Jump to content

User talk:Piotrus: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 269: Line 269:
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. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] ([[User talk:Nick Dowling|talk]]) 11:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
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. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] ([[User talk: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). --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] ([[User talk:Nick Dowling|talk]]) 11:28, 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). --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] ([[User talk:Nick Dowling|talk]]) 08:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


== Congress Poland ==
== Congress Poland ==

Revision as of 08:43, 11 April 2008

You have the right to stay informed. Exercise it by reading the Wikipedia Signpost today.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Piotrus/Archive 23. Sections without timestamps (not signed with ~~~~) are archived manually when I get around to it.
"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.
Archive
Archive

Talk archives: Archive 1 (moved Jan 17, 2005), Archive 2 (moved Feb 21, 2005), Archive 3 (moved May 19, 2005), Archive 4 (moved July 14, 2005), Archive 5 (moved September 27, 2005), Archive 6 (moved November 23, 2005), Archive 7 (moved January 7, 2006), Archive 8 (moved 19 March, 2006), Archive 9 (moved 6 May, 2006), Archive 10 (moved 17 June, 2006), Archive 11 (moved 28 July, 2006), Archive 12 (moved 25 September, 2006), Archive 13 (moved 28 October, 2006), Archive 14 (moved 27 December, 2006), Archive 15 (moved 4 February, 2007), Archive 16 (moved 20 March, 2007), Archive 17 (moved 17 May, 2007), Archive 18 (moved 30 July, 2007), Archive 19 (moved 25 September, 2007), Archive 20 (moved 5 November, 2007), Archive 21 (moved 2 January, 2008), Archive 22 (moved 19 February, 2008), Archive 23 (moved 8 April, 2008)

Reasons for my raising wikistress: None, really. The trolls are keeping quiet :)
Wikipedia is a kawaii mistress :)

If you have come here to place a request for a re-confirmation of my adminship, please note that I will either:

  • seek community approval of my adminship through an RfC; (no consensus = no change) or
  • choose to take the matter to ArbComm

at my discretion

  • 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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms.

Current RfAdminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 08:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online


POST

See my post at Talk:Stanisław Krysicki

Huns over the walls!

FYI

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sandstein#Gimme_a_break_here.21

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Congratulations and keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemlock Martinis (talkcontribs) 15:27, April 2, 2008

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.




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]

--ObywatelKwak (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Józef Baka

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).[reply]

Official propose.

Hello Piotrus, are you want become bureacruat on EN-Wiki? Alden or talk with Alden 20:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

An Award
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

AWARD

Golden Globe Award
I award you this award for sharing the troth about the Katyn massacre --69.86.173.19 (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

knight of Wikipedia

I hereby dub thee a knight of Wikipedia, with all the privileges and responsibilities given therein. --69.86.173.19 (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A break?

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)[reply]

Well, if you are not taking a break, what do you think about this map? Renata (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query On 7 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexander Danieliuk-Stefanski , 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.
--Bobet 00:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've found very interesting article about it at the http://web.mst.edu/~microbio/BIO221_1998/Proteus_0x19.html. An excellent candidate for DYK. Visor (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --Poeticbent talk 22:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikiThanks.
WikiThanks.
Thank you. --Poeticbent talk 22:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate his contributions into a demoscene, but nn and no V&RS. Prod? Visor (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Piotrus,

Could you be so kind to merge the page Adam Kieslowski into Eva & Adam? I don't really know how that works, sorry.

Thanks in advance

Adam-Kieslowski (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

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.

Adam-Kieslowski (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the article meets WP:N. I am confused. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK, thanks for the suggestion. WLU (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]