past and find some good sides of what I do. That's very comforting.

Unfortunately, for the final days of my RfA I will be unable to respond to questions/accusations and such. It turned out that the last two days I spent at work and my work is still not finished. Tomorrow (today!) I'm leaving for my family and will not be able to return until Monday. And on that day I'll still have to work hard. I will try to answer as many questions as I can on Sunday night, but I'm not sure I can handle that. Halibutt 01:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * My RfA now reads like a dark movie screenplay. Currently the nay-sayers are winning by a huge 0,59% margin :) As it ends soon, I'll apparently not be nominated, which is quite sad as there were several people to vote and never come back to see my replies. I mean especially Xoloz, Borisblue and Vb, who seem to be having a sudden wikibreak. I knew my RfA was going to be hard, but never thought other users might need to take a break :) Halibutt 02:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Strange, the heated dispute over my values and virtues has made me actually care about the voting... So far the tally is some safe 71,6%, which is above the 70% cut-line someone mentioned in the discussion. However, the WP:RfA page mentions 75-80% level, so I guess Ghirlandajo has nothing to fear :) . Halibutt 16:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

message
Thanks for messaging me about Halibutt's RfA; I don't always watch the RfA page. I don't think I've ever seen anyone go through with 21 oppose votes, but sometimes the 1st RfA, if failed but well handled, and followed by a couple months of good work, can turn into a successful RfA the next time. (For the record, I'm not entirely disagreeable to a Polish point of view ... and this reminds me I've been meaning to write the music history of Poland, especially the Renaissance at Kraków, for quite some time now ... ) Antandrus  (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent link! Thanks for that; I can use it.  Btw, hello from a fellow m.  :-) Antandrus  (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Back to wiki
Hi there, I'm back - and quite happy to see that many more people cast their vote. I also noticed vote in my RfA and it seems to me he might be someone's puppet, though I'm not sure in any rate. I remember meeting him in the wiki once or twice, which seems quite logical if you take a look at his contributions...

Anyway, I'll browse the RfA page to see if there are questions I might be able to reply to. Halibutt 18:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Because you are too anxious
I did not mean that you do something wrong, I just think that you tend to be a little too anxious, jumpy and pushy. There is nothing wrong about that, I understand the feelings involved in RfA. But my point was that Halibutt behaves even better than you. And he is the one who should go and argue with every single oppose voting user.

I did this because I recently nominated a user for adminship (pretty rash action on my part), and he started to get seriously offended with the oppose votes and he just simply dig his hole. And Halibutt maintains his coolness and politness. And in comparission, behaves better than you! Renata3 20:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral voting... and not voting
Hi Piotr. My reading of the matter of neutral votes and withdrawing neutral votes is this: the RfA system isn't really a voting system. Instead it's a way of breaking down into an easy-to-tally way the consensus of the WikiCommunity.

By withdrawing my neutral vote, I'm asking not to be counted either way any more in the event of a tie - 'neutral' votes could swing it if the debate is very polarised as they indicate that there is no consensus.

I think that Halibutt's answers were very creditable, and it was good of him/her to find my question in the big pile of votes and spend time thinking about an answer and providing it. I would have switched my vote to support, but I have been unhappy with the way some of his/her supporters have set upon people opposing. I'm not prepared to penalise the candidate for that (especially when, as I say, the answers given were so very good) but my support vote might be taken as supporting other aspects of this RfA.

In the event of this RfA failing, when Halibutt comes up for RfA again I would then vote to support.

I hope this makes my thinking clear to you! Pokojowy! (which should mean "Peace!", with any luck!) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't mean you (I'm not that barefaced!) but, if I can be honest, you haven't helped by being so quick to defend Halibutt that you look defensive of Halibutt.


 * A friend of mine is 3rd generation American-Polish (he supplied the "Pokojowy" word... showing exactly how assimilation works!!) and he advised me not to get involved, saying "Polish people are all the same - we're very passionate and always defend what's ours". I don't know if that's a fair stereotype (it's certainly a good compliment!) but I can certainly appreciate it and am guilty of it myself! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Requests_for_adminship
You wrote 'maybe another time'. But most of the objections raised against Halibutt, a contributor who has been with us for more then two years, are actually about a fairly old events. I think that most of the objections raised there have been addressed already addressed. You may want to read Halibutt's responces there - to me they prove that he is a trustworthy person. Not perfect, no - but who among us has never erred? That he can ackowledge his mistakes, apologize and learn from them is to me a sign of a good editor - and a good person. Why should we wait any longer to recognize him as a valuable contributor? And how long should we wait? A months? 6? Another two years? I'd like to ask you to reconsider your position, especially in light of Halibutt's responces.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry to reply so late, but I was unable to do so:Wikibreak. It seems true that the issues raised on the request page are old news, but I have this thing where I prefer to stay out of controversial issues. If my vote were to be changed, I would only change it to a neutral vote. I think Halibutt might be reformed, but at the moment, even if I were to change my vote, it would not make any difference as the RFA seems to be failing. Im sure that I definitly will support next time, though. Θrǎn   e    (t)   (c)   (e-mail)  00:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hallibutt
Thanks for letting me know, I am following up. Regards, Jayjg (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

this and that
Hi Piotrus, and thanks for the messages. I was busy last week, and had no time to respond until now. I have added my view of my blocks to the admin noticeboard. I did not know the details about Wiglafs block, one of them for the 3RR seems to be OK, the other one I do not know. Luckily, Wiglaf will from now on seek other admins assistance regarding Molobo. I am also glad to hear that you will seek input before unblocking Molobo. To be honest, I was a bit disapointed that you unblocked my first block without even telling me. Anyway, it seems Molobo got the message by now, and even though he probably does not like it, he seems to be accepting the vote outcome.

About Halibutt, unfortunately i cannot support his adminship. He is a good editor, and mostly reasonable neutral, but his resistance to consensus probably does not make him a good admin. BTW Did you know that this is his second nomination? Best regards, -- Chris 73 &#91;&#91;User talk:Chris 73&#124;Talk]] 22:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... i was sure there was a nomination something like 2 years ago, but I can't find anything now. even though I went looking around quite a bit. As long as I can't find anything, treat it like it did not happen. Maybe my brain is playing tricks on me. I'll keep on looking. Also, at one point Space Cadet asked me to nominate him User:Chris_73/Archive_004, which i politely declined. -- Chris 73 &#91;&#91;User talk:Chris 73&#124;Talk]] 09:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Halibutt contacted me and said that there was no previos RFA, which is good enough for me. So it is my mistake, I guess. Sorry for the confusion, and my apologies. -- User:Chris 73 [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk 21:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Image undeletion
The response to the implied question in your heading is that it's impossible to undelete images, I'm afraid; if they're needed again, they have to be up-loaded.

The response to your message, though, is that the painting might be out of copyright, but photographs of it are still covered by copyright law. Thus, for example, postcards sold by galleries and photographs in books or on the Web are all likely to be copyrighted by the photographers or publishers. If you took the photograph yourself, you need to say so, and to add the correct template; if you didn't, then you need to give the source, and again add the correct copyright template. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The worry is that, unlike most other content issues, copyvios could lay Wikipedia open to legal action, so assuming that the images are OK unless proved otherwise would be very risky. If they're taken from an on-line gallery, it should be possible to check their copyright status, though.  Finding the gallery could be difficult, but I'll do what I can. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Greetings ProKonsul!
And thank you for your reply. You have mine HERE, Sir...best regards, --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

And again HERE. Always glad to offer whatever help I can--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You may also want to check This and Here. And, if you have not already, get in touch with GeneralPatton. I'm sure he will have some interesting tales to tell. Cheers--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

historia komunikacji
szukam wszelkich informacji nt historii komunikacji. potrzebne sa mi do pracy magisterskiej o komunikatorach internetowych. czy moglbys przeslac mi mailem artykul jaki napisales na ten temat? bede bardzo wdzieczna, bo z tewgo co napisales na forum wnioskuje, ze doskonale odpowiada on moim potrzebom! czekam z niecierpliwoscia!! pozdrawiam karolina ps moj mail to batik@poczta.fm

Thanks for your interest
I very much like the concept of Wikipedia, and have been a passive reader for a year or two. My major interest in editing however has been limited to 1 subject (though I learned a lot by doing this, painful as it might have been) I'll almost certainly take up your suggestion, but I wanted to finish something the way I started it. Thanks again, Pete Ekman 69.253.195.228 02:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Prussian Homage
Hello Piotruś, I'm trying to move Prussian Tribute to Prussian Homage. The latter is used by Davies, and it also gives more Google results. I can't move it because Prussian Homage is a redirect right now. Thanks. Appleseed 03:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. Is this page move process something new?  I could have sworn that, until recently, I was able to move onto redirects... Anyway, this red tape is getting out of hand.  I'm afraid this obsession with "process" is going to kill WP. Oh well, let's see how it goes. Appleseed 04:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That Międzymorze discussion sure turned into a mess. I think the situation with Prussian Homage is a little different, but I understand your caution.  Feel free to vote btw. Appleseed 14:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Angra Mainyu
Could you check out the Angra Mainyu page and the related discussion? Thx. Chelman 12:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Poland and Serbs
That would be wonderful if you could that, your highness ProConsul! HolyRomanEmperor 19:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Plish opnion on Serbs? HolyRomanEmperor 14:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I expected the figures to be low, but not that low :( HolyRomanEmperor 21:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Presidents
Piotruś, could you move List of Polish heads of state since 1918 to List of Polish presidents, which is a redirect right now? I don't expect this to be controversial. Appleseed 22:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That info was there originally, but I removed it because it complicates the list and the category hierarchy. They should have their own lists. Appleseed 23:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Having a list of heads of state is a little ungainly. If we were to be faithful to it, it would include presidents, first secretaries, chief of state, monarchs, etc.  If you want to exclude monarchs, you have to include a date ("since 1918"), which is awkward.  It also makes it hard to link to WPs in other languages, because none of them have such an article.  I think it's a good idea to consult the notice board.  In the meanwhile, why not just move the article to list of presidents.  I saved the list of the first secretaries in the PZPR article. Appleseed 23:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Moldovan language
Thanks for your link, but I can't really get involved in that dispute, as nobody will ever see the end of it. In my opinion, Moldovan is a creole (in some of its forms, as otherwise it is just Romanian). I'm not saying this because I think Moldova belongs in Romania etc., as I hold no such ambition (unlike most of the Romanian contributors). And I don't think that Moldova is less of a reality, or a contemptible concept, since that would meen seeing Belgium as part of France, or Austria (and Switzerland, or Liechtenstein) into Germany. If you have doubts about linking language reference with Romanian in your articles, don't worry. Most of the partisans of the "Moldovan-as-distinct" would not claim that the language has been distinct forever, and they would admit that there are few differences, and rather that the few differences that exist are essential (which I may be open to). In any case, this should not apply to, let's say, 88% of the language(s), and in no case to person's names. I also noticed that there are scores of people in Moldova who consider themselves Romanian-speakers, and most of these even ethnic Romanians. So, no problem that can't be avoided. Dahn 23:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Stroucki
User:司徒天

Gwiazdka
Dziękuje za gwiazdkę, to zawsze miło coś dostać :-). Niestety chyba w najbliższym czasie nie będe mógł poświecać wikipedii dużo czasu. --Lysy (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Max Weber
> Why did you remove the part of the sentence 'from Russia and Austria-Hungary' in the article on Max Weber?--

Thanks for the question, Piotrus. It may have been premature. It just dawned on me that Poland was not an independent state before WW I. Do I now recollect that rightly? My knowledge on Weber is better than my knowledge of European history of the late 19th century, especially with regard to Poland.

In my view the whole section on 'Weber and German Politics' is the weakest part of the whole Max Weber article and I made an attempt to rewrite it in August, but gave up eventually. Weber's liberal imperialism (or imperial liberalism?) is hard to understand a hundred years and two world wars later. Nevertheless I think the article as a whole is great.

I will reinsert 'from Russia and Austria-Hungary'. Thanks for the welcome, Piotrus. Good work. Archos 05:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome.
Hi Piotrus, thanks for the welcome (and the sig. tip). JayFrancis 16:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

From Irpen

 * Please check your inbox. --Irpen 20:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Fulford
I have been editing much the article Battle of Fulford, which has been a stub. If you could please check this article and see if either it can be a featured article, or I can be recommended on how to make it fit the criteria to be a featured article. Thank you.

Gwiazdka
Piotrusiu, bardzo dziękuję za gwiazdkę. :-) Appleseed 01:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Była pusta, już nie jest. :) Dzięki, przy okazji może coś jeszcze do niej dodam. Appleseed 02:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Serdecznie dziękuję za śliczną gwiazdkę na konto zbliżającej się Gwiazdki! Skorzystałem z Twej propozycji i bliżej określiłem się językowo. Dziękuję! logologist 10:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Fulford
Thanks for your help Piotrus.

Mielzynski Family
Actually the family was a major one. They were one of the wealthiest in Poland with significant holdings. Male proteginy received the title count from Frederick the Great (and later his son) of Prussia in late 1700's (that part of Poland being under the Prussian yolk at that time). Unlike other hrabia titles, there's was a real one. In about 1905 the head of the family adopted a Kurnatowski as his heir and successor which caused some confusion amongst the Polish szlachta since (although a count/hrabia by Papal edict in 1902)could he also be the hrabia Mielzynski? The decision was probably not under the Weimer Convention on such matters.
 * Thank you for your comments - please consider registering an account if you intend to edit wiki more. while I don't doubht Mielżyński family deserves an entry, it was definetly not a major family - not like Radziwiłłs, Lubomirski, Sapieha, Potocki or Zamoyski. I am also having significant troubles googling much to Mielżyński family - surely, if it was so important, it would have many references. My search gave 75. Radziwłł, by comparison, nets 840, and relatively less known Branicki gets 412. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * For the record Frederick the Great had no children; it is probable the original contributor meant his nephew Frederick William II. Olessi 02:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually I was incorrect about the Mielzynski titles: Maximilian Mielzynski obatined his title from Frederich-Wilhelm II of Prussia on 19 September 1786 and his grandson, Maceij was seperately given the title from Frederich-Wilhelm III on 12 July 1817. Google shows me 11,900 hits on the family but this is totally unfiltered. You may want to give a try (if not already ) http://ez2find.com (72 hits on the family under hrabia mielzynski) which filters out multiple entries and can zero in on specific languages (Polish being one). On a seperate question: do you have any advice on how (if at all) it is possible to find an old Polish book (pre WWII) called "Strzal o Polnocy", involving a tragic love story of the Kurnatowski family at their estate/palace in Cieletniki? thanks.
 * If you are interested in Mielżyński family, I'd recommend creating an account and taking care of the appopriate articles yourself, I don't think I will have time to do it myself soon. For the book, try www.allegro.pl, Polish version of ebay - many used book shops sell their wares there (you may want to email them and ask for help).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Zdjęcie
Dzięki za nominowanie mojego zdjęcia, ale ono jest bardzo kiepskiej jakości, i w życiu nie przejdzie. Poprostu nie miałam nic innego. :)--SylwiaS 02:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, zobaczymy. Dzięki za narzędzia! --SylwiaS 08:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

mój log jest be
Chwalić się nie będę, bo to czysto literacka fikcja, którą wielu ludzi bierze za odzwierciedlenie prawdy o mnie. Ale jeśli nie zamierzasz popełniać takiego błędu to nie ma sprawy - hal9001 kropka blog.pl. Pozdr. Halibutt 23:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ale przecież mój ma RSS: http://hal9001.blog.pl/index.rss Halibutt

Bar Confederation
Thanks for the note. The usual "move" procedure won't let me change "Confederation of Bar" to "Bar Confederation." Do you know of an admin way to do it without jumping through a lot of needless hoops? logologist 01:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Unreferenced
Hello, I'm just wondering why you are adding the unreferenced template to a number of articles. There is a fairly strong consensus that this template only belongs on pages where there is an definite question about their accuracy. No one seems to have made such allegations about the articles that you are adding the templates to. Moreover you have added it to some pages, such as Ukrainian presidential election, 2004, that have quite a number of external links serving as references. - SimonP 04:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is something of a problem. The rules have long called for references to be separated from external links. In reality, with the exception of Featured Articles, websites used as references are almost always added to the external links section. Most articles only get a reference section when print sources are used, and since at least 90% of Wikipedia articles are created solely with material from the web, most have only the external links section. - SimonP 04:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The main problem with the unreferenced tag is that there are several hundred thousand articles it could go on. It clearly is impossible, and desirable, to mar such a significant portion of the project with the template. As with other similar templates such as expansion or verify a specific reason needs to be given before the template should be placed in any particular article. Also in my experience the unreferenced template doesn't work. Until I recently went through and removed the tag from several hundred articles, the majority of the entries in Category:Articles lacking sources were still sitting around from David Gerard's January experiment of adding it to all new pages. - SimonP 05:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I strongly believe that what we have to lose is credibility. In my experience the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia's content is far higher than our actual reputation for quality and accuracy. Wikipedia's most important weakness is one of perception, not of quality. In terms of perception your average reader doesn't much care if an article is lacking a references section. However, having messages, which are clearly only meant for editors, will do nothing but convince readers that this is an amateurish organization. - SimonP 05:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Second that. By your logic, you can place a tag for a good 1/2 of all articles. Either add it to all of those, or save it for articles with serious problems of dubious info. At least please consider stopping this en masse tagging until there is a policy or some discussion on that. Otherwise, please tag ALL articles that are unreferenced, that is hundreds of thousands of them. --Irpen 07:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. What is particularly dubious about content of Chernihiv and Oleg of Chernihiv? Can I add similar tags to Warsaw and Krakow? --Ghirlandajo 07:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus, I am surprized that you, an experienced Wikieditor, started this en-masse tagging without floating a couple of trial balls to see what's the community's stand on that. I see your point and it makes sense. But why couldn't you make your point prominent enought to generate interest by tagging few visible articles and see the feedback before tagging so many articles at once? There are less drastic ways to encourage people to add refs than placing a tag over the whole article that makes it look dubious as a whole. --Irpen 19:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence
Hi. Could you please provide clarification as to why you flagged the Declaration of Independence article as needing references? I noticed you flagged it only one minute after flagging Polish notation, which leads me to believe you did not visit both the Wikipedia links, as well as the external links, to see if adequate references were provided. It would save others a vast amount of time if you could iterate the facts which you feel are deficient. Obviously, some articles are blatantly lacking references (they have none whatsoever), however I don't feel Declaration of Independence meets that criteria. Thanks. --Dan East 04:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * After reading SimonP's comment, and your reply on his talk page, I understand why you flagged this article. However it sounds like it is more of a formatting / nomenclature issue than an actual lack of references, in which case I wouldn't think  would be the appropriate tag to use.  --Dan East 05:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Braun
Hi Piotrus. Today luckily I had some time, so I created a large disambig page with the german entries, and also scanned the english wiki for Braun. I located the disambig on Braun, and moved the company article, since i think the disambig is the more important information. But feel free to move it back if you like. Also thanks for the info on Naming_conventions/Geographic_names. So far I have not had any time to look at it in detail (70+ hour work weeks), but I hope to do so within the next few weeks. Happy editing -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

unreferenced
Thank you for adding a related book to article on Ukiyo-e, however, there is a difference between references - which as been used to provide facts for the article - and further reading, which has not. See Cite sources for more information.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment, Piotrus. I noticed you are working on a project for referencing, which is a very good thing and you deserve support.
 * Let me ask you this as an expert on references in wikipedia: I am not sure, whether it is right to just search for some references (and on-line in amazon.com what is more) as I have done. However, the Cite_your_sources guide is not completely clear about it. On one side (from the word) references are where you cite from. Then (on the other side), references are where other people can verify the information, similar to external links, but not the same (do you agree on the two meanings?). With this latter sense in mind I put the book as a reference. I also think I saw this practice with some other article (forgot where). A problem is, conceded, I don't know the book. But then, I think, the information in the article is general enough to be found in nearly any book on the topic (and the book I put seemed reasonable enough). What do you say? Ben T/C 11:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I admit I was once confused as well, and added sources to references without actually reading them. Now I know better, and I try to teach others that there is a difference. A source which may contain useful info, but has - to the best of one's knowledge - not been used in the article, should go either to 'Further reading' or 'External links' (or 'See also'). 'References' is only for sources that have been cited in the article, and the best practice is to link the relevant facts from main body to the reference via Footnotes.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, you wrote:
 * A source which may contain useful info, but has - to the best of one's knowledge - not been used in the article, should go either to 'Further reading' or 'External links' (or 'See also').
 * Leaving the concrete case aside (where I even don't know the source), the guidlines in Cite_your_sources are not that strict: (citing)
 * In general, even if you are writing from memory, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite. If you are writing from your own knowledge, then you should know enough to identify good references that the reader can consult on the subject — you will not be around forever to answer questions. The main point is to help the reader and other editors.
 * I don't want to argue about the specific article (ukiyoe), but I want to get this straight for me personally (and I think it is very important for your project also). I hope you don't mind my insisting. Thank you. Ben T/C 17:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess rules may need some improvement. My rule of thumb is if you are pretty sure it is a good reference, explaining most of the issues of the article, you can add it even if you had just read the abstract. Google Print is pretty helpful here. However, as I wrote above, what we should idealy strive for is referencing every fact with footnotes (but I realize it is quite impossible now, so I am adding this tag to the articles lacking sources, not those lacking footnoted sources). With educating you about our references and you adding this book to ukiyo-e, my effort has already paid off somewhat :)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I agree with what you said about footnotes. As for ukiyoe, I'll hope we'll find a book. I will search some more. I wish you success with the project. It is surely worthwhile. Thanks for the clarification. Ben T/C 21:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured pictures
Thanks, Piotrus, for your kind offer. I'll think what I can do with this particular picture. Your comment even induced me to add to my page a gallery listing a fraction of images I uploaded to this project. So far, two of my pictures - both by Prokudin-Gorskii - have been promoted to featured. Unfortunately, other candidates - such as Image:Stpeteskyline.jpg - have been moved by me or others to Wikimedia Commons, so they are not illegible as well.

By the way, I admit to have waded through Polish segment of this project but a couple of times, but today, while adding {unreferenced} tags to Krakow and Warsaw I noticed two nice pictures - Image:Warszawa2.jpg and Image:Katedra na wawelu.jpg - which are not tagged at all. Should we list them for deletion? What do you think? --Ghirlandajo 18:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Live Steam loco
As per your request, I've added a link to more photos on the FPC page. Greetings, --Janke | Talk 11:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

from Geniu
Hi. Thanks/dzięki for message. this picture europe_warsaw.JPG was in my computer and i dont know the source where it was taken from. I will try to find it. Best wishes!!

Iuga of Moldavia
Hi there, Piotr. I might need your help. Could I have more info on this guy? He probably isn't the same as Yuriy of Ruthenia. I found him referenced as "of uncertain immediate lineage", but he is Koriatowicz for sure. Also, could you please look into why I cannot link him to Category:Lithuanian nobility? Somebody added a Subcategory of the same name inside the Category - I changed the name, but I guess it changed for the Category as well (chage it back, if you want to). I really don't get it. Thanks. Dahn 02:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again. I had already checked out the In-Wiki sources, and my head had started spinning (it was my first contact ever with Lithuanian nobility, and I got to see their names in Lithuanian, Polish, Ruthenian, and Belarussian...). I really do not get why the Romanian sources don't bother to move past autarkical: if it's in Lithuania, it doesn't matter basically, so Iuga is just "a prince from Lithuania". Thanks for the info, perhaps you could pass the issue to some other Poles. Perhaps we could solve the enigma... Dahn 02:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

presentations
Hello.

Last summer, we held the first Wikimania, a worldwide event for wikipedians, in Frankfurt. You may understand a bit more at http://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page, but I am most sorry to say no real good report of the event was made. Some bits here and there. During this meeting, possibly 30 people made presentations, on very various topics. Many were recorded (not all as far as I know). The list is the list of recording of these people. In the list, you will see a trigram, this trigram comes from the name of the person (for example, my real name is Florence Devouard, so my trigram is FD1 (Wikimania05-FD1_low_video.ogg). You may find the old program as well as correspondance for names here : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2005_Presentations.

Cheers and good luck

Anthere 07:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Operation Wisła
I gather there is now a consensus to move "Action Vistula" to "Operation Wisła." At least two persons have attempted it, but there seems to be no provision in the "move" mechanism for the necessary diacritic. Do you by any chance know how the move might be made? Does one have to move the article to "Operation Wisla," without the diacritic? logologist 22:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Tugay Bey
What do You think about that? Radomil talk 23:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikibar idea
Hi Piotr! Thanks for you advice about my Wikibar idea. I've listed it at Tools as suggested. I'm not too sure about turning it into Wiki mark-up, as it needs to open in a blank (HTML) sidebar to work. If it was in Wiki mark-up, users would have open the Wikipedia page and cram that into a sidebar... wouldn't they? I'm prepared to be quite wrong on this, mind - I just haven't given it any thought! Thanks again! ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 17:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I found a great source
On issues involved with history of Eastern Europe : http://www.taraskuzio.net/academic/history.pdf

Historiography and National Identity among the Eastern Slavs: Towards a New Framework1 TARAS KUZIO, York University, Toronto, Canada Abstract The article surveys Tsarist, Soviet and Western historiography of Russia and how this affected the national identities and inter-ethnic relations among the three eastern Slavs. Western historiography of Russia largely utilised an imperialist and statist historiographical framework created within the Tsarist empire during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Although this framework was imperialist it was gradually accepted as ‘objective’ by the Western scholarly community. Yet, this historiography was far from being ‘objective’. After 1934 Soviet historiography also reverted to the majority of the tenets found in Tsarist historiography. Within Tsarist, Western and Soviet historiographies of ‘Russia’ eastern Slavic history was nationalised on behalf of the Russian nation which served to either ignore or deny a separate history and identity for Ukrainians and Belarusians. In the post-Soviet era all 15 Soviet successor states are undertaking nation and state building projects which utilise history and myths to inculcate new national identities. The continued utilisation of the Tsarist, Western and Soviet imperial and statist historiographical schema is no longer tenable and serves to undermine civic nation building in the Russian Federation. This article argues in favour of a new, non-imperial framework for histories of ‘Russia’ territorially based upon the Russian Federation and inclusive of all of its citizens. --Molobo 13:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC) It describes very well how history was falsfied by Russian authorities in order to justify Russian imperialism. --Molobo 13:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

more on unreferenced
On saw your comments on Template talk:Unreferenced. I began tagging medical and science articles with this tag about a week ago. I put them at the top of talk page. WikiProject Medicine puts most tags in this location. So far two editor have removed them. In the first case, we agreed to re-locate to bottom of article where References would be. Today, another editor removed the tag from two article talk page saying that Talk pages don't need sources. To back it up they referred me to Category:Articles lacking sources. That page says nothing about the location. Clearly, the unreferenced tag page gives the editor two options for tag placement, listing talk page first. I agree, this issue needs to be settled.--FloNight 20:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments
Working on it


 * Done. Not the most perfect way, but much better than what it was before. Halibutt 00:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

pl:Wikipedysta:Radosław Sikora
Nie jestem pewnie czy zredirectowanie strony z przestrzeni głównej na stronę użytkownika to dobry pomysł. Może lepiej napisać o nim normalna notkę biograficzną (tylko niech tego nie robi sam :P). Roo72 05:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "Zwróć uwagę, ze np. en:Jimbo Wales linkuje do swojej strony uzytkownika, czyli nie ma nic przeciwko takim self-references." - może kiedyś tak było, ale teraz jest osobna strona użytkownika i osobna strona w przestrzeni głównej. Cheers, Яǿǿ72 &#9993; 05:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Italian artist
Hi there! I'm afraid I'm starting to loose my nerves when it comes to certain wikipedian named similarly to an Italian painter. Too many insults, too many assumptions of bad will, too many non-constructive and provocative edits IMO. Perhaps if I could at least imagine that the guy believes his own words it would be easier to cope with his behaviour, but now I believe the line was crossed. I was thinking of starting the RfC on him, though perhaps you have some other idea? Halibutt 09:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hali, you should cool off a bit. I haven't started revising your ludicrous articles on Soviet-Polish War as yet. You will need your nerves when I get to review Soviet-Polish War, Katyn Incident, etc. --Ghirlandajo 13:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I realized that there is quite an easy way to deter the guy. Just mention the world apology and he would never return to that part of the discussion... Which however does not solve the problem. I still wonder what could be done about it. I doubt mediation would help as it is not about his edits but rather his offensive tone and language. So perhaps some user conduct dispute, though it might be too strong. Dunno... Halibutt 15:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Check and . I don't have much hope any more, but perhaps it indeed is a step in a good direction. Time will show. Halibutt 14:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Tools
Piotruś, are you aware of any WP tools that, for a given article, would tell you 1) a list of the articles you've linked from your article, 2) how many times you've linked them, and 2) if you link to a disambig page? Appleseed 16:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Pytanie
Czy można kwestionować całą kategorię ? Istnieje dość dziwna kategoria Slavic culture, która w zasadzie niczego nie zawiera, a trudno mówić o wspólnej słowiańskiej kulturze(w przeciwieństwie do wczesnej mitologii) istniejącej współcześnie lub nawet w średniowieczu. --Molobo 17:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Important AfD
Hello again. I am contacting editors applies NPOV and NOR standards rigidly for their input on Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators, where a consensus has yet to be established. (You are particularly well qualified, I think, to describe the difficulties in making some of these classifications, given your knowledge of modern single-party state structures. Notice that Chinese Communist and Soviet bloc leaders are conspicuously absent from he list, including Stalin. Some people, of course, argue that general secretaries of ruling parties of single-party states are not dictators because there is a collective leadership. They have a good point (with the exception of leaders like Stalin who subverted the party), but to not include these leaders implies that they were not dictators, which is also POV.) Anyway, if you have time, please take a look. Best regards. 172 07:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

KK
Nyah, I'm not in the right mood just now... Though it's quite surprizing. I've heard that Balcerowicz and his RPP are worse than Gomułka, but never thought that World Bank could be worse than Hitler or Stalin... or the two combined...

BTW, that comment is showing also a great way to convert all countries of the world to communism. If Hitler+Stalin=World Bank, then... just throw Hitler from it and what you'll get will be Stalin. Halibutt 17:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I noticed that guy some time ago. He definitely appeared on wiki with a good knowledge of its procedures and specific language, so perhaps he might be somehow "related" to an already-experienced user. Halibutt 21:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair Use magazine covers
I respectfully disagree with you: we should not use fair use images unless we're pretty sure we have a good argument.

However, if you wish to revert the three or so articles I removed the TIME covers from, I won't revert back.

I would suggest, however, that if you wish to keep them there, you should write down the fair use rationale, preferably on the image description page for the image in question. If the TIME magazine coverage is mentioned in the article in question (such as TIME man of the year, etc) there's probably a much stronger fair use claim.

Does that sound good? Thanks, —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Canberra Photos
Hi Piotrus, I would very much appreciate your input in the following argument. There seems to be a gang of users unwilling to allow anyone to interfere with there Canberra project without invitation. It was risky to take my camera on our school excursion to Canberra, but I did for the sake of the photos I could upload to Wiki. Needless to say, I'm deeply distressed over the reaction that has taken place. In particular, I would like to ask if the removal of all my photos off the Lake Burley Griffin article was a step forward in the usefullness of the page. Please either voice your opinion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canberra or write back to me. Thanks for your time (and I hope) support. --Fir0002 08:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources for Mikołaj "Rudy" Radziwiłł
Hello, good work on Mikołaj "Rudy" Radziwiłł, and thanks for the contribution. However, you forgot to add any references to the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. From what websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Mikołaj "Rudy" Radziwiłł? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? You can simply add links, or there are several different citation methods list at WP:CITET. Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 20:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC
It is a generic message to inform you that there was a User Conduct Request for Comments at Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo started recently. As you are one of the sides in the conflict and your name appears in the evidence of disputed behaviour section you might want to take a look at it. Halibutt 00:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation
I will post soon 5 variants so I would be happy if you would comment and choose the best for the article. For this I invite you to come to the talk page and contribute. -- Bonaparte  talk  13:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you think is good to make the mediation or not? -- Bonaparte  talk  21:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

User SCA
"If you would like a 'honorable Pole' badge or something, I think you have just qualified ;p" --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, I'm flattered, but how did I qualify? I lived in PL for only about six months, while working for the Warsaw Business Journal and learning to drink wódka properly. (I did better at that than learning Polish.)

Sca 19:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, Ghirlandajo seems convinced you are a Pole.

I guess he hasn't read my user page. I'm a fourth-generation American with Norwegian and German forebears, including a bunch of Volga (Russian-) Germans, and supposedly a bit of Turkish blood. (Seems the defence of Vienna by Jan Sobieski wasn't air-tight.) But one of my German great-grandfathers supposedly came from Pomerania.

Sca 20:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Spamming again?
During Halibutt's RfA, you have been informed by other editors that many of them consider your spamming of their talk pages unfriendly or offensive. Now I see you resorting to the same tactic in your frenzied anti-Ghirlandajo quest. Let me tell you that I don't think your attempts to incite more editors against me are particularly helpful to further your cause. You may have noticed that I don't ask Russian editors to comment on your shameful allegations. Please don't let your emotions to carry you beyond the limits of propriety. --Ghirlandajo 10:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * User Ghirlandajo you didn't even have the common sense to explain your edits on the mediation. Others have did, you didn't. -- Bonaparte  talk  10:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

szopka
Wybierasz się na szopkę? :)--SylwiaS 12:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ja tam nie mieszkam, a warszawskiej się naoglądałam w dzieciństwie. Ten artykuł wyskoczył mi wśród newsów o Polsce i skojarzyłam, że to Twój uniwerek. Tak przy okazji, coś na poprawę humoru w mojej piaskownicy.--SylwiaS 14:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Katyn
In Russian WIki its 11,000??

in German 14.552 Kriegsgefangene ermordet: Die größten Gruppen davon mit 4.421 in Kozielsk, 6.311 in Ostashkov und 3.982 in Starobielsk

Featured article candidates/Oh My Goddess!/archive1
I posted a response to your comment. I would more than welcome you to join the FAC drive of this article. :) -- Cool CatTalk 19:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Honorary Pole
After reading Ghirly's comments, it is my pleasure and honor to accept. Thank you! Umm now does this mean I have to stop telling "Polack" jokes? ;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Kłamstwo oświęcimskie
You know, I'm on the verge of loosing my nerves now.... It would be better for me to avoid that page I guess... Halibutt 10:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This time you are right. Please refrain from posting such messages in the future, for recruiting revert warriors to promote one's own cause is usually frowned upon. Also, please refrain from using Polish for covering up personal attacks, as in the title of this message. --Ghirlandajo 12:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Babel
Looks interesting, will do at some point soon. Stirling Newberry 16:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

done Fjl 16:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Done / getan. Sca 20:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

FWIW it's done User:Ejrrjs says What? 20:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Your desire is my delight. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 17:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia Babel
Ah, but I have. I employ a user subpage system from my own user page. this page is where I usually place a message or maxim of some sort. The Bratsche/User2 page is where my normal user-ish stuff goes, like info and templates. That page is where you will find my babel template. Thanks for the message, though: I think that the template is really useful. Cheers, Bratsche talk 20:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Babel
Thank you for letting me know about this interesting project, but i will not be adding it to my user page. I am monolingual and i do not believe having a language banner on every user page is a good thing. Foobaz 05:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Katowice
Stary, po prostu kiedyś żeglowałem po sieci i natknąłem się na artykuł o twoim mieście i o genezie nazwy. To było gdzieś rok temu. Od razu za świeżej pamięci zrobiłem adnotację na WIKI, ale dziś nie pamiętam już nic. Sorki. Space Cadet 00:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Znalazłem jedno źrodło: []. Może znajdę więcej. Trzym się. Space Cadet 23:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Pictures
Hi Piotrus. You want to delate the pictures, that I have uploaded. They are all from www.poczta-polska.pl/mw. This is a homepage run by a Polish couple. They put pics about their trips in Poland into the internet. I have asked them if I could use their pics on wikipedia, and they gave theit permission. I have provided the source and gave the status below the pics. Dzieki, Shalom Alechem

German notice board
I am sorry Piotrus, but I don't know anything about that. I am a Swede ;-).--Wiglaf 10:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Piotrus! I've used the Russian notice board in the past, and found the Polish just the other day. It does indeed look like a German notice board would be useful. And, for the record, I am an American, not a native-German speaker. ;-) Native German-speaking contributors that I am aware of include (off the top of my head) Chris, User:Sciurinæ, and User:Nightstallion. User:Saintswithin and User:Berndd11222 can also speak German pretty well. Olessi 18:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I took a look at User:Jadger and he seems quite controversial and stubborn: he's already been banned 24 hours for 3RR. In all honesty, I am not very familiar with the topics he discusses. I'll keep an eye out for him, but please let me know if there are any future controversies. Balcer's usage of a source helped for the revert war on Wola. And, to add to my previous list, I believe User:Thorsten1 is a native German-speaker. Olessi 19:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

authorities
Why you are remowe this authorities ?Can you explein you POV you have delit authorities. Can you explein you Point of viev
 * Please use proper English, sign your comments and tell me what article are you reffering to.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Polish Watchmakers
Piotr, zrobiłam nową kategorię - Polish Watchmakers, i już tego żałuję. :D Jak mogę ją skasować?--SylwiaS 16:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm pretty sure. There are not many famous watchmakers at all, so the Watchmakers category isn't long. Also, I've found maybe 5 important watchmakers who worked in Poland, and there is very little information about them, not more than for a stub. In the same time for watchmakers like Patek, Czapek or Gostkowski we would have to make an additional category Swiss Watchmakers. It's not fair otherwise. So I would keep to the larger category Watchmakers and add them additionally to Polish Emigrants, and Polish and Swiss Businesspeople (they are there already). I also added Patek to Polish Nobility and Recipients of Virtuti Military.--SylwiaS 16:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and done :D --SylwiaS | talk 17:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

greetings
Dear Piotrus, Thanks for saying hello. I'm an Englishman living in Poland. Hope you don't mind if I've muscled in on your territory updating a few things on Polish Politics and my 'home' town of Sieradz. At the moment I'm restricting myself to a few minor alterations - hope to go for a big article soon! Cheers, Martin (mdhinton)

Tłumaczenie
Jeśli istnieje artykuł na niemieckiej Wiki, ale nie ma go na angielskiej, to czy mogę go przekleić i poprosić o tłumaczenie?--SylwiaS | talk 18:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, już znalazłam odpowiedź.--SylwiaS | talk 18:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Moise Movilă
I need your help on this one: could you add the Polish version of his name? Last name is Mohyła, but I don't know your version for "Moses" (which is what "Moise" means). Thx in advance.Dahn 16:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

CrossNamespaceLinks
Articles should not have links to User: stuff. Please make a specialized list for Boleslaus or remove the reference. Fplay 22:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Polish vs. German names
You may want to read Talk:Gdansk/Vote.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Read what in particular? I am not violating it -- I am enforcing it. Antman 03:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Prey tell, how? If you are 'enforcing' the policy, then it must mean it has been violated somewhere - please tell me where this has happen, and quote the relavant part of the policy so I can understand it quicker.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I enforced it on the Gdansk, Royal Prussia, and Gabriel Fahrenheit articles. Whenever I see a form of 'Gdansk' or 'Danzig' that does not belong in the era or context it should, I revert it to what it should be as per the vote; hence why I fail to see why you had to bring up the vote which I have read before. Antman 04:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I propose consideration of jettisoning this entire complex, unworkable scheme of naming and adopting the consistent primary use of a city's or other geographical entity's name as practiced by its current internationally recognized sovereign. logologist 04:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, you seem to believe that they are incorrectly used in Poland article - or did I get the wrong impression?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That depends. Seeing as it was a table for ENGLISH names, I believe that the form used most commonly by ENGLISH speakers should be used, and not the Polish form. For one instance, no English form of the name would ever have accents in it. Antman 04:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * From Naming_conventions_(use_English): There is disagreement over what article title to use when a native name uses the Latin alphabet with diacritics (or "accent marks") but general English usage omits the diacritics. A survey that ran from April 2005 to October 2005 ended with a result of 62–46 (57.4%–42.6%) in favor of diacritics, which was a majority but was not considered to be a consensus. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 05:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing that out to me; however, I also do not ever hear 'Wroclaw' or 'Szczecin' used in English speech, when I do hear it (very rarely), it is usually Breslau and Stettin. Antman 05:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems that even Germans don't have problems with using Gdańsk in writing - with diacritics. At least not when they write in English --SylwiaS | talk 05:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Unless the Germans soon take back Wrocław and Szczecin, they and the rest of the world will probably in time learn these cities' current names. Just as the Dutch eventually learned to call New Amsterdam by its British and American name, New York.  logologist 07:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Appropriate names

 * Excuse me, Logolist, but there's no purpose served by implying obliquely that the Germans of today have designs upon Wroclaw, Szczecin, Gdansk, etc., if that's what you intended above.

Beyond that, you should understand that all these points of view about ex-German places that are part of post-1945 Poland have been made, aired, discussed, contested and reiterated ad nauseum on Wiki during the past couple of years.

My own view is that these places were known to most of the world by their German names for a long time, which should be explained where RELEVANT, i.e. in any historical section. This is especially true of Danzig/Gdansk, given its unique history in the interwar period and internationally high profile politically. A secondary point is that these places where known to their INHABITANTS by their German names before 1945.

There's nothing revanchist or revisionist in naming places with the names by which they were known to the world and to themselves during the historical periods involved. Indeed, it is linguistically revisionist, in a sense, to refer to Danzig (for example) as Gdansk when writing about the six centuries in which it was inhabited mainly by Germans.

I've argued all along that the Germans today should refer to these places by their Polish names when referring to contemporary events – for the same reasons that they should be referred to by their German names when historical events are the issue.

Sca 19:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Life in Poland
I've been here for over 8 years, so I guess I must like it. People speak better English here than in England and the girls are prettier. Difficult language though; I won't be editing in Polish just yet.(Mdhinton 12:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

Spencer/Questia links
I don't have a strong personal opinion about the links to Questia. I reverted based on my assumption and observaton that Wikipedia has a policy of not linking to commercial sources. Many of the book references in articles I've seen are not available on-line. I will try to find out what Wikipedia's policy is about this. Jeremy J. Shapiro 16:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for copyedit of my contribution on GDL. Because of my bad english, it sometimes just stops my innitiative to correct somme issues. I hope you will correct my mistakes another time. Sincerely, Thank You. --Lokyz 20:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Too technical?
Piotrus, one of my students (see School and university projects - University of Virginia) submitted Diffie-Hellman problem to fulfill an assignment. Do you think it's too technical? I'm writing to you because you welcomed the author, Batman900. By the way, given your interests, I think you would enjoy the field called Science and technology studies. We have a wiki: STS Wiki. You are welcome to participate. Best regards Bryan 22:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * They are really smart students! By the way, here is a link to the assignment: STS 401 Wikipedia assignment.

Pictures form www.poczta-polska.pl/mw
Hi Piotrus,

thanks for your message. But I still do not understand, why you want to delate the pics i have upoaded form www.poczta-polska.pl/mw. I have always given my source www.poczta-polska.pl/mw and I have given the status. The author agree to upload them. Here is the mail I have received form them. What else could or should I do? I think I have met all requirements. If there is something else I can do, let me know. Yours faithfully Shalom Alechem. Here is the mail. If qou still do not believe me, I can sent it to your private e-mail address:

Betreff: Re: Wikipedia Von: Marek Wojciechowski ins Adressbuch An: Chrisoph Wolfgang von Rochow <dr.rochow@web.de> Datum: 05.12.05 06:40:16

Witam! Prosze bardzo. Wykorzystanie naszych zdjec jest mozliwe pod warunkiem podania pod kazdym z nich informacji o autorach i adresu naszej strony, tak jak np. zrobiono to na stronach: http://www.eturystyka.com.pl/miasta/podkarpackie/baranow_sandomierski/baranow_sandomierski.php lub http://dolnyslask.org/miasta/henrykow.html lub http://republika.pl/duchypolskie/pskala.htm i jak to do tej pory robiono na innych stronach Wikipedii, np. o Bialymstoku, warszawskich Lazienkach, itp.

Pozdrawiam Marek Wojciechowski

Szanowne Panstwo Wojciechowscy,

jestem internauta, ktory czesto pisze na Wikipedii artykuly zwiazane z Polska na stronach francuskich, niemieckich i angielskich. Czesto brakuje mi zdjec, zeby upiekszy moje artykuly. Czy moglbym skorzystac z niektorych (nie osobistych) zdjec z Panstwa zbiorow na www.poczta-polska.pl/mw. Chodzi glownie o zdjecia z Warszawy (chce napisac artykuly o zamkach i parkach naszej stolicy), ale tez o innych miastach oraz zamkach i krajobrazach.

Pozdrawiam serdecznie,

Rochow

Thanks for your vote on my RfA
<div style="align: center; padding: 1em 1em 1em 1em; border: solid 2px darkblue; background-color:lightblue;">

Hey ! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was (57/4/3), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, have a question, or just want to chat (or if I get out of line!), please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D  Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk 

List_of_encyclopedias
Has a ref to User:Piotrus/List of Poles. Articles should not refer to things in User: namespace. Fplay 04:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

reply to your talk on jadger's userpage
I did cite my reverts on Wola, if u had cared to of read my edit summaries you would of seen it. Jadger 01:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Gajl
Piotrus, as far as I remember Gajl allowed us to use his works at wiki. Do you know if he made the Nieczuja arms as well - and if so, where could it be obtained? So far we have only the one I created myself, which is... well, far from being perfect I'd say.. Halibutt 12:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Teaching with Wikipedia Wiki?
What do you think about setting up a Wiki (using MediaWiki, of course) for college and university teachers (and students) who are using Wikipedia in their assignments? This could include copies of assignments, links to pages, discussion, criticism, guidelines, etc. Perhaps this could be set up within Wikipedia, but it seems non-encyclopedic. I can set up the wiki on my server (which is running STS Wiki. The key thing would be having at least two or three people who would be willing to visit the site every day and watch out for link spam and vandalism. I haven't had too much trouble with STS Wiki, thanks to the bad behavior and blacklist extensions. What do you think? Thanks for helping my students! Bryan 16:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture of Gdansk
You're welcome

Please take part in the improval of this article
Hello. I would like to inform you, as an administrator, interested in the history and political situation of the central Europe, that there is an ongoing discussion at article Territorial claims of the Baltic States (formerly was known as "Lost territories of the Baltic States", but was recently renamed; some users seems to disagree with that renaming). Recent edits as well were accused of POV, and, in fact, article was disputed for a long time already. It would be nice if you would add that article to your watchlist and continue helping to improve it until a decition will be reached about its future (there is currently a poll about it in the article's talk page). I hope together we all will be able to make that article neutral. Kaiser 747 10:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

156.63.87.28 blocked indefinetly
You were among the people who this anon tried to change the password of. So you know, I've blocked the user permanently. I'll likely unblock the IP later, once I thing they're full discouraged. -- user:zanimum

Outside view
Very well-written post. Kudos, Piotrus. Olessi 04:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Peace treaties
Piotruś, I thought it was conventional to add articles to "Peace treaties" in addition to other, more specific categories (e.g. "Polish peace treaties") since a treaty by definition involves more than one party. Since only a few countries have their own peace treaties categories, I thought it would not suffice to put an article only in the Polish peace treaties category, but rather to also make it available in the larger pool. What do you think? Appleseed 03:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Xmas gift
Stanisław Swianiewicz - hope you find it useful. BTW, are you comming home for Christmas? Halibutt 12:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandal
Piotruś, could you look into blocking 204.39.64.2? Btw, I reverted the Peace treaties edits. Appleseed 16:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * How do I adjust my sig? Appleseed 18:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Advice, please
Several editors (myself included) have a problem with an anon user vandalising Operation Wisła article. The user uses one IP in evenings 217.96.248.99, but in working hours her IP changes every day 83.22.214.209, 83.30.125.176, 83.30.128.69, 83.30.148.40. I’m not sure about protecting the article, because several editors are working on it now. Blocking the 217… IP will give us at least some peace in evening hours, but the person will be still vandalising during mornings and afternoons. What do you suggest? Here’s some evidence.--SylwiaS | talk 18:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Oh, so there is a carrot for admins-to-be, lol. I'm not sure if it's worth Halubutt's torture though.--SylwiaS | talk 18:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * ROTF! You really think I won't stir any controvercies in 6 months time?--SylwiaS | talk 21:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, ja wyraziłam swoje poparcie dla BB na całej linii, więc połowę grzechów Halibutta już mam. Pewnie, że znam "Drzewo genealogiczne". A tak na marginesie, ten Domeyko to chyba moje przekleństwo, teraz już mogę tylko pisać posty, które nie będą tak dobre jak Domeyko. ;) Tylko jeszcze czasem mam ochotę napisać sca, że moja pruska prababcia trzepnęłaby go w łeb, gdyby jej powiedział, że jest Niemką.--SylwiaS | talk 23:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

14 generals
AFAIK every single book on the topic has their names. In fact there were 12 of them in the three camps. One was killed in other place at the same time and one more was promoted to Brigadier posthumously, after he was killed as a Colonel. Halibutt 19:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Moves
Piotruś, could you make the moves to Mieszko I and August II the Strong? They require an admin. Appleseed (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Polish kings
Piotrus, thanks for letting me know about this, although I wish I'd been let know earlier, before a lot of these moves had taken place. I think we should try, in general, to stick with anglicizations when the monarch is better known by it, and to stick with the normal monarchical naming rules as much as possible (it gets complicated for kings with surnames that need to be given, though). At any rate, I wish this discussion had gone on at the naming conventions page, rather than on an article talk page, where it's less likely to be seen by those with interest. john k 19:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Piotrus, sorry if I blew up a bit. I wasn't accusing you of wrong-doing. I just find it rather surprising that a whole bunch of pages were moved without discussion. Especially when they were already named in perfectly normal ways according to normal naming conventions rules for monarchs, like Augustus II of Poland. john k 19:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Signature
I realize that you're very busy with royalty right now. But once the revolution is over, could you advise me about "direct link to talk page in [my] signature"? I couldn't find an implementation mechanism, or even an unequivocal explanation, on Signature. Thanks. logologist 21:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Next up
Would you mind moving Zbigniew? Appleseed (Talk) 01:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Social study...
I noticed that Social study was a redirect that pointed to Social sciences. I changed it to point to Social studies. Is that why you proposed a merger? I do not think that Social Studies should be merged with Social Sciences. "Social Studies" is a standard grammer and high school subject and there seems to be an effort to provide some navigation on "school subject" lines. -- Fplay 07:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Your graph
Enhancing the description does not change the fact that the graph itself is not a soruce of information, and at best is a misleading collection of visually confusing information.

The lists that you are collecting demonstrate that human being percieve the history of the universe in a logarithmic fashion. We recall in vivid detail that which happened seconds ago, and everything else we summarize recursively over time, compacting hours, days, years, decades, centuries, etc. down into footnotes. In fact, if we analyze history, we find that, at any point in history, that graph would have appeared to show that "real soon now" some great event was about to transpire from the point of view of the people who, at that time, thought every recent event was highly significant.

This is very nearly the same logic which leads Christians of every generation since the founding of their religion to believe that Christ would return in their lifetimes.

This is Wikipedia. Break your wizzy graphs down into textual information, with a single, vastly simplified graph that shows the general shape of the progression, but don't use an image as a data source, since most people won't even click on the image, and are thus left with a poor caption and a graph they can't read. Stop trying to inject that graph into every article that touches on technological progression like an evangelist and maintain a single article that presents useful information about a theory which can stand or fall on its own merits.

-Harmil 13:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ribbons collection and category
Correct me if I am wrong, but most of the ribbons were made by you, right? I think that they should have their own page (linked from Barnstar) and category. Could you take care of this? I found at least two ribbons not linked from your userspace (this is getting somewhat chaotic): Image:Odznaka za Rany.gif, Image:BoNM-Poland.png. Plus the Barnstar page should list the national versions of the medals as well, wouldn't you agree?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 19:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, most ribbons were made by me. They are unofficial anyways, so unless the community wants to start using them, I prefer to keep them on my own pages. With the national variants, I have no issue with them being placed on the Barnstar pages, but the main guy you should talk to is User:Redux, since he does not like the idea of variants based on countries. Zach (Sound Off) 21:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Możesz zobaczyć w wolnej chwili na moje RFC
G próbuje przenosić moje wypowiedzi tak aby nie były widoczne w dyskusji.Ja przez kilka dni będę poza siecią. --Molobo 09:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Molobo, don't you remember what I told you about Pavlik Morozov before? Go to your own talk page and discuss your grievances there instead of starting revert wars on your own RfC page and dragging other editors into this quagmire. --Ghirlandajo 09:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Wladyslaw Mazurkiewicz
Can you take a look at this article please? I noticed a couple of people with this name on your List of Poles. I'm not too sure if the source given for this individual is a reliable one. Thanks. Kappa 03:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Picksburgh
I sent you an email (hope it went through!). Olessi 04:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

SCA blocked
Piotr, do you have any idea why I have been blocked by an administrator named Marudubshinki?

Sca 14:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not an administrator. Marudubshinki has blocked me by blocking IP 207.200.116.132. I frankly don't understand the technical aspects of this, but would like to be unblocked. Thanks for taking an interest. Sca 16:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Helena Rasiowa
I added a few more sources for Helena Rasiowa. Thanks for the info on Babel. Antidote 21:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

New additions to List of Poles
I'm gonna be working on the list of Poles in a while. I might need some help in translations (as many of the red articles here have articles on the Polish wikipedia). Ok if I chime in and ask for a quick translation now and then? Antidote 09:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

New category
Feel free to create Category:Proposed countries and add United States of Greater Austria to it, I'm in favour. Nightstallion ✉ 20:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Jews in Poland
I see you have abandoned the page History of the Jews in Poland/Temp. Time to delete or not? If not, please leave a meaase at the top of the page, since other people may be wondering as well. mikka (t) 20:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Wishes
I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 14:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving Polish rulers
I've been unable to move five Polish monarchs. I wonder whether you could help? The rulers to be moved are: Otherwise, all the Polish-Lithuanian royalty that's moving, has moved.
 * Zbigniew of Poland --> Zbigniew.
 * Henry IV of Silesia --> Henryk IV Probus.
 * Wladislaus IV of Poland --> Władysław IV.
 * John II Casimir of Poland --> Jan II Kazimierz.
 * John III Sobieski, King of Poland --> Jan III Sobieski.
 * logologist|Talk 10:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. logologist|Talk 07:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Problem with template
I noticed that you left a template on my talk page which claimed that some articles that I created were unreferenced. Leaving aside the question of whether or not this was appropriate for you to do (I think it wasn't, since the references were already on the page), I would like you to know that there is an error with the template. It adds "edit" links to the page as though they are links to edit the specific section. But instead, clicking on one took me to the edit page for the template. If they add "edit" links to a discussion page, those links should work for editing the section, not the template. FYI, Elonka 21:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

German revisionist by anon
hi, i know you want to spread the polish point of view... you know that kind of propaganda like in silesian upspring articles... i don't know if you really believe what you edit or you just want to spread propagandry... i advice to check non polish history book to discover what your edits are unlogical like "rejoin silesia to poland" "upsring of polish people agains occuping forces etc..."

Ote and Oda
There's a notice at the "Ote" and "Oda von Haldensleben" articles, suggesting their merger.

The latter article needs to be deleted; and the former, "Ote" article (which is more complete and actually contains everything that is in both) needs to be given the latter's title, "Oda von Haldensleben" (if that queen indeed usually goes by "Oda," rather than "Ote," in Polish).

Could you look into these two brief articles? I don't think there's any point keeping both.
 * logologist|Talk 07:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Polish names

 * How does one "merge [Oda and Ote] and make one of them a redirect"?


 * On the Wikipedia there remains one major Polish naming problem: the "English" names for Polish voivodships.  They are an ungodly mess.
 * Part of the situation stems from failure to understand that English, being (unlike Polish) a highly analytic rather than a synthetic language, tends to use place names in their noun rather than adjectival forms. Thus there is a województwo mazowieckie, from the noun Mazowsze, but not an adjectivally-formed "New-Yorkan" State.
 * When you have a free moment, could you take a look at my discussion of this matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland, "Terminology"?
 * I strongly urge reforming the Polish voivodship names, as they currently appear on the Wikipedia.
 * logologist|Talk 03:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

RfA
Hi! Could you clarify what you mean by "low edit count"? Thanks! ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 08:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And regarding the Silesia issue... I'm afraid I really don't feel competent enough to enter the discussion, I'm sorry. Both of your viewpoints look a bit extremistic to me, and I honestly don't know the subject well enough to provide a NPOV. I'm sorry, I'd have liked to help, but I can't. [[Image:European-Austrian flag hybrid.svg|20px]] ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 20:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Bukovina
Merry Holidays, Piotr! Thanks for the tip, but I think the (Russian, isn't he?) guy has a point. No matter how fair I may consider myself, I'm biased by being Romanian. I'd rather accept that than disregard it, especially since the debate is inane as long as it is carried in terms that would've had relevance in the 1890s. I actually didn't even look on the discussion page for the article, but I'm willing to bet I already know it by heart. I'd like to point out that I certainly don't agree with Ukrainian nationalists, but I cannot say much in favor of Romanian ones. And this interests you too: who knows if in the future debates like this one wouldn't be carried with you? I'm thinking... Pokuttya. I read somewhere that Ion Antonescu claimed it from the Germans, so it's not a forgotten "realm". :) Dahn 14:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

happy new year!
G'day Piotrus!

I just want to wish you a Happy New Year! Bonaparte  talk  11:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

help
has http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=33241397&oldid=33240396

just deleted some very good references and sources. The rephrase was made by Wosyl. Can you calm down him a little bit? Bonaparte  talk  11:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Node of course! Look at his last changes. Bonaparte  talk  11:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sigh... --Ghirla | talk 11:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I suggest you Ghrilo to put that part that you erased it again!
 * Anti-Romanian (alternatively spelled antiromanism) is hostility toward or prejudice against Romanians as a religious, ethnic, or racial group, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution.

I see no reason why you have delete it. -- Bonaparte  talk  12:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please cleanup after page moves
Your recent move of John II Casimir of Poland to Jan II Kazimierz Vasa left approximately 10+ double redirects. I understand, judging from the length of your talk page, that you are a busy person, but when you move a page, take responsiblity! :-P (I should not be saying this to a sysop, eh?) Well, thanks for reading, and a Happy New Year. &mdash; Ambush Commander <sup style="font-family:serif;">(Talk) 16:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Aha, that explains things! I take that back. :-) &mdash; Ambush Commander <sup style="font-family:serif;">(Talk) 17:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC and Happy New Year!
Zerknę na to RfC ale już nie dziś. A na razie Wszystkiego Najlepszego w Nowym Roku!--SylwiaS | talk 18:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And from me too. Best New Years' wishes! --Irpen 00:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Double redirects
I've updated and cleaned up the List of Polish monarchs and Template:Monarchs of Poland. Is there anything more to be done immediately about double redirects? Cleaning up references within articles will obviously be a longer process. logologist|Talk 02:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

push POV fork by russians
hello Piotrus! Can you please look at Transnistria http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=33468672&oldid=33468577 there is a push POV fork there. First they edit, then blocked the page. When the page was unblocked they revert my NPOV edits. They deleted valid neutral info from BBC. Bonaparte  talk  10:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

History of the world
Thanks for the note on the history of the world map. It looks pretty interesting; and I can tell that you're doing a lot of good work on the article. Unfortunately, I don't feel qualified to weigh in on the subject one way or the other. You and the other editors on the article know far more about the subject than I do. It has been a very long time since I've studied the Palaeolithic period; the last time I did some relatively serious reading on the subject was undergraduate years. Happy New Year! 172 19:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)