<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-7 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:Piotrus/Archive 17--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-7 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:Piotrus/Archive 17--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
{{wikibreak|[[User:Piotrus|Piotrus]]| in a few days.}}
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Piotrus/Archive 15. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.
Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Please sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks in advance.
Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Please sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks in advance.
"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.
once the "six editors in good standing" count has been met using my own criteria
and the matter concerns my admin powers rather than a non-admin editing concern.
Remember, this is a voluntary action, and does not preclude an RfC or RfAr being initiated by others, should others feel they have no recourse.
My "good standing" criteria include
a) the requirement that if the user is calling for recall is an admin, the admin must themselves have been in this category for at least a week.
b) the requirement that the user should be neutral towards my person. This means that if a user is or has been involved in a DR procedure with me as a party, I doubt that user is neutral and I reserve the right to not count this editor as "an editor in good standing" in this case. Hint: it's easy to find a neutral party, like mediators - if you can convince them you are right...
c) I reserve the right to impose additional criteria in the future.
About the article that is on FAC, I just want to suggest try and use photographs that don't have a watermark (mainly so we have something for the main page). Just one would be fine, to place it in the infobox. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)09:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing something with that edit. You are assuming that the word "welcomed" will be read only to mean the official or staged welcomes, but in fact it will be read to mean the state of welcome in general (for example, if I say that the British people welcomed a change of Prime Minister, that does not mean we all went out with placards). The effect of your edit is to question whether the Belarusians and Ukrainians welcomed the change in their status at all; this would be factually wrong (and I don't think it is what you intend) but also unbalances this part of the sentence with the later part, which clearly refers to general events over a period of time rather than to welcome committees. At the very least, the information about the staged welcomes needs to be placed in a separate sentence.qp10qp
Review of the invasion
I did not want to oppose on the FAC page (so you would not think I am doing it in bad faith) but the article earns an automatic oppose (besides other serious issues) for an utter and complete mess with the citations. Three separate citation mechanisms are used, and none with consistency. For example, note b resembles and article by itself, note j drops in five external links without even bothering to introduce them. Reference section should use {{cite book}} throughout. Citations cannot make up its mind whether to cite books in full or just name & page; several notes are also mixed in the middle. Citations also badly need to follow standardized citation templates ({{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, etc.).
The more I look at it the more I am convinced it needs a thorough re-write. It seems the article was written to cram in as many facts, dates, names, terms, and other blue links as possible without giving a reader a moment to catch a breath and understand what on earth is going on. Besides un-linking some over-linked terms (like nationalities or rivers), some facts can simply be omitted (two quick examples: ... forming the Commonwealth of Independent States with the Russian Federation... and ...where the combined KOP forces under general Wilhelm Orlik-Rueckemann routed the Soviet 52nd Rifle Division...) as they are non-essential. Another tip: try organizing some facts (like dates and durations of battles) into a table or timeline or infobox-like structure. This way it will de-clutter the main text freeing up space for general commentary while still providing the same info in much more reader-friendly manner. (a mini example is at Prussian uprisings with tribe conquest timeline). This is especially needed since the article does not strictly follow chronological order. Another good candidate for such a table is all the agreements/treaties mentioned in the text (and they all have very similar names).
Also, the article needs a better structure. I suggest the simplest: chronological. See, ==Military campaign== is organized something like this: Soviets invade -> let's go back to see what Germans were doing -> back again to Soviets -> but, wait, in the meantime Poland is no more. How about this? Germans invade -> chaos -> Soviets invade -> more chaos -> Poland collapses :( Aftermath needs clearly-defined subsections (propose: reaction in the west, repressions against locals, Ukrainian and Belarusian reaction, interpretations. Also aftermath section lacks info about the rest of the fighting during the WWII (the invasion is just the tip of an iceberg) and how it is viewed these days (good stuff on soviet period).
Some minor points: there is no so controversial in the first sentence of prelude to require six refs ([8][14][15][16][17][18]). "though Polish specialists suggest..." -> specialists? [11][1][5][45][1] -> same ref cited twice (go back to the utter mess with citations). "The NKVD acted quickly to discipline such rogue elements" -> you don't need to borrow terms from soviet propaganda. The article also needs a copy-edit.
My two cents: Although I like the article a lot (as I said on the FAC page), I have to agree with some of the (quite constructive) criticism by Renata. I did some copy-editing today (nothing major, just cosmetic stuff), but indeed more could be done: the more one digs, the more one finds little things that can use some tweaking--though hopefully the process converges. I don't really know how time pressure works here -- is there still time to improve the article before the FAC decision comes? Is it OK to do try and help now, with all the discussion going on -- or should one wait till the dust settles? At any rate, good luck, I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Turgidson04:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Very) Quick reply:
Use whatever citation mechanism you want, just use it with consistency
I saw the bullet list with all battles in previous version - and bullet lists are ughlee. I am talking about a neat table summarizing everything.
The article tries to follow chronological order, but slips quite in a few places.
Short & stubby sections are bad. Short sub-sections are ok.
I agree with Renata about the format mess, and I would fail the article on that at present; though, having been involved in a fair number of FACs, I would pass it on the writing and information. But I also agree that the removal of section headings in response to another reviewer has made "Aftermath" appear too long. (I differ from Piotrus in that I wouldn't necessarily carry out a reviewer's suggestions; the article comes first, and if I feel the reviewer's suggestions don't help, I would ignore them, and sod the possible "support" vote.) On chronology, it's impossible to tell a chronological story here, except for the battle action; I fear the article might fail because people find the information difficult to absorb, but I find the subject very difficult to absorb when reading the source material, too.
As far as the references go, I made clear to Piotrus a long time ago (peer-review-type comments on talk page) that there is a great deal of mess here. The FAs I've been involved in all had impeccable reference formatting, so the state of these is a complete embarrassment to me. My trouble is that I cannot read the non-English sources and have no means of knowing what can be discarded; but even I can see from opening up some of these Polish links that they are ephemera, probably left over from accretional editing long before GA. However, one precaution I have taken is to double up as many of those references as I can with English-language sources in many places, and so if Piotrus would permit me the effrontery of ditching sources in Polish where English-language sources cover the same information, perhaps I could rid the references of much débris very quickly.qp10qp14:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just going through from the top: we have several PDF file sources, which is an unnecessary obstacle to the reader: they won't bother; Google Book links are likewise unprofessional, though they are helpful to some readers (like PDFs, not to others). Different refs are set out in different ways (and you can by all mean fill out my shortened refs with full books details, but at least they follow a recognised CMS system in relation to the bibliography; what we need is the same system for all refs). Now, we start with this: Edukacja Humanistyczna w wojsku. 1/2005. Dom wydawniczy Wojska Polskiego. (Official publication of the Polish Army). I cannot tell from this the connection between the first two parts, on either side of the date. All foreign language should be provided with a translation on Wikipedia; I presume "Official publication of the Polish Army" is a translation of the second part. But what about the first (humanist education something?). The next ref is set out differently: '"(Polish) Kampania wrześniowa na Polesiu i Wołyniu (September Campaign 1939) from PWN Encyklopedia. Please note that the above link is the Internet Archive version, mid-2006. The new PWN article is significantly shorter." Now even I can see that there is no 1939 in the Polish there. But this is followed by what sounds like authorial advice about this source. Then there's the question of reffing encyclopedias; I never do that because there's no need. Soon there is this reference: (Russian) Молотов на V сессии Верховного Совета 31 октября цифра «примерно 250 тыс.» (Please provide translation of the reference title and publication data and means); here the article reader is confronted by editorial comment. Now let me mention a very messy piece of formatting which nonetheless contains excellent sources: See telegrams: No. 317 of 10 September: Schulenburg, the German ambassador in the Soviet Union, to the German Foreign Office. Moscow, 10 September 1939-9:40 p.m.; No. 371 of 16 September; No. 372 of 17 September Source: The Avalon Project, at Yale Law School. Last accessed on 14 November 2006; (Polish)1939 wrzesień 17, Moskwa Nota rządu sowieckiego nie przyjęta przez ambasadora Wacława Grzybowskiego (Note of the Soviet government to the Polish government on 17 September 1939, refused by Polish ambassador Wacław Grzybowski). Last accessed on 15 November 2006.
I can't even begin to comment on that. Some way needs to be found of writing it in a way that matches the way standard references are set out. For example, we have no principle for where any noting ahould be positioned in relation to the reference details.
Well, you get the idea; I won't go on. And I am still not out of the lead.
In case this seems very harsh, may I say that the sourcing itself is overall very good, and some of it is exceptionally good; but entries like the above may quickly convince the reader who dips only here and there, that the reference section doesn't quite know what it's about. And impressions are important. We need to think like this: would a book set out the references and notes in this state? The answer is, no. I wish you had warned me that you were going to put this up for FAC because then we could have sorted this out in advance. It's sortable and do-able, for sure. The best thing would be for you to allow me to try some drastic measures, which you could always revert where you felt that the article had been compromised. qp10qp15:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick response on those; I haven't checked them yet, and I've got to go offline for a few hours. I think we need to make a decision on the order of information for notes/refs. My suggestion would be this: if the note provides a quote or paraphrase from the source, we should put that note or paraphrase first and the reference details second; ie: "The biggest house in the world". Jones, 57. But if we have editorial comment, it should go afterwards. Jones, 57; Read archived version here. (Or full refs,if you wish, of course.) I think we should avoid editorial comments as much as possible, though. You are welcome to write out all the full references in the notes/refs, but this will make that area more, not less inchoate. I would strongly advise against removing the booklist, which is a professional element similar to that which you find at the back of books. More of the references could be added to it, if you find it not complete, but my reason for not adding other references there was that in Polish I could not always tell who the author, publisher etc, were, etc. That list is a tremendous resource for the reader; it provides and alphabetical reading list; I go to Wikipedia articles specifically for such bibliographies. In a non-alphabetical list, the reader would have to scratch about to find a book. And I have to say that that neat list is not the problem Renata is talking about. See Mary Wollstonecraft for an example of the dual system at its best. Take heart on one thing: the type of referencing and formatting used is not a factor at FAC; only consistency.qp10qp16:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources can go on the list, since it is called "References"; but I would keep encyclopedias, websites, primary docs, etc. off the list, on the whole. Good academic web sources could go on there, though; for example, Cienciala.qp10qp16:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By drastic measures I mean dropping several of the refs to the first line of "Prelude". And going through the notes removing bitty editorial phrases and what not. Author quotes are crucial in a complex subject like this, so they are untouchable (for example, we have Sanford calling this an invasion), however long; but bitsy editorial remarks here and there can surely go.qp10qp17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been picking through the references, trying to improve the formatting and consistency and chucking out dud refs or superfluous refs; I've gone about a third of the way through so far. One or two that I am not happy with, you might be able to help with:
Not enough information given in the note. I can't tell from the page what it is, who published it, or what.
Incidentally, we don't need to worry about Renata's point about templates; they are just a method, and Raul won't judge this matter on what method we use. What Renata is getting at, however, is that those templates impose a system on the reference formatting. So long as we have notes like the last two above, we are a mile off consistent formatting, because anyone who looks at those will not see what they require: who wrote this, when, and who published it?
I agree that we could drop the claim. I find these "biggest/second biggest" claims on Wikipedia always a problem (I remember getting bogged down on Jog/Wlad trying to source the assertion that his pontoon was the biggest since antiquity, and in the end just dropped it.
The Blue Book reference isn't set out informatively enough, and I'm not sure that it can be. And even with the link you gave me, I still can't find enough information to make this referenceable. Who published this? Who originally wrote it? Who edited it? Without these details, I feel we would be falling short of professional standards in accepting it as a source. For this reason, I have removed it and referenced the same document to Stachura.qp10qp18:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he uses the word "specialists" for the source of these figures. Looking at the references, I think he has consulted archivists and museum curators as well as historians. It does seem an odd word; but we could easily get round this by quoting Sanford's sentence in the notes.qp10qp22:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No appologies needed
There is nothing for you to appologize for. I chose to write in the ArbCom, b/c the atmosphere is very stiff. I do not warry about being attacked more for choosing to write there, b/c if I write or if I don't, they still blame and accuse the same.
1-2 people of that loose group note an article and contest the editors as anti-Soviet, "anti-Russian" and "ultra-nationalist" (they only abstain from calling "fascist", but they suggest that as much as they can). They never disscuss specific issues in the content of the articles. Then 6-7 users more come, and without reading even 10% of the article, just pick a line in the middle of discussion and deliberate from there to infinity about Soviet vs "nationalist". The discussion usually degenerates, and b/c noone any longer addresses any specific subject, outsiders simply conclude "no consensus", which was the original aim of the attackers, b/c all they wanted is to discredit. Again, if 2-3 of them ever read the articles. So, it is always a dilema: either you don't respond and the neutral party thinks you have no argument, or you reply and the discussion inflates to infinity and non-sense. I've only been a user since last fall, but already seen this on 4-5 articles (with consequences that they follow all your edits for some time afterwards and rv just b/c it's you). Generally, I simply chose to do other articles.
I hope ArbCom can do something to improve this targetting of articles by targetting of users, but I wouldn't be so optimist as you ("solve it once for all" or smth similar). Anyway, have a nice day. :Dc7618:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a characteristic example. Any comment is unnecessary. The editor did not bother to read even the first paragraph of intro to know that 1940 was after and because of 1939. :Dc7618:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked a guy I met (User:Thiseye) who likes to correct grammar and spelling to look at the article. I remember that he was quite good at it, has an eye for it. He apparently did not log in to WP for the last 3-4 days, so it perhaps will take some time till he replies.
About Baltic states, actually I was/am not very interested. I just happened to run accross 3-4 of them, and they remained automatically in my watchlist. The one about occupation I ran accross b/c the tipping events there were 2 weeks apart with similar events in Bessarabia (and related b/c the same actors), and I was currious to learn more, but basically that's it.
Not many articles related to Poland I ran accross when edditing. Some that might do well with a (more) Polish input are: Battle of Obertyn, Battle of the Cosmin Forest, Battle of the Vorskla River, Khotyn, Pokuttya, Sacred Kaatan. (Also, once I did this edit based on something I read online, but forget the sourse, and latter never found it, actually didn't try hard to find.) Also, if you know or run accross info or articles about Polish minority in Romania or in Moldova (not only current, but also historic minorities), I would be interested. For example, one Polish community (from Czernowitz), which was "repatriated" in 1945, had lasting impact on the culture, and perhaps would desearve a separete article. (To see what I'm talking about, see by comparison Bessarabia Germans, Bukovina Germans)
However I must warn you: unlike today, in the future I will have little time for WP, so only count on me in long term if you think I can help with some article.:Dc7623:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, at this very moment I am norther than you (assuming you are in Poland), so accidently you guessed right :-). If I can be of some help in some article where I can do it by curriousity (curriousity-about issues, not persons- is my driving force in life), and where I could "add value" (acctually I don't like this term), with pleasure. Oh, but you have exactly 45,000 edits ! That's impresive. Yesterday, if asked, I'd have guessed 1,000 or 2,000. :Dc7600:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you. A review is not a good source at all. The source should always be a work of research and scholarship where possible. But this changes nothing about the validity of the information, which is what I will tell Alæxis. It is irrelevant whether the Stachura ref is on Google Books or not, in my opinion. It contains a precise comparison of the Soviet behaviour with the Nazis. And whereas those who don't believe this comparison will suspect that review because it was written in a slightly rhetorical and emotional tone, they will have no answer to the hard scholarship of Stachura. So this may appear on the surface to be one step back, but in practice it is one step forward, because the article is now invulnerable on that point.qp10qp23:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ambassador note wasn't deleted; it was separated. This was because it only reffed one of the three points. I made it into a separate ref for the information it relates to, which is the notification to the ambassador. I don't agree with you about the number one, number two business, because it means precisely nothing to the reader. But I won't change it back. The idea is to try to give the reader a better chance of reading some of the obstacle-course-type notes. qp10qp00:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I agree about the NKVD/rogue/collateral edit. I was trying to respond to Renata's point on that one. I don't know if the information is true, but I have never come across it in my reading.qp10qp00:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because a review is never an acceptable source, Piotrus. If the reviewer agrees with the author, we should reference the author's book; if the reviewer disagrees with the author, we should reference the reviewer's own books on the subject or the works the reviewer uses to challenge the reviewed book. Since you require backup for Stachura, I've therefore reffed Piotrowski, the book that was under review, into the bargain.
By the way, it always pays to make strategic concesssions at FAC, I think. The trick is to give up what one doesn't actually need, so that really one has conceded nothing at all (I wish Wikipedia had an evil smiley for me to add at this point.)qp10qp21:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to get the ref formatting more consistent, readable and less chunky. It's going well, and I now withdraw my comment that the article fails on formatting. Despite the fact that I am no fan of the alphabetical top-noting system, I feel the formatting is looking much more professional. A few more things to do yet, though.
I changed this from "second tome" to "second volume". Is that what was meant? Do you know any further details about this book? I can't begin to check it out. Is it a Polish edition in English or in Polish? The ref is unhelpful in this condition.
"The so-called "pacification" of the Ukrainians in Poland, which took place in September 1930, is well known all over the world to everyone who studied political events at that time. Trials and verdicts against the Ukrainians continued day by day until the fall of Poland. But the most terrible extermination of Ukrainians took place in the Soviet Russia." The Ukraine and the Present War, Litopys: Forum for Studies of the History of the UPA (electronic quarterly), Issue 1, Winter 2000.
I've been having a little trouble with the part about the Ukrainian resistance. I noticed that the group mentioned (Ukrainian Insurgent Army) didn't really come into existence until slightly later, nor were they wiped out by Operation Wisla, nor was Operation Wisla strictly relevant to the artcle. So I've provisionally replaced some of that with a mention of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, which were around in 1939. But I have not yet found out what happened to them under the Soviets. The main thing, however, is that I cannot see what the above quote references or supports. We need a ref for this that shows the Ukrainian desire for an independent state continuing under the Soviets and equally bad treatment for Ukrainian nationalists under both regimes (if such there was); but the quote seems to support a different point, relating to a larger span of history. I'm tempted to cut it. What do you think?
The Death of Chaimke Yizkor Book Project, JewishGen: The Home of Jewish Genealogy.
What is this? The reference as given doesn't provide the reader with the essentials: who wrote this? who published this? who edited this? who translated this? When?
Looking at the page, I find it unhelpful: just a stark page written by "SL". Who's SL? Looking at the contents page, I can't find who wrote what. Are these primary documents or have they gone through an external publishing process before appearing here? At the moment this page does not seem to me a reliable source in Wikipedia terms. I don't mean that the information is unreliable of course; but it's easy enough to ref this elsewhere from academic publications. The happy initial response of the Jewish population to the Soviet arrival is a well-documented fact and we can support it with something better.qp10qp15:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review of Jan T. Gross' Revolution from Abroad: The Soviet Conquest of Poland's Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia. H-net review, 2003. Retrieved 14 November2006.
I couldn't check this, because I can't read PDFs (never been able to download the Acrobat reader). On the same basis as with the the Orlik-Glass review, I've replaced this ref with direct refs to Gross's book. (To my horror, I found that he gives 200,000 sq km for the area taken, not 250,000, the figure reffed by the article to the review!) By chance, I find that Gross is an excellent ref for the Death of Chaimke point too, so I will replace that with a ref to Gross.qp10qp16:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, keep Śledztwo. What I was asking was if you could abbreviate it to look more like a standard ref (I can't, because I can't read Polish). With Davies, we need the book details ("Polish edition" is not useful, as such), if you've got them. Then I can add the book to the bibliography and create a shortened ref that distinguishes it from the other Davies book.
The refs are really getting there now. Of course, I dislike the encyclopedia refs, as you know (winces) and there are a few refs without page numbers (useless), but by and large the references are really looking good. I think Renata would faint if she saw the difference. If people still say that they find the three levels of reffing awkward, well, I sympathise with them; but that won't affect FAC at all, because the structure meets the criteria.
Thanks for the tip about other PDF readers. I've just downloaded a really light one, so we'll see what happens. (My computer is tuned to reject adware and heavy downloads.)qp10qp18:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm; Humanist Education's been downloading for ten minutes and no joy yet. I Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate PDF files. The point about the reviews is just that they are not acceptable sources, whether they are easy to link or not. The correct source is the book concerned. Anyway, there aren't any left in the refs now, thank goodness.
I'm leaving the researching of that Ukrainian matter till last. I disagree that the quotation backs up the point in question. It's just a generalised statement (interesting, yes). I need to find something that refs that particular dissident group (or one like it) at that particular time. 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
On the Śledztwo ref, surely it could be abbreviated, even if all that is pure title. The CMS says that it is reasonable to abbreviate excessively long titles in citations. It's not a big deal, but that one sticks out like a sore thumb now, in my opinion.
I found a perfect ref for the Ukrainian stuff, and that's the last of the tricky bits dealt with, unless people raise some new questions.
I'm very confident in this article now. Of course Grafikm and Ghirla, both clever editors, would like more build-up material about earlier thirties diplomacy, and Renata, also astute, wanted more about later events in the World War. But I think such additions might overfill the article and add to the problems other readers have seen in the density of the material, particularly the prelude. I have looked into both possibilities; but the trouble with this period, in my opinion, is that events changed from month to month and had multiple, often conflicting causes which can't be summed up easily; and if you go too far back or too far forward, you can't be sure what is directly relevant to this short campaign. For example, it would be very complicated to go into the Nazi occupation of Belarus and Ukraine, which was to some extent a historical cul-de-sac. The Soviet policies towards the Baltic states do follow from the invasion of Poland in many ways, but they raise a whole string of different issues which would require distractingly meaty explanations. It's also clear that the Western Allies were going to fight Germany anyway, once it invaded Poland, and so we cannot be sure how much the Soviet invasion in itself affected the war, particularly since the Soviets switched sides again before too long. So I feel the present tight scope of the article is sensible and justifiable.qp10qp13:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the Subtelny quote, I think we had this conversation long ago. It acts to show that the article does not omit the Ukrainian point of view. And because it sums up the situation from a historical perspective, I believe it makes the point better than we could without the quotation. I am not against block quotations in articles; and there's no policy against them. In fact, I rather miss the Molotov speech that is still in the German invasion article (though there, unlike the transcriptiion I placed on Wikisource, it is wrongly transcribed). But removing the Subtelny quotation would be a mistake, I believe; and if I was a Ukrainian, I would want to restore it. It climaxes those paragraphs about Byelorussia and Ukraine very decisively.qp10qp22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
przestań wandalizować ten artykuł, podano źródła, zapisano w NPOV, wycofywanie tego świadczy o Twoim wandaliźmie i problemie z homofobią 4 bity muzyki14:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A jak sie zmienia tytuly artykulow? Wrzucilem to do DYK bo balem sie ze zapomne do jutra, jak znajdziesz czas to zmien tytul. Temat jest ciekawy, warto go po swiecie rozslawic. Pozdrowki, daj GG to kiedy zamienimy slowo Tymek20:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was tempted to unblock Digwuren per my reasoning at ANI, but nothing is white and black, and he can certainly use a little time to cool down. Nonetheless I'd like to ask you to shorten his block to 24h; this should be enough to show him he needs to be careful with his edits. PS. What do you mean by LIFO?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Piotrus. Let me explain what LIFO means. I've stated many time at the ANI that i can't block all involved parties who have been creating havoc since a couple of months now. I have two hands. So i decided to start a new sheet. Blocking on the spot (dorénavant in French). So this explains my LIFO. Last In First Out in contrast w/ FIFO (First In First Out).
As per shortening the block, i'd have no problems if people at the ANI agree. Again, please note that if someone is blocked today for a period of 72h, the next block would be a week and so on. Also note Luna Santin's note re recreating (though it was not true technically) a dead article just after the AfD. I am not taking sides here as i've never ever edited related articles . -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®10:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, his unblock request has me convinced that he is acting in good faith. Anyway, I'd prefer it it would be you - the blocking admin - who would shorten his block. As I noted, his previous blocks were for 3RR, and he has been only blocked for 3h for disruption - thus the next disruption block going to a week seems too much. On the other note, if you were going to be blocking users involved in disruption related to that AfD, was he indeed the only disruptive user?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 10:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus. You are an admin and i respect you as i do respect other admins here. So i'd never argue about your actions (i.e. reducing or extending blocks) if you see it appropriate. I just can't reduce his block. As for if he is not the only offender, that i totally agree. However, as i explained many and many times, i decided to block on the spot. Other offenders have been blocked on the spot as well. I am satisfied w/ my decision. Again, if you think otherwise, go on and be bold. Don't forget that there would be always parties or a person who would oppose. Maybe you'd be accused of being an abuser. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®10:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know? was updated. On 17 July, 2007, a fact from the article Plan Wschód, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
As for me, the better place for his statement about the emigration seem to be within LGBT rights in Poland, as the statement better illustrates the supposed situation in Poland than Biedroń himself,
so moving it to his bio article might not be beneficial. However, it would be much better to support such claims with some (non-existing at the moment, I suppose) research, not a belief of an individual person. Anyway, if this discussion is to be continued, perhaps it should be done in the article's talk ? --Lysytalk20:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jagellonian and Piast concept
I intend to write something about them as they had notable influence on Polish concepts of the state, however I don't know exactly how to classify them-make two stubs ? One ? If you have any suggestion I would like to hear it.
--Molobo12:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Jackal
Following the instructions in Piotrus's yellow box, and responding to:
"Jackal is nonetheless a derogatory term (a filth-devouring animal, etc.) and we should avoid usage of terms that can be offensive. Consider: would you like to have your country or yourself compared to jackal? I think not. Not to mention such metaphors are not simply encyclopedic :) Countries are not lions, nor hyenas, nor wolves, nor anything alive :)"
I jumped in too soon and had misread anyway. I agree that we should be careful about all sorts of hurt feelings at the reference desk, including patriotic feelings, the offense of which I sometimes find very difficult to anticipate. I hold distance to all of "my" countries, who have also been compared to a selection of species throughout the centuries. I guess it's easier for me to empathize with offense being taken at racist and sexist remarks or religious defamation, for instance. Perhaps I lack the necessary empathy when it comes to nationalistic pride, but I do see your point, which is why I chose to remove my remark, and let your complaint stand.
I have answered the question on Napoleon and Poland, presently on the Humanities Desk; and as I promised to let you know if any questions on Poland ever appeared, here I am, Piotrus! But you already know, do you not? Clio the Muse01:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very surprised if Piotrus missed anything about Poland. But, actually, I rather suspect he hasn't noticed that his latest FAC Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) has quietly slipped off the FAC page and reappeared on the Featured articles page! So much for the reliability of bots.qp10qp02:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the BS! You deserve one yourself because you were the chief cook and I was the bottle washer. But I expect you have a well-stocked cupboard already. Many thanks for all your work, for having to put up with the fussings of a compulsive perfectionist like me, and, in particular, for your resilience in the face of criticism. Now, please may I have six months off from Polish articles, which have aged me several years? (I might like to do Bona Sforza one day, though.)qp10qp23:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, as you have just edited the talk page, I wonder if you just have "voted" without looking up the short but busy history of that "consensus" section?-- Mattheaddiscuß! O 17:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, as you have just have edited my talk page [2] which something that seems to be a response to my question above, I strongely suggest to think about your stated opinion "You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.. Many people consider it confusing and annoying to have a talk thread separated on two talk pages. Talk pages of other can be watched "for a purpose". It is your choice if you ask a question on somebody's talk page and then "likely IGNORE" the reply to it. Don't try to make others play to your rules. -- Mattheaddiscuß! O 17:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your successful nomination of Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) for a featured article. Apparently, my rant on the Project Page helped you all to pull yourself up by the bootstraps in spite of initial protests. I still maintain that it is mostly battles that end in victories, not invasions per se, but it is a minor issue. By the way, I'm on vacation till Wednesday, July 25. --Poeticbenttalk15:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Arras FAC
Hey, Piotrus. Roger Davies and I have tried to address the citation concerns you raised at the FAC for Battle of Arras (1917). Would you mind looking over it again to see if everything is in order now? Thanks again for your comments! Carom04:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Piotrus. You are off to such a great start on the article Polish-French relations that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- JayHenry20:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen your signature a million times, but it wasn't until you replied on my talk page that I realized your sig went with this user name. You've written over 100 DYKs and here I am inviting you to contribute with a form letter! Oh, the faux pas. Cheers! --JayHenry04:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:Image Request for Maps of Foreign Relations of Poland
Sure, I'll make those images, I've already made the one you specified (France). Just give me a bit of time to make and upload them. Thanks! - DWR (Dancingwombatsrule).
Teresa Maryańska
Thanks for that fix. I can't believe I forgot to change it and then missed it. Well, that's what you get sometimes when you copy/paste. J. Spencer14:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
On 23 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Będzin Castle, 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.
Did you know? was updated. On July 24, 2007, a fact from the article Marcin Czechowic, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Replaceable fair use Image:St_Stanislaus_Kostka_in_Pittsburgh.jpg
Replaceable fair use
Thanks for uploading Image:St_Stanislaus_Kostka_in_Pittsburgh.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali(talk)15:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use Image:Przyszowice_massacre_tombstone.jpg
Replaceable fair use
Thanks for uploading Image:Przyszowice_massacre_tombstone.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali(talk)15:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Castle and palace stubs
Yes, it's been long enough and what discussion there was was positive. Feel free to recreate them and start using them whenever you like. Grutness...wha?00:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
