This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have been trying to figure out a few things for wiki, but one of the things I'm worried about is doing my own wiki page. It's kind of presumptious to do my own, I feel. Or arrogant. Not sure which.
Do you know anybody who might want to create a writer's stub for me for my wiki page?
I have nominated Communist propaganda, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist propaganda. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Deletion sorting??
A question of curiosity. Why you added the debate in country related discussions like Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria etc. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hadn't thought about e-books. There is an online version available through a subscription website. But I don't think there is any way offer access to just this book; rather, the subscription provides access to (literally) thousands of technical books. Nor anything downloadable. -- John Broughton(♫♫) 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sikorski 1918.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. now logged in here as well as Commons. Finavon (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Done Thanks. Finavon (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Since I can not give you all the barnstars on wikipedia, due to space issues, I give you this award. I herey give you all the barnstars allong with braggin rights for your Salad'o'meter™ --69.86.173.19 (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The main project talk page is now automatically archived; MiszaBot II will archive any sections that have had no comments for 21 days.
The contest department has completed its twelth month of competition, which saw 13 entries. The top scorer this month is Woody, with 22 points, followed by Dreamafter with 13 points, with Ed!, jwillbur, Redmarkviolinist and Borg Sphere also fielding entries. Blnguyen remains the overall leader, with 188 points in total. You are encouraged to submit articles you're working on as entries.
A Linguistics section has been added to the Logistics department, for help with non-English language sources and translation of snippets. It supports 19 languages so far.
Kirill Lokshin has been appointed coordinator emeritus to reflect his on-going involvement in the project. The appointment ends concurrently with the other coordinators' terms in September 2008.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
ak
hi. i generally try to avoid entering into major edit conflicts around subject were i lack knowledge of the subject. For me the vital issue is; is it disputed whether AK had at some point cooperation with the Germans? --Soman (talk) 07:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Propaganda manipulation in Armia Krajowa
The text below is manipulation, it hides facts. After the quote I will write what is hidden by the author.
“
However, while resisting Soviet pressure, the AK High Command and its local representatives went to extremes: They cooperated with the Nazis. The first contacts began to be established in the summer and fall of 1943, after the breakdown of relations with the USSR. In December 1943 and February 1944, Captain Adolf Pilch (pseudonym "Gora"), commander of one of the AK detachments, met with SD [Security Service] and Wehrmacht officers in Stolbtsy, requesting urgent assistance. He received 18,000 units of ammunition, food, and uniforms. During the eight months of its existence (September 1943-August 1944), the "Gora" Detachment did not engage in a single battle with the Germans, whereas it waged 32 battles against Belorussian partisans. Andziej Kucner ("Maly") ["Small"]) followed his example until he was transferred to Ashmyany Rayon by order of the AK District Headquarters. The Nazis' attitude toward cooperation with "Akovtsy" [AK members] can be judged from German trophy documents. In February 1944, SS Obersturmbanfuhrer Strauch reported: "Cooperation with White Polish bandits is continuing. The 300-strong detachment in Rakov and Ivenets proved to be very useful. Negotiations with Ragner's (Stefan Zajaczkiewicz) 1,000-strong band have been concluded. Ragner's band is suppressing the territory between the Neman and the Volkovysk-Molodechno Railroad and between Mosty and Iv'ye. Contacts with other Polish bands have been established".
First Lieutenant Jozef Swida (Vileyka Oblast), commander of the Nadneman AK Formation in the Lida District, also cooperated with the occupiers. In the summer of 1944, in Shchuchin Rayon, Polish legionnaires gained control of the small towns of Zheludok and Vasilishki, where they replaced German garrisons. For the purpose of fighting partisans, they were given four trucks and 300,000 cartridges[55]. Some sub-units of Armia Krajowa displayed great cruelty toward the civilian population suspected of sympathizing with the partisans. The legionnaires burned down their homes, drove away their livestock, and robbed and killed the families of partisans.[1]
”
The text is propaganda manipulation. Adolf Pilch's actions were condemned by Armia Krajowa command as mutiny. Jozef Swida rebeled against Armia Krajowa in January 1944 and refused to accept its orders or assist in its actions. Armia Krajowa leadership demanded that he will ally with Soviet partisants, which he refused as well. He killed four AK members and was subject to trial by AK which gave him a death sentence. The quote here makes no mention of this. You will find more on Polish Wikipedia, the above persons have both their articles: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_%C5%9Awida#Proces_i_wyrok
Alledged report by SS uses communist propaganda language which makes it curious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_partisans_in_Poland Communist propaganda routinely referred to the anti-Soviet Polish underground army as "bands of White Poles." According to another propaganda directive, the Polish underground was to be referred to as "the protégés of the Gestapo."[2] On 23 June 1943, the Soviet partisan leadership authorized the denouncing of the Polish underground to the Nazis. Later, orders went out to “shoot the [Polish] leaders” and “discredit, disarm, and dissolve” their units.[2]
Hej, czy nie chciałbyś może zrobić stuba z pl:Józef Baka? Jest właśnie w rozbudowie, i za parę miesięcy będzie z tego medal. Przy tym szkoda, żeby nie było w en-wiki artykułu o Takiej Postaci :), a jakbym sam to próbował pisać, pewnie wyszłoby zupełnie po murzyńsku. Pozdr., 83.6.13.111 (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC) (Laforgue).
Official propose.
Hello Piotrus, are you want become bureacruat on EN-Wiki? Alden or talk with Alden 20:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
MEBUY.PL
Hello Piotrus, Could you please help me i really don't understand what that is not accepted with mebuy.pl. the text that you don't accept could youplease remove it and keep this information page. thank you for your support Tintin72 (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Again, i have look thru your suggestion... i have deleted some info does it still not pass the check.
it's not a advertisement of any kind... we are going to build on that... but if you delete it every time i put something there.. its pretty difficult to make it good. please could you help me to get it approved....
Tintin72 (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Very weak keep for that one. The website has relatively high Alexa rank 66th in Poland (but see also WP:ALEXA and Alexa concerns) and notable ownership—Agora and gazeta.pl. Some informations about rank in Polish blog hosting services and website notable awards (if any) should be added into the article to fill WP notability guidelines. I've tagged it as unreferenced, OR and no assertion of notability. Visor (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
GA review
I've read somewhere that the maximum duration for the hold period in the GA review is seven days. Is it a strict limit or do reviewers have some discretion to extend that period in difficult cases? You have indicated that you'll correct the Łódź insurrection article as time permits; roughly what timeframe have you got in mind? --Doopdoop (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I award this Barnstar to User: Piotrus for his superb work contributing to Władysław Sikorski and helping it reach featured article status. --71.250.111.250 (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Good Administrator Award
Good Administrator Award
I award this Barnstar to User: Piotrus for his superb work as an administrator --71.250.111.250 (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Witaj. Wprowadziłem datę śmierci pani prof.[[2]], po czym poprawka zniknęła z enwiki, a w historii edycji brak danych, kto usunął i czemu. Potwierdzenie faktu jest np. w nekrologu Gazety Wyborczej [3], zresztą o tym wiele źródeł pisało, więc nie wiem czemu ktoś usunął i czemu nie wiadomo kto. Czy mógłbyś to wyjasnić. Jeśli możesz to odpowiedz na mój adres plwiki [[4]]. --156.17.102.70 (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Odnośnie tego. Przetłumaczyłem ile tylko potrafiłem. Przydałaby się mała pomoc - dwa zdania zostawiłem po polsku. PS. Stworzyłem ostatnio też ze 10 artykułów dotyczących kuchni śląskiej - (Category:Silesian cuisine) Jeśli znajdziesz kiedyś trochę czasu to może warto przejrzeć bo mogą być błędy. Pozdrawiam. LUCPOL (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, it sounds to me like you need a break... I sincerely suggest you take a short break (did you notice it's spring outside?) There is more to life than wiki. Renata (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you are not taking a break, what do you think about this map? Renata (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw your comment but it deals with various demarcation lines in between the phases. I put in only the final one (1923) and the border recognized to LT by RU in 1920 treaty. Renata (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Proposal
As a prominent Slavic editor, I'd like to here your opinion here. Thank you. The Dominator (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
A-class review of Armia Krajowa
In March you've commented on the Armia Krajowa article, which have eventually passed the A-class review. Since then I have been steadily expanding the article (my goal is to FA it one day), but in recent days a content dispute is threatening to destabilize this article; your comments would be much appreciated here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Whoa! I don't understand the dispute and talk page is difficult to parse because the participants there seem to be already very knowledgeable in what the dispute is. Please explain to me what the dispute is about assume (correctly) that I have no background at all in what it involves. Cla68 (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The issue involves the lead. Some users want to add this information to the lead. As I explained in my large post at the bottom of this thread, such claims seem undue and fringe. For example, a similar argument would be to add claims about Free French committing war crimes (per this) to the lead of Free French article (which I'd oppose, of course), or claim about US Army committing atrocities to the lead of US Army (per Canicattì massacre, for example) and so on.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
If I were you, I'd take it to the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and post a link and notification about the thread there on the talk page of the article, and perhaps on the talk pages of the editors involved. The editors at that noticeboard could provide some good advice on how to approach the dispute. Cla68 (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Can't believe this! I'm too busy right now for WP, so can you monitor/influence this... hopefully he/she was to lazy to fix the created redlinks... leaving things more or less intact, but I find it hard to think of a 1632 article which didn't/doesn't/shouldn't reference and link to this page! Sheesh! // FrankB 14:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Ping update... I think this may be the last straw, I don't have time to read current gazettes much less put up with the mickey mouse bullcrap that's come out of notability deletions. And I humbly disagree, taking such common (some might say, "sidebar") material out of a article makes more sense when it's something as complex as this series and is common to the many. The series article ought to be in the main thrust focused on the overall neohistoric synopsis, not burdened with something that is topical on it's own and acts to explain things in the many. Live long and prosper. // FrankB 03:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
MOSDAB
Hi, Piotrus! Do you have any further plans regarding what to do with this thread? I don't see it going anywhere, and would hate to see it closed in this hung state. Maybe it would make sense to undo the whole revision and have its supporters to formally submit it for community's consideration instead of allowing them to quitely pass it behind everybody's backs. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind doing it? I regret to admit that the dab project folks can't stand my guts any more, so you'll have better chances of not being reverted on the spot for being, well, you :) I will, of course, back you up if need be. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
DYK
Thanks for info, but I can't make myself to create inline refs, if all article is based on one source. You can put them in places you like ;-) Pibwl←« 20:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Polish Jews
Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. I will post a rationale, but essentially it's this: every other equivalent article is called "History of the Jews in..." (see the template at the bottom). Biruitorul (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Mix up
Piotrus, sorry about that, but there's a technical mix up with your edit here. Please self-revert and than put that same paragraph you copied from Talk page lower down inside the article, in section "Visual arts". The new and the old paragraph you replaced begin with exacly the same first sentence "While in Canada, Tylman pursued a career in commercial arts as an airbrush illustrator." However, the phrase "While in Canada" is used in the article twice, so it's easy to make that mistake. Sorry about having to ask you to do it again. I owe you big time. Thanks a million. Again, zero-in on the second "While in Canada...", not the first. Cheers. --Poeticbenttalk 22:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
WikiThanks. Thank you. --Poeticbenttalk 22:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I've tried my best to merge it in. I'm not feeling discouraged at all because of your comments, you put them down very correctly, I don't have any problems about that.
I do have a problem about how some people around here act towards others trying to do a good thing. Apparently this is accepted, which does discourage me. Wikipedia should be all about sharing and contributing, not flaming others about a few mistakes. Nice way to discourage newbies around here. It's time people act against people at that discussion page.
May I take it to AfD only for being sure if it is notable or not? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: A-class review of Armia Krajowa
I was refering to the version of the article at the time I posted my comment. One sentance acknowledging that there are different views on AK in the intro seems to represent the article's content so is in line with WP:LEAD. Please note that I have very little knowledge of this particular topic, and can't comment on the article's accuracy. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
On a related topic, I think that non-positive aspects of topics should be included in introductions when this is relevant and reflects the article's content. For instance the lead in Timor Leste Defence Force (which I recently played the lead role in bringing to FA class) is pretty damming of the military's effectiveness. If I were writing an article on the Red Army or US Army I'd include their problems as well (eg, the Soviets insensitivity to casualties and the US Army's poor record in counter-insurgency). --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It was the version at the time I made my post - which from the diffs you posted was the one you prefer. Miyokan seems to have been mistaken about the version at the time I made my post. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Congress Poland
Hi,
I was looking for someone to proof-read my re-write of Congress Poland, and you seem an ideal candidate! As I said on the talk page, it was mostly to clean up language and referencing, I did my best to base it on what was on the page but my grasp of Polish history is nil. Would you mind checking my work? WLU (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the suggestion. WLU (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi
Just checking to see if the Neutrality tag refers to the issues in the lead that have recently been discussed on WP:FTN. If so, then I'll remove it. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've removed it because I think the current version of the lead is now sufficiently neutral. NB: I won't have time to be involved in a long debate on the talk page about any other issues because that would entail too much research at the moment. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to get back to this tomorrow when I'm fresher. --Folantin (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
Me Alden give this barnstar for you, because you can good supervise historic articles. Alden or talk with Alden 18:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The Vatican, Russia, Lithuania and Poland (Pius IX - Pius XII
Except for Lithuania after 1939, I pretty much finished the above article (the first round). The Russian additions were necessary because of the time before 1918. But they enlarged the article considerably. Maybe it is too long now. I am thinking of creating "mains" and adding short summaries of them. Next week.
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Lamhirh, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Lamhirh. B. Wolterding (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Look at that
Maybe I should go on with it, and actually confirm, perhaps then some people will be under my command ;]
[5]
--Molobo (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Lamhirh
I have nominated Lamhirh, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamhirh. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. B. Wolterding (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Movie of joint Soviet Nazi victory parade available.
I just found out that there is an actual movie of the joined Soviet-Nazi victory parade of 1939.
I am downloading it but knowing net it could be deleted. I think you might be interested.
[6]
--Molobo (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The video is available from YouTube under the title "1939 German-Soviet troop parade in Brest Litovsk" In YouTube the video clip can be blown up to full-screen size. Runtime:02:14. Original commentary in German would require translation. There's also another video clip in YouTube called Nazis and Soviets in occupied Poland in 1939 with still photographs from the invasion. Runtime 02:42. It has a fairly good resolution which would allow for a series of screen-shots to be uploaded to Commons. There are more video clips, like the German and Soviet forces partition Poland (runtime 00:20), but in most cases the footage is already known from reprints. --Poeticbenttalk 01:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
For the record, Commons supports video uploads, but a free license for the content would have to be confirmed first.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
DYK for Melchior Wańkowicz
On 13 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Melchior Wańkowicz, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I don't think I can be bothered, but you will find a rich selection here since you are obviously concerned. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I expect so, certainly in post-ancient times, but the Egyptian usage needs to be mentioned & linked - see the preceding edits with a globalize tag etc. The term is also used for egyptian ceramic masks etc, and perhaps a para needs to be added. It may occur in other cultures too for all I know - Pre-Columbian & so forth. Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The article is about the Polish ones, but it is fine to mention the other use of the term in the lead, with the most relevant link. Johnbod (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
After a quick look, I'm finding sources that suggest that the Polish custom is inspired by the Roman funerary art. This could be a good thing to discuss. Ling.Nut (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Amazing!
Hello Piotrus. You have created 1760 articles for Wikipedia![8] Amazing! There are few Wikipedians who have created more than 100 articles and I am one of them. I have created 127 articles and I know how hard it is to create an article. You have create far more than that! You have also contributed to many FAs and DYKs. You are probably the best editor I have ever seen on Wikipedia! Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your recent deletion from the article [9]. I don't know who originally put in the sentence in question, or whether it is factually accurate, but I do know that Sid Z. Leiman (the Sidney Leiman from the article; aka Shnayer Z. Leiman) is a Professor of Jewish History and Literature and Chairman of the Department of Judaic Studies at Brooklyn College; he is not a hoax. (Googling a little more carefully will yield results). I also know that he is knowledgeable about the Abraham ben Abraham question, and his research on it is extensive (see here, for example), so I wouldn't be surprised if the sentence you deleted is true and perhaps verifiable. He did deliver a lecture on this topic in 2005 (entitled "The Ger Tzedek of Vilna - Fact or Fiction"). (I don't know for sure what he concluded, but a tape of the lecture is available for sale here). Maybe the editor that added the unverified info even attended that lecture(?) ...
Anyway, perhaps more research on AbA should be done before he is definitively categorized as "nonexistent."
Just some food for thought. HKTTalk 07:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I copied the comments and responded on the AbA talk page. HKTTalk 20:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Re:
Chill! That link was blacklisted and was preventing editing of the article. Nothing more than that! Re first and only. For someone of that status writing "the first x" is jarring English, because "first" is an ordinal, and it's also bad because it isn't clear if what is meant is "first of a number" or "preeminent among a number". Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
K. Seemed like you were complaining rather than asking me a question. I don't know where this happened (you're as capable as me of finding out). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
DYK
On 15 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iron cage, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I find you wiki-amazing. How can you keep writing so many articles and put up with such abuse on the AK talk page? I reciprocate the award:
The Optimist's Star
The Optimistic's Star is for those who have had to put up with so much but still believed that there was light at the end of the tunnel. Ostap 00:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying we need to give admins more power; I'm saying we need to let them fully use the power they already have. I used to think the problem was with Admins not adminning until your comments showed me the greater problem: Admins cannot admin properly because the rest of the Wikipedia world is constantly undermining their power and crying out against supposed "abuses" when one does something they don't like. If we "educate the masses" about this behavior and why it's bad, then and only then can we stop it and let the Admins do what they are supposed to do--administer. FléêťflämẽU-T-C 02:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
How about this, this, this, this, this, this, and this? There are others; this is just a short list to illustrate my point. These guidelines, policies, and rules work for IPs and new users, so why not Admins? If admins are to have more power (although, again, I'm saying they should just be allowed to use what they have) they should still be held to guidelines, just more stringently. It's just the same principle as a major politician or minister or pope has; people look up to them, so they should at least strive to be a little bit better than most folks. That's why Eliot Spitzer is so pathetic; not just that he had illicit sex, but that he was known for cracking down on illegal prostitution. I do believe admins should have more leeway for doing what they do; but that means they have to hold to guidelines even closer than do the rest of the masses. For sure, it's a difficult system to implement (in fact, possibly impossible), mainly because most Wikipedians think according to the current system, but if we could get it running, it would change the way Wikipedia works and make admin's jobs a whole lot easier.
The problem comes when IPs and new users feel it is their job to let the rest of us know how terrible the admins are for blocking them or deleting their pages and so forth and so on; there is no way we can ever stop this, but one solution to the overall problem may be leaving admin discipline to admins. Then we can leave both adminning and policing of admins to the admins. My main point here is this: if admins are allowed to use their tools as they ought, they should be able to remove problems within their ranks by holding each other to a higher standard than the rest of Wikipedians. FléêťflämẽU-T-C 11:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
RE:Amazing
Hello Piotrus. Well, according to this, you have created 1761 articles and 4706 redirects. Please see List of articles creations in encyclopedic namespace sorted by date and List of created redirects sorted by date. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I have reviewed an article you nominated as a Good Article, Minority Treaties, and have placed the nomination on hold pending comments I have placed on the talk page being addressed. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
DYK
On 17 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article lumpenbourgeoisie, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for adding that one. Don't know why I didn't think of doing it, but I didn't. I read Frank's excellent book back in the '70s. - Jmabel | Talk 19:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Numbers
Hi, Piotr. I've made a final statement on the AK talk page. Regards, Anastasia. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikitruth
Hello Piotrus. How are you? Piotrus, I was reading wikitruth, and I discovered this!! You are also there! I must say, you look quite different in żupan!! Ha, Ha!!
I search the image on Wikipedia and instead I found this. Is it a fake image? Can you tell me few things about the incidence? And, one more question: Are you taller than Mr. Wales? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice job; if you could add some inline citations we could DYK it. DYK now requires inline cites - at least for the hook.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Please, take a look here. I will add inline citations soon. Cheers.
Also, I was just wondering. Would you be interested in doing a new one on Włodzimierz Sokorski? The article is badly needed here. --Poeticbenttalk 22:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you no longer wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from that list.
Attacks by propaganda during Soviet occupation
The attacks against AK by Soviet puppet regime are well known in research.
Likewise the communist term is too broad, Soviets opposed independent communists as well as AK. Sierakowski wrote about this in recent Europa.--Molobo (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Kielce Pogrom
Kielce Pogrom
Dear Piotrus,
Reading the article "Kielce Pogrom", I have found that the paragraph on the position of RC Church, as written now, would suggest some support of Bishop Kaczmarek to the pogrom because of aleged reaction months before for another incident. According to Kakolewski (Umarly Cmentarz) there was a report of bishop Kaczmarek sent to the US authorities regarding the pogrom and obviously no support whatsoever. Kakolewski in his book specifically points out that for some reason that report is still classified at the US State Dept. Could you edit this paragraph or can at least its misleading heading be changed? Dr ZKB (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
After about a month, what do you think about this article, notable or not? His leadership of ZHR has been referenced although neither this fact, nor the reference has not been found on Google: [10], [11], [12]. And also this reference is written by him, is it reliable? In my opinion, AFD. Visor (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
New naming convention
A new naming convention for places in Slovakia is being discussed at User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment#Proposed_naming_convention. Your input will be greatly appreciated. Since these new rules might be later regarded as a precedent by non-involved editors (remember the Danzig/Gdansk case?), I think you will find this ongoing discussion and a poll interesting. Tankred (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Poland
Hello Piotrus. I want to join WikiProject Poland. I am not from Poland. I cannot speak Polish and I don't know much about Polish culture. However, I am interested in Polish culture and I know about Polish history. I would like to learn more about Poland and make contributions. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Piotrus! I will be a member of WikiProject Poland soon. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins FA
Hello Piotrus. Thank you for you comment. Piotrus, you have written 20 FAs. You can help. Give me suggestions to improve the article! Your suggestions will be very helpful. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Reasoning for "Oppression of Ukrainian minority in the Second Polish Republic"
I realize that the section (shortly) describes OUN tactics also. But to me that is neither the focus nor the main point of the section. The article itself also describes oppression of Ukrainians, but we don't title it that way. We could go back and forth in the background section. Where would it end? Czapliński and Khmelnytsky?... I think the longstanding article and section titles that were there before any of the disagreements were best. Change it if you must, but I think it should stay as it was. Ostap 20:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Antoni Potocki (1780-1850).jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Kellyhi! 18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Request
Would you look at this and then please delete the hoax article? Ostap 18:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Actually, I was looking for someone impartial to create an actual wiki entry when my book is released later this year. I've been working on some things, so I haven't been blogging nearly as much as I should. I'll try to do better.
Where, they are clearly in the Public Domain I've tended to leave them in if they link to a specfic work,
If you can point me to a link on Google's site that enables checking of the permissions
they have obtained in respect of each specific non-PD work, that would assist greatly,
otherwise I feel I am not being unreasonable in de-linking deep links to scans of copyrighted
works.
However, it's not the copyvio issue in the main issue that I was concerned about, it the issue of what I term "provider-duality", Whilst not official policy it is basicly that in citing works, the work and page should be cited, but that no single provider should be favoured. Hence the removal of links to scans on Google Books.
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Sfan00 IMG aka User:ShakespeareFan00, please self-revert your own hasty deletions of links to books.google.com especially in all Poland related articles. Your pretentious and misinformed idea of "provider-duality" sounds preposterous. Hence, your unilateral actions stemming from probable lack of understanding of what copyright is, can only be seen as disruptive. --Poeticbenttalk 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems someone already had in respect of some of them, I am reviewing the others and reverting them accordingly.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
All links (with the exception of one article subsquently edited to include other sources) have had links restored.
You are also owed a VERY big apology, which I would like to now offer.
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
In respect of why they were reinstated, someone on one of the IRC channels was able to clarify
what thier status was. :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
So can we assume that this nonsense has stopped now then? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Wigand
That's an old friend user:Bloomfield - creating hardly intelligible articles about obscure subjects (like nobility or non-existent states), never citing reliable references, using sources from 18-19th century that freely mix scholarship with fantasies, including a ton of irrelevant external links, spelling names and locations the weirdest way possible, using multiple sockpuppets to hide his trail... I spent a lot of time cleaning the mess he left in Lithuanian corner, still a lot more left (especially in Ruthenian nobility). If you see similar editing patters elsewhere, let me know. Renata (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
editing help
Hi there Piotrus!
A university class I've been trying to convince to get involved in using WP in their class has today agreed to do so. In the class they rewrote the text of Religious Nationalism. I was wondering if you could have a look at it and edit it mercilessly (as the saying goes). Perhaps if you could convince others to get in on the act too that would be great.
Milhist's new drive – Tag & Assess 2008 – goes live on April 25 and you are cordially invited to participate. This time, the task is housekeeping. As ever, there are awards galore, plus there's a bit of friendly competition built-in, with a race for bronze, silver and gold wikis! You can sign up, in advance, here. I look forward to seeing you on the drive page! All the best, --ROGER DAVIEStalk 13:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
One Stripe (200 articles)
Two Stripes (400 articles)
Three Stripes (600 articles)
Tireless Contributor Barnstar (1000 articles)
Chevrons (2000 articles)
Working Man's Barnstar (3000 articles)
Barnstar of Diligence (4000 articles)
Third place overall
Second place overall
First place overall
Sudovia
Finally! :) When I was looking trough the net I figured why you are so confused: English translations of Polish sources do translate "Suwalszczyzna" as "Suwalki Region". However, there is a much smaller Suwalki Region, that around Suwalki, Punsk, Sejny. It is small, but relevant for several reasons:
Lithuanian claims during the interwar (PL-LT war, etc.)
Nazi occupation in 1939 (known as "Suwalki triangle" in that context)
Concentration of LT minority
Note that the first "Suwalki Region" is a geographical term, while the second is political. I would consider moving current Suvalkai Region to Suwałki triangle to show that is it a very specific term and to prevent any future confusion.
Then there is the second issue: Lithuanian and Polish portions of Sudovia.
If you look in Google books, term Sudovia pretty much always refer to the times of Baltic tribes and Sudovians/Yotvingians. My suggestion would be to redirect this to the tribe name.
While looking though variety of sources I figured that the best name for the region of Lithuania is Suvalkija. For example, this official map gives Sudovia only as alternative. Note, that it is 100% Lithuanian term. Think of it as a county of Lithuania. Therefore it's wrong to assert that, for example, Sejny is in Suvalkija.
Also while looking through various resources, I did not find a single reference that would deal with both Lithuanian and Polish parts together. Therefore I wholeheartedly support creating a separate article for Suwalszczyzna.
So in short: Suvalkai Region move→ Suwałki triangle, Sudovia redirect→ Sudovians, create Suvalkija and Suwalszczyzna, Suvalkai/Suwalki Region → disambiguation.
I think that would sort it out. Renata (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Few points:
Lithuanians don't claim the entire region. They just claim the small Suvalkai Region/Triangle. See for example, this map. Lithuanians claimed the entire thing (as Suwalki Governorate) only before 1918 but it never came to pass so it was soon forgotten. (Maybe there are some fringe extremists groups claiming half of Poland, I dunno).
Suwalki triangle is not completely exactly the same as the area claimed by Lithuanians, but it's extremely close.
Suwalszczyzna is not used in English as it is translated Suwalki Region.
The problem with these articles is that they don't have definitions - it's like one of those things were everyone knows about it, but no one writes in paper encyclopedias...
I dare you to find a single text in either language that would deal with entire Suvalkija + Suwalszczyzna. There are none because such a region is irrelevant when divided between two countries.
I was thinking about "one article, multiple section" solution but there are some issues with it:
There is no good term for all of it. "Suwalki/Suvalkai Region" does not really apply to Lithuanian side and pretty much always refer to the lands in Poland. BTW, lack of a term also shows that the combined region is not relevant.
Suvalkija needs to be a separate article to complete the series on the regions of Lithuania.
An article, discussing a variety of geographical, cultural, and political regions relevant in different historical periods, would be a complete mess & total confusion.
Actually... I just compared higher resolution maps of Suwalki Governorate and the line drawn in the RU-LT treaty of 1920... and they actually match (or very very close - I believed that the Governorate extended further south). And if this Polish map is to be trusted, it's also the extent of Suwalszczyzna. So that simplifies the issue: Suwalszczyzna & Suwalki Region is the same. I see how Lithuanian literature made it seem smaller because of shrinking LT presence there & also "Suwalki triangle" was smaller than the region. My bad.
So my amended solution looks like this: Suvalkai Region move→ Suwałki Region and expand about Suwalszczyzna, Sudovia move→ Suvalkija & Sodovia redirect→ Sudovians. Renata (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
We should still have two articles on the region:
Suwalki Region (moved, transformed, expanded, etc, from Suvalkai Region; Suwalszczyzna redirects here) - deals with the region in PL
Suvalkija (moved, transformed, expanded, etc. from Sudovia leaving Sudovia as a redirect to the tribes) - deals with the region in LT
The map is (c) and unless I redraw it, it cannot be used on WP. But I am trying to send it to you via email (it's ~10MB file), but it's breaking my gmail :( Renata (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to find a source that would specifically discuss the regions, but no luck yet. When looking through a variety of sources that mention one or the other region in the passing, I noticed total mess and confusion: all terms used without any kind of consistency or logic... (including so often mistranslation of Suwałki County as Suwalki Region)... So the only reliable and on the topic reference that I know of is this map created by Vilnius University to specifically illustrate historical regions of Lithuania. As you will see Suvalkija (in yellow) extends only a tiny bit into Poland and Sejny and Punsk is actually in historical Dzukija. This map is consistent with official map by a Seimas commission charged specifically to determine the borders of the regions. So "Suvalkija" quite clearly does not apply to Suwalszczyzna in Poland.
My best solution still stands as above (an article for Lt, and another for PL). Renata (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW, while reading some thoughts re name change from Suvalkija to Sudovia I realized why Suvalkija is a bad name: it is of political origin when the actual Suvalkija has nothing to do with politics. It's all about peasants of 19th century, their language, clothing, food, traditions, etc. I hope you can see now why I strongly oppose the merger. Renata (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Walter Bradel
I would like to understand on what grounds you have questioned the notability of Walter Bradel? He was the recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross as well as a commander of a German bomber wing. To my knoweldge this makes him notable. 18:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Prehistory template etc.
I'll work on those things. Orczar (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Help in Polish
Hi, how would you translate "seminarium duchowne misjonarzy"? User:Adam majewski translated it to "Seminary in Missionary". (For the Jan Krzysztof Kluk article). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 11:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Question
Are you bureacruat on En-Wiki? I asked, because I want change my username from "Zunpl" to "Zun". Zunpl (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Ponary massacre
FYI, your five fair use image uploads were nominated for deletion as free images are available. Renata (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Panieri13.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Panieri13.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Panieri15.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Panieri15.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Panieri16.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Panieri16.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Blocking help.
Czesc Piotrus,
Zostalem (moim zdaniem) nieslusznie zablokowany (see my page) mozesz mi cos poradzic jako doswiadczony
editor ?
Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and Lossowski is the holy grail of truth and unbiased information. Renata (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
And if you would look what you are reverting, you would see that you are removing references from an addition made a week earlier (which you did not remove even though made other corrections) and a discussion of different views of the treaty (including the fact that Vilnius is nowhere explicitly mentioned). Therefore I revert as Lossowski is not the only opinion that's out there. Renata (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi
Thanks for recognition of my poor contribs and invitation to Polish Portal. If You don`t mind, i`ll have some questions.
Well, first of all is if i can just add my username to the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland if i want to join it? Second is if You don`t mind if i`ll try to start/expand articles related to Polish-Lithuanian nobility which You listed on List of szlachta talkpage. I would like to know also if there are some standarised templates for family trees, tables etc. and is there rule about adding references? Thanks in advance.
Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikołajski (talk • contribs) 20:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Damn... sorry that i forgot to sign myselve Mikołajski (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again. I figured it already that i can just watch other users edits, but i was wondering if there`s some standard tree template which should be used for gentry related articles, or is there any desired by wikiprojects for Polish-Lithuanian gentry. Mikołajski (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw this tree, is good, but i see also that this one is used more often. Anyway, i`ll look around and for sure there will be tons of useful templates to copy-edit. Can you tell me if its possible to link commons from other language versions of wikimedia? Mikołajski (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Charles Tilly
What documentation do you have of Charles Tilly death? I couldn't find any in the NY Times, Google, etc. I know his health situation well, as of two weeks ago. Bellagio99 (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 46 and 47
Just a quick note: Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 46 and 47 are out. A good listen as always. :) Cheers, WODUP 03:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Piotrus. Newyorkbrad has decided to leave Wikipedia. What happened? I am stunned. NYB welcomed me. Why would he leave Wikipedia? You can reply on my talk page or email me. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I am shocked! I just shocked! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. You are right: the public has the right to know why one of the top editors retired and the details of the wikipolitics behind this event. I have a right to know what happened. NYB welcomed me. He was guided me when I was new. I think you should send me an email. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
just a quick question for you, maybe you know the answer. I'm currently reading a real interessting book, titled "Warsaw 1920", writen by Adam Zamoyski and as always, wikipedia is great to check up background information. However, I have tried to find something about the "Polish 1st Cavalry Division" and there doesn't seem to be a special article about this pretty interessting unit who seemed to have played a vital role in the Polish-Soviet War. I saw your name around a lot in the history section of articles associated with this war so I thought you might be the one to ask. Is there an article and I just happened not to be able to find it? Thanks,EA210269 (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. There is a little about it in the book I'm reading, especially about its origins, it was made up from six regiments, one each form the Austrian, Prussian, Russian and French Army plus also members of the Polnish Legion, it seems, this reflects quite well the overall "colorfullness" of the Polish Army in those early years. I really don't know much about the Polish military at all and when you google "Polish 1st Cavalry Division", all you get is either the US one or the Napoleonic wars, but with the red link you left me, I might try to create a stub from the information the book I'm reading gives me and more qualified users can take it from there. It's devinatly an interesting enough unit to deserve inclusion in wikipedia! Regards, EA210269 (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I've created a stub now under 1st Cavalry Division (Polish), hopefully it will grow from there. Thanks for the Polish wikipedia links, while I don't speak a word of Polish, I could still compare a few facts and my source seems to be resonably precise. EA210269 (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Bili Sarny
Can't find any reliable references to it on Google in Ukrainian or Russian either. I suggest we AfD it.--Kotniski (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Please take a closer look at that one and only source. [14] It says right up-front (in its own subhead) that "all claims are unofficial". The article and its commercially driven sponsor both stir controversy for the purpose of Internet traffic. A definite candidate for AfD unless more reliable sources are found. --Poeticbenttalk 19:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
On 1 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pogórzanie, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Yup, afd. I'm for deleting it. Visor (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Silva rerum
On 2 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Silva rerum, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008
A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
Tag & Assess 2008 launched on 24 April and will run until 4 July. We have around 60,000 articles to check, so all assistance is very welcome. As usual, there are barnstars galore and service awards for contributing editors.
The project scope has been amended to include specific reference to historically accurate video games. Songs and music with long military associations are also now included.
The Contest department has completed its thirteenth month of competition, which saw 27 entries. The top scorer this month is Ed! with 37 points, followed by Cam with 22 points. Woody, Howard C. Berkowitz, Redmarkviolinist, Nousernamesleft and Outdawg also fielded entries. Blnguyen remains the overall leader, with 188 points in total. You are encouraged to submit articles you're working on as entries.
The coordinators have "adopted" task forces to act as prime point of contact. A list of which coordinators have adopted which task forces is here.
An interesting proposal to set up teams to deal with specific tasks, like taking the Top Ten most frequently read military history articles to featured articles status is here.
The coordinators are exploring ways of developing and improving our fifty or so task forces. More information is here.
All editors are invited to contribute to a discussion about the naming of military operations in an endeavor to reach consensus.
Awards and honors
Congratulations and kudos to the four top-performing editors in BCAD: CAM (1st); Legotech (2nd); Harland1 (3rd) and Smsarmad (4th). They helped assess 4303 B-class Milhist articles. Well done!
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
5/3 DYK
On 3 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article First Partition, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
As an expert on Szlachta how would you like to join the Szlachta Wiki? it would be great if you joined! --Megapen (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Szlachta wiki would be like wikipedia just more detailed articles about Szlachta than on Wikipedia. --Megapen (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Mieszko I
Since you seem to have bags of time to write articles, I wondered if you fancied taking a break from all the modern stuff translating pl:Mieszko_I, which is large and is an FA there? I have a few things on the guy if the Polish perspective there is adjudged too strong, but the vast majority of the academic literature appears to be in Polish, so it still ought to be worthwhile. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
WikiCookie
Just stopping by with cookies for those editors who started new articles today. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Pinkowski-Institute
This article needs some specialist attention. DGG (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Danzig/Gdańsk
I`m not passionated about that things, but why something like poll should decide about official name of any city? Or anything at all. There even stands that name Danzig should be used to period before teuton assault and slaughter of its citizens... come on. In such case i want to rename Vilnius to Wilno before 1945, same goes for Lviv and Lwów, why not? Anyway, i don`t want any stupid fights over cityies names, but that attempts to show Gdańsk as totally unrelated to Polish history, and what`s more, to push suposed separatist tryies by that poor stubs, is not any historic, but historiographic mistake. I don`t even want to rewrite or rename that garbage, it doesn`t deserve separate article or this attention and should be merged to Free election, as i told, in section about Stefan Bathory election. But this time referrenced not by some scrap-papers describeing events from 1570... It could be also interesting to mention that Hans Winkelbruch von Koln (Gdańsk mercerines commander) had a banner with words "Aurea Libertas".
Pozdrawiam. Mikołajski (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Manticore (Honorverse), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --EEMIV (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Manticore system, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --EEMIV (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Done Thanks. Finavon (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
One Stripe (200 articles)
Two Stripes (400 articles)
Three Stripes (600 articles)
Tireless Contributor Barnstar (1000 articles)
Chevrons (2000 articles)
Working Man's Barnstar (3000 articles)
Barnstar of Diligence (4000 articles)
Third place overall
Second place overall
First place overall
.jpg){kind=link}
