Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland

Welcome to the Poland-related notice board!

Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Thanks in advance.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board/Archive 10. Sections without timestamps are not archived automatically.

Useful templates

Please note we have two functioning userboxes:

This user is a participant in WikiProject Poland.

{{User WikiProject Poland}}

This user is a member of the
Polish military history task force
of WikiProject Military history.

{{User WPMILHIST Polish military history task force}}

There is also a Portal:Poland/Welcome message that can be used to notify users about this noticeboard and our related projects. Just slap {{subst:Portal:Poland/Welcome}}--~~~~ on their usertalkpage - it has its own heading.

History of Jews in Poland FAR

History of Jews in Poland has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Grammar - Article Zygmunt Kurnatowski

Article Zygmunt Kurnatowski, Major General of army of Polish kingdom, is needing immediate attention. Please correct Grammar, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.173.19 (talk • contribs) 16:09, March 31, 2008

Third faction in the Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) article?

I have read about withdrawing Polish units in 1939 being ambushed by Ukrainian insurgents (possibly Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists) does anybody know how widespread and notable those attacks were? Should we add OUN to the Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) Military Conflict Infobox? Mieciu K (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have already asked this question to a Ukrainian user, do not remember who. I know the Ukrainians in mid-September 1939 captured the town of Stryj for a few hours, but were chased away by the Polish Army units. Alas, I have no more info on it. Tymek (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You asked me back in December. Sorry, it seems I never did get any research done, or get back to you. I don't think the OUN should be added as part of the Soviet invasion however. Ostap 04:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not a problem Ostap. Greetings. Tymek (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Diacritics discussion

There are discussions going on about what should be the guidelines on the use or non-use of diacritics in foreign words. It started with an attempt to remove diacritics from the names of tennis players; there is now a proposal on clarifying the guidelines to approve the use of diacritics in general - see WP:UD for the proposal and WT:UD for the discussion. --Kotniski (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

My original proposal (which failed to gain consensus) has now been much improved (in my opinion) by AjaxSmack. Please take a look and comment.--Kotniski (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible hoaxes

Mateusz Sołtanowicz (no google/gprint hits), Piotr Sołtanowicz (few google/no gprint hits), Józef Sołtanowicz (no hits), Jan Sołtanowicz (few google hits/no gphits), Bolesław Sołtanowicz (similar). What do you think? All work of a single User:Potocki, who has created little else. I'd think at least the poets would get some gprint hits... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to AFD'em as there are no reliable and verifiable sources. Visor (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polish culture during World War II

I have expanded Polish culture during World War II and nominated it for Wikipedia:Featured article status. Please take a minute to read the article and comment in the promotion vote. Please help address the issues as they come up, I may not have time to address them all myself. The article has a large amount of red links; please help translate missing articles from pl wikipedia.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Molobo

What is happening with this user? Is there any way we others can express our disapproval of the block? Ostap 02:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive431#Molobo. I expressed my opposition there. If you disagree with this block, I'd suggest posting there, as well as at User_talk:Moreschi#User:Molobo. I have much respect for Moreschi, but I believe here he has made a profound mistake: a user was permblocked for borderline 3RR violation and few other single reverts around the same time, after a single warning. This is simply draconian and unfair.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

See my response here and here. To vary his own words, I have much respect for Piotruś, but I believe he is making a profound mistake by unconditionally supporting Molobo. "a user was permblocked for borderline 3RR violation and few other single reverts around the same time, after a single warning. This is simply draconian and unfair." You're misrepresenting things here. Molobo was blocked due to his age-old track record of blocks and a long history of heavily biased editing. He's been getting away with this behavior for longer than anyone I can remember. Take a random blocked user account and compare their block history with Molobo's - you're in for a surprise. People get blocked indefinitely after a fraction of that. "Zero tolerance" is wrong, but so is unlimited tolerance. I know you probably feel you have to defend your country against some anti-Polish conspiracy. Rest assured that your "my country right or wrong" approach is achieving precisely the opposite. Serdecznie dziękuję za waszą uwagę. --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not supporting him unconditionally. He is not a paragon of virtue among Wikiedians, but I don't think he has done anything so out-of-line to deserve a permban. I can think of quite a few editors similarly or even more biased, and revert warring at least as much as him - and usually they are not blocked. I'd support a more strict policy that would block them (and Molobo), but until it is implemented across Wikipedia it looks to me like Molobo had just the bad luck of acting like many other Wikipedians do (for better and worse, likely worse) and falling across a few admins in a bad mood and willing to use a ban hammer, bending our policies and making "an example" - which is not going to scare the other problematic editors, but rather encourage some of them (involved in reporting and criticizing Molobo this time), as they "managed to get one of their opponents blocked". Perhaps the best way to deal with this would be for ArbCom to review his situation, and editors he interacts with (it takes more than one editor to edit war...). A right solution would be either to ban nobody or quite a few disruptive editors - they all should be treated similarly, and it's unfair to single only one editor, no more problematic than quite a few others.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I was very saddened to have found out about Molobo's block. In such moments, one feels like dropping the project. He is a little hot-headed (like most users he used to deal with), but nevertheless he is a very productive contributor and I am still hoping the decision will be changed. Tymek (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not plan to interfere with Piotrus' attempt to get Molobo unblocked again that goes on at the host of pages, but the remark above prompted me to ask a very specific question. Tymek, you called Molobo "a very productive contributor" above. Could you point out to the content this productive contributor wrote? I do not mean moving stuff around pasting chunks from one article to another or from external sites into article or talk pages. I also do not count massive rabid reverts (as well as his being useful when someone else "runs out his revert quota".) I also do not mean filling talk pages with annoying repetitive screams. I mean genuinely valuable new content written by this "productive user". Could you prod us to any examples? Because I don't remember of any. --Irpen 21:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

[1]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see links to articles he reverted a lot from the above hack. I see none where he wrote anything meaningful. Could I have missed anything? --Irpen 23:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, like this.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So, no diffs to Molobo's actually writing some "valuable content"? I thought so. --Irpen 23:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, what do you mean by "valuable content"? Perhaps you could illustrate this idea with examples of articles you have created or significantly expanded? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying to turn tables, Piotrus? OK, from the recent times I can offer an example of Kiev Governorate I have rewritten from scratch after your "creation" of this piece replete with factual errors [2]. Anything Molobo wrote? --Irpen 00:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Kidnapping of Polish children by Nazi Germany, for example, is an interesting article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I considered Molobo a valuable editor. Piotrus, you linked above to that ANI page. Is there any better way? Has he himself requested to be unblocked? Does he even know he is blocked? Ostap 23:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

He knows, but from what he told me he is considering abandoning the project, as he sees the block as unfair, and he doubts that he has any chance for a fair hearing :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No one prevents you from appealing this to ArbCom. But beware that his current ban has a better chance of being conditionally lifted in, say, several months and replaced with yet umpteenth "last chance" (not that I see any chance that he may change), while the ArbCom ban (which I see as the likely outcome of such appeal) would stay forever and would also apply to all of his reincarnations. Also, I would not be surprised if the Arbcom would want to look at who were possibly enabling and facilitating Molobo's disruptive activities. --Irpen 00:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, I am not going to waste my time. Just look at his edits, anyway, whatever I would present to prove my point, you would disagree, so it makes no sense. Tymek (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"I am not supporting him unconditionally." I admit I don't have the time to follow your exchanges on a regular basis, so I can't possibly be sure about this. All I can say is that I've seen you support him often, while I've never seen you disagree with him or fail to support him. You're welcome to point me to incidents where you actually opposed him, and I'll be happy to revoke my statement. "He is not a paragon of virtue among Wikiedians". The problem is not that he isn't a "paragon of virtue". The problem is that he is the opposite. "but I don't think he has done anything so out-of-line to deserve a permban." Then I'd be curious to learn what kind of punishment he does deserve in your opinion, with his record of previous bans? "I can think of quite a few editors similarly or even more biased, and revert warring at least as much as him - and usually they are not blocked. I'd support a more strict policy that would block them (and Molobo) [...]" Right now, I can't of any editors more biased than Molobo (except Space Cadet perhaps), although I'm sure there must have been quite a few. However, that's all totally off the point. In fact, you're using the oldest argument of people trying to evade sanctions, both on and off Wikipedia. "What, you're deleting an article about my school? Why don't you delete [random other school] first?" I'm sure you know well enough that two wrongs don't make a right. And you know that we can only take down one troll at a time, too. Rest assured that when other people behave the same way as Molobo has been behaving for years now, I'll argue exactly the same way. But right now we're discussing Molobo, and nothing others did can justify letting him off the hook. --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Molobo used to break 3RR and got a series of blocks for that. In 2004-2005. Nothing in his recent behavior justified the venom he is attracting. If you disagree with me, provide diffs to the recent disruptive edits by Molobo. He is not edit warring more than many other users, yet while he gets the blame, his edit warring opponents get of score free. Such hypocrisy is not something I support.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Drogi Piotruśku, let's get a few things straight here! "Molobo used to break 3RR and got a series of blocks for that. In 2004-2005." Molobo didn't even arrive on Wikipedia until 12 July 2005. He ran into trouble almost immediately and was first blocked, for 24 hrs, on 5 October 2005. This was the start of a series of bans, culminating in a year-long ban from 24 June 2006 until 24 June 2007. Apparently he got his act together for a while (as far as violating technical rules is concerned, that is) and wasn't blocked again until 7 June 2008, this time for 72 hrs due to his long history of blocks. This didn't stop him from edit-warring, though. On 12 June, Khoikhoi blocked him for one week, reason given: "resumed edit warring (across multiple pages) immediately after three-day block, 3RR violation on Strategic bombing during World War II, no signs of effort to stop edit warring". So your statement above is wrong on all counts. As for your other point ("He is not edit warring more than many other users"), I think I've made it clear enough that this isn't a valid argument.

However, as annoying as Molobo's constant violation of formal rules is, it's not the worst about him. I'm not wasting your time or mine with individual disruptive diffs (although there's no shortage of them), because the real problem is the całokształt of his contributions. He's not here to build an encyclopedia of neutral information; he clearly feels he is on some political mission. Virtually all of his edits carry some political message or at least connotation. There may be very few exceptions where the message isn't obvious on first sight, but seen in context it surely is. This is mainly directed against Germany and other neighbors of Poland. However, in Polish domestic affairs he demonstrates a clearly right-wing position, too. You can't make me believe you haven't been noticing this, so there's just two conclusions: Either you secretly share Molobo's political POV, or you don't, but feel obliged to protect him due to some "my country right or wrong" attitude. Either alternative is casting a dubious light on your own input, as impressive and respectable as it otherwise is. (The only excuse would be that you feel that Poland deserves more respect than she gets. Rest assured that Molobo's wheeling and dealings here don't contribute to that goal, just like the paranoid Kaczyński government's behavior hasn't contributed to that goal internationally.) It's a shame that Molobo couldn't get sanctioned because of his endecja-style hate-mongering alone - IMHO, misusing Wikipedia as a political playground is worse than violating technical rules. But even just looking at the technical things, a long-term or permanent ban has been overdue. BTW, you haven't answered the question what punishment you would consider appropriate for Molobo yourself. --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Molobo's both block in the recent weeks are dubious (look at the diffs yourself), and his permban is too high for those violations. I don't endorse his POV, and I would gladly see him - and his fellow revert warriors - on 1RR - but nobody deserves to be perbanned after two dubious 3RR blocks, and his name smeared of sockpuppetry after a single, accidental edit as an IP.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's your POV that Molobo is right-wing. The same he is left-wing. Your opinion about Kaczyński government is your POV, don't do your propaganda here.Xx236 (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"It's your POV that Molobo is right-wing". The concept "right-wing" is defined well enough, it's not merely a matter of personal preference to call something or somebody right-wing. Hate-speech, misrepresenting other nations etc. are all covered by the definition of right-wing. In Polish politics, attacking people because of (real or imagined) collaboration with the communist regime is a typical right-wing behavior. This is an undisputed fact and has nothing to do with POV. My opinion about the Kaczyński government is my POV alright, but you can be sure that it converges with that of the vast majority of people outside Poland, and even more people in Poland. Apart from that, this is a talk page, not an article, so we're entitled to voice opinions here. I'm pretty sure that anyone who cares to read this page has already formed an opinion about the twins, so the amount of damage "propaganda" can do is limited. The only reason I mentioned them in the first place was to illustrate that hot-headed behavior for some cause can in fact achieve the opposite of what was intended, which (hopefully) brings us back to Molobo. --Thorsten1 (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

First, no one cares about your opinions of what you believe to be Molobo's politic preferences. Second, read the article on Right wing, you seem to know nothing about this. Hate speech? Oh, please... Ostap 22:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hate speach - ever read Lenin's or Stalin's speaches? Xx236 (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the statute of limitations should apply here. If after having been banned for a year, Molobo came back, behaved himself for a year or so, misbehaved again, banned for 24 hours, then for a week - then the next logical step should be a month, three months, a year ... . Not banned indefinitely out of the blue, because someone dug out old bones from the closet. Besides, permban is for fraud and sockpuppetry, not for minor misdemeanors as 3RRs. Go to the Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz article and you'll find out some guys with trendy POV got away with even 10RR and countless other violations. And this is not my POV speaking. On the issue of the Kaczyński twins I am with User Thorsten1. These clowns made from Poland a laughingstock throughout European Union. Can't understand why 10 million Polish-Americans are still with them. But that's probably American propaganda at work thanks to our media. When an American goes to Europe, every European keeps telling him that he's been brainwashed. And guess what, I didn't believe that several years ago yet, but now I think they might be right. greg park avenue (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

After reading comments by user Thorsten, I cannot really believe my eyes. So, using you logic, Molobo deserves the ban because he is right-wing and supports the Kaczynski bros government? It is laughable but at the same time sad. For the record - like millions of Poles, I also support President Lech Kaczynski. And now I guess, I should be expecting a ban in the near future. Tymek (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe this dicussion on Molobo turned into a bashing of Kaczynski and America. Ostap 00:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't know who Molobo supports, and he doesn't deserve the ban, at least not this ban, but what I was saying some people who support New York Times views get away with minor Wikipedia violations, while the others who don't, usually got punished. Not that I for it - it's just reality. For the record: I am Lech Wałęsa guy and never supported Kaczyński twins who took apart the Solidarity movement from the inside paving the way to indroduce the Martial Law in Poland back in 1981. Don't you guys see they're the SB Fifth Column? And nothing has changed, they're trying to do that again, this time within the Polish government. greg park avenue (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Greg, please stick to the topic. This is about Molobo, not Walesa or the Kaczynski bros. Tymek (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A summary reply to keep things readable.

@Ostap R: "no one cares about your opinions of what you believe to be Molobo's politic preferences." This isn't a matter of opinion or belief, Molobo's political preferences are blatantly clear from his edits. But that's not really the problem. The real problem is that he is promoting his politics with his edits, compromising NPOV on a regular basis. The fact that he keeps violating formal rules while doing so is just the straw that breaks the camel's back. As for the rest of your statement, I'm not going to dignify this with a reply.

@Xx236: Not sure what you want to say here. If it's something along the lines of "Molobo doesn't deserve any punishment because Stalin or Lenin were worse", you're wasting your time. Neither Lenin nor Stalin have ever edited Wikipedia, so the comparison is utterly flawed. Even if they had, for the umpteenth time: two (or more) wrongs don't make a right.

@Greg: Just like in real life, if you maxed out a sentence and continue to offend, there's a much steeper curve to the next punishments. Repeat offenders are always punished more severely, even if they have served their previous sentence. That said, it's open to debate if a less severe punishment than a permanent ban would have been justified. That's exactly why I challenged Piotruś to say what punishment he would consider appropriate... (The gist of his argument seemed to be that Molobo should get away with anything because others are getting away with similar offenses.) "you'll find out some guys with trendy POV got away with even 10RR and countless other violations." Sure, but for the umpteenth-plus-one time: two (or more) wrongs don't make a right. If I get caught jaywalking, I can't defend myself by saying that millions of people have been doing it without being punished. As much as I agree with you about the rest of your statement, I also agree with Ostap R that it doesn't belong here. We have enough on our hands with Molobo, no need to talk Kaczyński. The only reason I mentioned them at all was to demonstrate that a hot-headed and stubborn attitude is likely to achieve the opposite of one's intentions. Now I realize I better hadn't mentioned them because people tend to go right off topic at the sight of their name and also seem to lose their reading skills, as Tymek's statement below demonstrates.

@Tymek: "After reading comments by user Thorsten, I cannot really believe my eyes." And you better don't believe them, because I neither said nor implied any of the following: "So, using you logic, Molobo deserves the ban because he is right-wing and supports the Kaczynski bros government." I don't know if Molobo wears mohair berets, supports the Kaczyńskis, the Giertychs or whoever. As I said in the paragraph above, and am happy to repeat especially for you, the only reason I mentioned the Kaczyńskis was to demonstrate that a hot-headed and stubborn attitude is likely to achieve the opposite of one's intentions. If Molobo deserves a ban for other things than his countless technical offences, it's not his politics, but the fact that he lets his politics inform his edits and leaves behind POV stumbling-blocks wherever he turns up. "For the record - like millions of Poles, I also support President Lech Kaczynski." I'm not surprised to learn that. "And now I guess, I should be expecting a ban in the near future". Certainly not. But you would deserve one if you contaminated the article namespace with pro-Kaczyński spin-doctoring and/or kept breaking technical rules.

@Piotruś: "Molobo's both block in the recent weeks are dubious (look at the diffs yourself)". I have, and I don't see anything dubious. "and his permban is too high for those violations." A valid argument, but it begs the question which punishment you would consider appropriate? None at all? Proszę się nie gniewać, but I'm still curious to read your answer. I'm relieved to hear that you don't endorse his POV; it just begs the question why you engage so much in pettifogging on his behalf. --Thorsten1 (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

@Thorsten1 - you missed my most important argument statute of limitations. In the year 2005 Wikipedia was young and the editors inexperienced including administrators. We might strike the first offences and penalties based just on this and on good faith assumption, taking also in account, Molobo was clean after that for prolonged period of time. I suggest this:

1. Make an appeal to User Moreshi to reconsider the penalty phase and lower it to one month or 4 times his last block period. I know no admin will admit he was that wrong and let him walk free and even go that low, but maybe we may settle for something more adequate like three months.

2. Make an offer to User Molobo:

A. Plea guilty for 3RR (even if it's bordrline)

B. Promise to stay away from User Matthead and other Users with whom he made most political exchanges (even if they post on his User Talk Page)

C. Promise to never make more than one revert (even if two are allowed).

Sounds like an idea, huh? greg park avenue (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your matter-of-factly suggestions, Greg. I don't quite agree with them, though. I didn't miss your "statute of limitations" argument, I just don't agree with it. And in 2005 Wikipedia was "young" and nobody knew what they were doing? Come on. AGF is fine, but once you know that someone isn't acting in good faith, it's no longer helpful. Molobo may have been "clean" for some time as far as 3RR violations are concerned. As I mentioned above, however, even if this is what got him blocked, it's just the tip of the iceberg. His POV violations go on and on, and I see absolutely no improvement since he first appeared in mid-2005. I don't want Molobo to "plea guilty" to anything, to refrain from reverting, or to stay away from certain users. I want his blatant POV editing to stop - but I've given up all hope it ever will. --Thorsten1 (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In one word no deal! then. Please reconsider, Thorsten. POV on the top of few 3RRs is a very weak defense, even with adjective "blatant", which is a POV also. POV is not a reason to delete the article, save for the capital punishment of a User who is with us almost from the beginning. Wonder what Jimbo would say to that? Until last year, he intervened many times in such (POV) cases; last time I recall, in the matter of an article I was involved with - Anna Halman - moved later to the School violence. Statute of limitations will appeal to him I guess, but we don't need to go that far up, or even to ArbCom, do we? Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"In one word no deal! then." I'm hardly in any position to bargain about Molobo's punishment or probation terms. However, I'm not making a secret of it that I'm so disillusioned about him that, personally, I wouldn't care to lift a finger in his defense. "POV is not a reason to delete the article, save for the capital punishment of a User who is with us almost from the beginning." POV may indeed be a reason to delete an article, if the very essence of an article is POV. (Think Microsoft world-domination conspiracy.) And no one will be able argue against the observation that the bulk of Molobo's editing is politically motivated and an inherent violation of NPOV. That he's been on Wikipedia for a relatively long time is not a reason to cut him any slack. If anything, there is a case for the opposite, because the time he spent here is proportional to the damage he's done, and his long history shows that he's not improving in any way. "Wonder what Jimbo would say to that?" That's an appeal to authority (and a speculative one at that), not a valid argument. But since you mention him, I suspect Jimbo would strongly disapprove of Molobo's politically motivated editing. After all, he kind of invented NPOV. "but we don't need to go that far up, or even to ArbCom, do we?" Surely not as far as I'm concerned, because regardless of all this, Wikipedia and the community of Polish editors is better off without Molobo. --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Deals are made with the DA (District of Attorney, or Devil's Advocate, whatever you like), not with the judge (User:Moreschi in this case). Now we ain't got nothing to go to him to bargain for. Go to his user page and see he is a sworn POV-pushers hunter. Shame, he had no courage, though, to say that when announcing a verdict. Making another motion would be pure waste of time, just as this discussion is, since it's evident you have already made your mind. greg park avenue (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thorsten: the first 3RR consisted in fact of three reverts and one move. I'd happily see Molobo and his opponents (it takes more than one to go over 3RR...) on 1RR restriction, for example. They should all learn to create more constructive content, and war less.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Piotruś, you keep discussing this on a purely technical level. This isn't doing justice to the matter, whose crux isn't that Molobo keeps breaking petty rules, but why he keeps breaking them. The underlying problem is his POV editing, which is incompatible with the idea of Wikipedia. It's not like you can do what you want here unless you don't break 3RR or any other formal rules. You said you don't endorse his POV, and I have no reason to doubt that, but it's still hard to believe when at the same time you're trying so hard to pettifog him out by nitpicking on technicalities. If you really don't, please think again. You might just come to the conclusion that Molobo is affecting a goal that I guess is as close to your heart as anyone else's here, namely to improve the quality of Poland-related information and its perceived overall reliability. But I'm getting tired of repeating this. --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have not done so, could you provide some examples of Molobo's non-neutral POV-pushing? Nihil novi (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure I could. In fact, it would be more difficult to find any where Molobo is not POV-pushing. However, the fact you're even asking speaks volumes, so I'm not going to waste my time. Instead, you may want to ask Piotruś, who said he doesn't endorse Molobo's POV, either. BTW, what is your username supposed to imply? Nic o nas bez nas? No sanctions against anyone without the unanimous support of all Polish Wikipedians? ;) --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

My username "nihil novi" comes from "nihil novi sub sole," "nothing new under the sun" — as in the use, by some persons, of ad hominem remarks to divert attention from the vacuity of their arguments. Nihil novi (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the origins of your username? Mine, for the record, is explained on my talkpage ;p --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I was asking about User:Nihil novi, obviously, who chose to make a political slogan his username. Since you're asking, my username is from here. --Thorsten1 (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Old Norse for "big phallus"? Shall we get back to substantive, instead of ad-hominem, arguments? Nihil novi (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow! You're confusing "ad hominem" with "ad nominem": I wasn't asking anything about you as a person, but strictly about the meaning of your chosen name. Yours is a historical political statement with certain implications. I was wondering if and how these relate to the issue at hand. Your slightly hysterical response about phalluses clearly shows that I was on to something here. Or even bang on target, who knows. Anyway, thanks for confirming my suspicion. --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my interpretation of the origin of your username! Really, when will you grow out of your sophomoric drivel? A mature person discusses the subject at hand, not the origin of his interlocutor's name. It is the person without valid arguments that reaches for ad hominem distractions, as you did above. Nihil novi (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Reading the above discussion, the impression I get is that 3RR has been used as a specimen charge, in order to block someone who certain admins feel probably ought to be blocked, though they can't quite justify why. In fact that's the second time I've seen that happen recently. In neither case do I shed any tears over the blockee, but is that really the inteded purpose of 3RR? It seems at best a lazy way of going about things.--Kotniski (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I totally regret that Molobo was convicted for technical offenses although the contents of his edits was way more offensive. It's probably to do with the fact that people generally hesitate to sanction national POV pushers when they know they'll face the heat from their compatriots afterwards. Also, counting 3RR violations (quantity) is much more time-consuming than arguing over POVs (quality). Conversely, this means that, with any luck, you can go on pushing POVs for years as long as you're careful no to violate 3RR. :( --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thorsten, could you do me a favor and - as Nihil novi asked above - show evidence of this Polish POV pushing by Molobo? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised you're asking this, as above you declared you don't endorse his POV. See my answer to Nihil Novi above. --Thorsten1 (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Each of us has some point of view; none of us is required to endorse another's. Nihil novi (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I should have said: I don't endorse the POV you accuse him of having. But does he has it, really, or is it a "common knowledge" that nobody has tried to prove? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"I should have said: I don't endorse the POV you accuse him of having." What a mind-boggling cop-out... Sorry, but this smacks of sophistry. --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sophistry? Sophistry would if I were to accuse you of, let's say, pro-Hawaiian POV, fail to provide any refs but keep repeating it everywhere. I am sure that there would be many editors who would note that they don't support your pro-Hawaiian POV... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's pointless to continue this exchange with someone who evidently made his mind. User:Moreschi also ignores any common sense motions. See his stand on POV-pushers on his user page. But I think he would accept a plea of guilty (not of 3RR but of POV-pushing) and a commitment to avoid that in the future by User Molobo, if Molobo decided to enter it on his talk page. See his today's decision regarding User:Ottava Rima. greg park avenue (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

To do: cleanup of Category:Treaties of Poland

We need to move some to subcategory peace treaties, and they in turn need to be divided into proper peace treaties and armistices. Volunteers to do this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618) FAR

Copied from Piotrus talkpage by User:Piotrus.

Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Berkunt (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Poles are evil" in danger

The humoruous essay at meta:Poles are evil, that has survived for years, is in dire danger from the new generation of righteous politically correct people who want to prove Poles are not evil. Consider commenting.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That nomination is an epic misunderstanding. Everybody rally your socks to the rescue and prove we're evil! </yes-this-is-a-joke-obviously> Миша13 21:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

PLC was not Poland

See here. Comments appreciated. Also related: Talk:Regions of Poland, Talk:Administrative division of Polish territories after partitions. Next, we will probably hear an argument that there was no Poland at al :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

We've been there, Pioturs, haven't we? Apparently, you still act the same way. It is not helping to build a harmonious editing climate.

And, yes. PLC was not Poland. PLC was Poland-Lithuania as its name says. Kingdom of Poland was Poland indeed and it was part of PLC, not the whole of it. --Irpen 17:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we have been there and I hoped you've changed your behavior. Alas, it appears I was wrong.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I hoped so too. Formerly, you called for attention to any article Ghirla edited. Now you do so to any article I edited as if we are vandals. You did not change your behavior indeed. And still, no explanation why Lithuania "was Poland". --Irpen 17:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The article on admin. divions of the PLC contains the relevant information on the admin. divisions of what was Poland at that time, so whatever arcane point you may be making by removing it from the navigation template, you're not helping users find their way around the encyclopedia .--Kotniski (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NCCN, if English literature refers to PLC as Poland, as it commonly do, in some cases so can we (to get a shorter, more common name). Please note that I have stated my support for an alternate name that includes Lithuania in it. However your attempts to remove any mentions that those territories were related to Poland and removal/censorship of useful content ([3], [4], [5]) are not constructive.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)