User talk:Logologist

When you write a message here, I will respond to it here. Likewise, whenever I write a message on your Talk page, I will watch that page for your response. This maintains continuity of discussion.

You are the former anonymous contributor from Talk:Jozef Pilsudski, aren't you? Thanks for registering and thanks for your contributions so far. BTW, you can sign your comments with ~~~ or ~~~~, wiki software automatically converts that to your nick-name. Halibutt 11:52, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Creativity

Hi

I see the modifications you made to the creativity page - two additional references.

Extra references are good, and I have a few hundred references on creativity I could add myself, but since space is short I'm wondering if you could elaborate a little on why the references apparently about aesthetics should be added to an article on creativity?

Thanks for your thoughts on this!

LMackinnon 10:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Creative individuals such as Albert Einstein have noted an aesthetic aspect to their work. Scientists and mathematicians have commented that a certain theory or theorem is so beautiful that it must be true.

Władysław Tatarkiewicz's History of Six Ideas presents the most comprehensive historical survey that I've seen on the concept of creativity. His book also highlights links between creativity and other central concepts in western thought which seem worth bringing to the attention of the broad public. logologist|Talk 10:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with the assertion that creativity and aesthetics are linked. Poincare made perhaps one of the earliest systematic arguments to this effect in his 1908 essay on Mathematical Creation. In addition the work

Alexenberg, M. L. (1981), Aesthetic Experience in Creative Process, Bar-Ilan University Press, Ramat Gan, Israel.

elaborates the theme and argument in detail, in relation to both the arts and sciences.

What I was asking about was what was in the work you cited. I had a look on Amazon.Com -

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9024722330/sr=8-1/qid=1146222357/ref=sr_1_1/102-8610456-7581758?%5Fencoding=UTF8

and the summaries seemed to be overwhelmingly about aesthetics and art.

I would be interested if you could summarise what he had to say about creativity in his review, and why it is better to include than other detailed reviews of the history of creativity where the whole focus is on creativity. Also I'm interested in what he takes to be significant in the history of creativity between the Greeks and say Poincare in 1908. For example, Da Vinci as far as I know spoke little about his creative process - like others in that time, he tended to get on with it rather than talk about it.

I don't have a problem with you including the ref (I tend to think that it's better to let people's contributions stand unless they are obviously wrong or inappropriate for the page or poorly written) but I would be interested to hear what he had to say about creativity - and whether it is worth me chasing it up.

BTW, good work with your recent corrections - including many grammatical things fixed.

LMackinnon 11:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've placed in the article ("History of the term and the concept") some historic material that you specifically express interest in. Tatarkiewicz has a good deal more to say about creativity that I find illuminating. logologist|Talk 11:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I saw. I disagree with you/him about the Greeks. My understanding is that they looked as creativity as 'inspiration' from the Muse or from the Gods. I don't have time to chase up scholarly links, but see e.g.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/charles57/Creative/Brain/greek.htm
http://www.silverbranchcenter.com/Creativity.html

I didn't have a great deal of familiarity with the rest of the history covered. In any case, I was thinking about whether it's a good idea to have both this history and the timeline, or whether they could be incorporated together.

I've chased up the book through my uni library to see if they can get it in. Thanks for your elaboration of the history, or one author's view of it! <g> LMackinnon 09:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

History of Creativity section

Also regarding the creativity article, I am asking for comment on Talk:Creativity about creating a new History of Creativity page, and moving the sections "History of the term and the concept" and "Periods and Personalities" into it. I would put a short summary and link on the main page. This would allow us to expand on the history without worrying about making the main article too long. Do you have an opinion on this? I would appreciate your input, especially since you wrote most (if not all) of the history section. Thanks. --BrettRob 01:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Niewiadomski's picture

I wouldn't really call him my hero. Anyway, it's not so easy to find a picture of him, especially a non-copyrighted one. I put it on Wikipedia:Requested pictures#People for now. Perhaps, it would be better to expand the stub first. -- Kpalion 23:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Piłsudski tramway trip

See Talk:Jozef Pilsudski for details. :) [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 23:50, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Warsaw

Thanks for cleaning up my grammar. I have several notes on your version, check Talk:Battle of Warsaw (1920) for reference. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:58, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

PAN Headquarters

Thanks for the heads up. I didn't log in for a while, and so I didn't notice your message (even though i've been making edits). I took the photo and make it available for the article. How should I credit this?

Update: Done! I just reuploaded the image with the appropriate copyright information :).

Book references

Are you sure of the English titles at Stefan Zeromski? Or rather: are these indeed English titles or rather English translations of Polish titles? [[User:Halibutt|[[User:Halibutt|User:Halibutt/sig]]]] 20:07, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Ashes and Faithful River have appeared under those literally-translated English titles. Most of the other titles have been Englished by me.

Polish-Soviet War

Thanks for your corrections in the abovementioned article. Your style and BrE are, as always, exceptionally good. I must say I envy your English :) [[User:Halibutt|[[User:Halibutt|User:Halibutt/sig]]]] 09:24, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

This is close to FA, I'd appreciate your input. Plz take a look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Poland/Articles#Help needed for most current discussion of this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Serious problem here. I have been more then one year at Wiki and haven't seen anything like that. Some admin edited the article, in talk wrote that he can't be bothered to read it all but Poles are natinalistic hero-worshippers etc., and locked the page. Please read the discussion and state your opinion at Talk:Polish-Soviet_War. Much tnx. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Renationalization

I am afraid that Renationalization means something totally different, i.e., nationalization after previous privatization. Mikkalai 04:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Daj palec...

...a wezme cala reke :> Tnx for work on PLCommonwealth. I'd be happy if you could go over Witold Pilecki now, as I think he is good enough to be FAC soon. I've emailed several websites with related pics asking for permission to use their images, and hopefully in few days great Witold will receive his much deserved spotlight. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Overlinking

Please avoid overlinking. Thank you. Mikkalai 00:21, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd be careful with that, it seems to me like a rather POVed advice. Somebody doesn't like overlinking...but I, for example, would be more ofraid of underlinking. I had to add many important links to Pilecki article, that are defiently (IMHO...) important. Please don't remove important links. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What I am talking about, is than you should not make the same link within 3-5 sentence span. I am against the extreme mode when a single link per term per article is enforced. Common sense should be a direction. Mikkalai 01:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pilecki captions

Sure. You know what they say...Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't understand your technical question :< --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:14, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Medical University

"Medical University" is suo nomine so You can't change it. Radomil 13:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

After reform of 1950 faculties of Medicine and Pharmacy of Polish universities were excluded to seperate school called Akademie Medyczne which is oficially translated into English as "Medical Univerities". In fact there are many types of medical schools in Poland, and only some of them are called Univerities. Radomil 13:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

War in Defense of the Constitution

Sure no problem. After all you're my language guru :)

However, I wonder why couln't you move the article yourself? It's quite easy, just click the move button above the article and... that's it. Halibutt 16:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

"Mold of the Earth"

Hello there!

I could be wrong, but I don't think that Wiki titles should have quotation marks around them. Shouldn't this be simply Mold of the Earth ? Jeff Knaggs|Talk 09:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Long words

I want to thank you for your redaction of my (and others) articles. You are doing a tremendous job. Just one nitpick - sometimes you tend to use strange, rare words, which perhaps are not the best choice for an average reader. Personally I try to keep to those guidelines, what do you think about them? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:04, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Like Orwell, I believe in using common words, short words, and the fewest words that will do the job. Sometimes, however, the mot juste may be neither common nor short. Then the reader has an opportunity to learn a new and useful word (which regrettably, as in the case of "awesome," all too often becomes 'too common). Logologist 16:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Beck

Swietnie ze napisales Becka, poszukam jeszcze jakies zdjecie do niego.--Emax 11:07, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yup, an excellent article - as always... Halibutt 14:28, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Antyplonizm

Czy moglbys mnie poprzec w dyskusji Anti-Polonism ? Nie wiem z jakich pobudek, ale Balcer probuje storpetowac caly artykul.--Emax 17:46, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Belweder

I turned your comment at Talk:Battle of Warsaw (1920) into an article at Belweder. Hope you don't mind :) Halibutt 11:46, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yup. People even forgot the old name of that palace and start calling it "pałac prezydencki"... As to Belweder - after refurbishment some years ago it is being used as a residence for important guests of either president or premier. However, most of VIPs nowadays prefer to staying hotels and the palace remains empty most of the time. At times important medals are awarded there, but AFAIK Kwaśniewski prefers the Royal Castle for that. They planned to organise there some museum, but the project never started.

As to my plans - I don't know, perhaps I will start no new projects. In the past I started too many projects that need correction/expansion: Polish Secret State, battles of 1939, battles of 1920, battles of 1831, Polish Film School, Home Army...

By the way, would you mind if I asked you of your personal background? I'm curious since apparently you understand Polish, but your English is far better than of any of my friends here. Do you live in UK? (it's sheer curiosity, I won't mind if you stick to your monastic anonymity, as you put it :) --Halibutt 10:34, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Palac prezydencki

Zdjecia pochodza z oficjalnej strony prezydenta i niestety nie sa tam opisane. Moze znajdzie sie ktos kto kiedys byl w srodku i je opisze :)--Emax 13:26, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

A nie, sorry zdjecia pochodza ze strony Wojciechowskich [1], stworzylem stub Palac Saski, moze Cie zainteresuje :)--Emax 15:07, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Zgadzam sie palac saski byl jedna z perelek Warszawy, mam rowniez nadzieje ze jak najszybciej bedzie odbudowany. Co do zdjecia Belwederu postaram sie znalesc - jest jedno z Narutowiczem i Pilsudskim w artykule Gabriel_Narutowicz, ale w srodku, i praktycznie nie pokazuje nawet pomieszczenia w jakim siedza.--Emax 14:45, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Rejewski

Good work on Marian Rejewski! (And if you're in the mood, Jerzy Różycki and Henryk Zygalski now look a little threadbare by comparison...) Best regards, — Matt Crypto 12:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Similarly, good work on Ultra, an article that's long been overdue some attention! I thought I'd ask your opinion on an idea I had for the division of material between Enigma machine, Cryptanalysis of the Enigma, and Ultra. Several months ago, when Enigma machine was nominated for Featured Article, it had material on everything, from this history and operation of the machine, to the history of its decryption, to the effect of the intelligence on WWII. The problem was that the article was getting a little huge, so I went in and carved out everything to do with cryptanalysis -- both techniques and the "codebreaker's history" -- and created a new article, Cryptanalysis of the Enigma. I also moved the intelligence stuff here to Ultra. Since then, I've only really worked on polishing the original Enigma machine article, which was left with the details of the machine, its variants, its usage procedures etc. I haven't taken the time to work on Ultra, but ultimately I'd like to merge most of the cryptanalysis-story parts (Bletchley Park, Biuro Szyfrów, etc) into Cryptanalysis of the Enigma, and leave this article to focus primarily on the intelligence. I propose that Ultra would include things like all the major battles and events that Ultra is known to have played a part in, the nature of Ultra intelligence, how it was distributed, conjectures about significance of Ultra on WWII, and so on. But the article would omit most of the story of how Enigma (and other systems) were broken, both in terms of techniques and people involved. This way, we avoid relating the same detail in duplicate in several different articles, but (hopefully) tell it well in just one article. Do you think this sounds reasonable? — Matt Crypto 11:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick note to let you know that your work on Rejewski (etc) was noted in a project digest: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptography/February 2005. Thanks! — Matt Crypto 13:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zdjecia

Dodalem zdjecia do trzech muszkieterow polskiej kryptologii--Emax 15:00, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Summaries

Hi Logologist --- thanks for your contributions to the Sikorski article.. but I've a simple favour to ask...would you be so kind as to start including edit summaries when you make non-minor changes? Especially when you make bunches....you may also find it helpful to get in the habit of always previewing. It will help everyone else out quite a bit. Thanks Fawcett5 14:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Roylee

Hi Logologist, from Roylee's talk page I gather that you have called several of his additions into question, only to get a vague and evasive response. I just want to let you know that several other editors have come across this user's pseudohistoric and disruptive edits. See the history of Roylee's talk page (he keeps blanking it despite several editors questioning his behaviour) and see my exchange with Roylee which I preserved at my talk page. Regards, — mark ✎ 12:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

May Const.

If you have no further comments on language or content, I will nominate the article by Monday. I have added all info I thought is needed - history, features, aftermath, etc. Looks good, don't you think so? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Krasicki

Czesc. Widzialem ze wstawiles kilka przetlumaczonych wierszy Krasickiego, posiadasz moze ten? --Witkacy 00:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Bajki i przypowieści

• WSTĘP DO BAJEK

• Był młody, który życie wstrzemięźliwie pędził;
• Był stary, który nigdy nie łajał, nie zrzędził;
• Był bogacz, który zbiorów potrzebnym udzielał;
• Był autor, co się z cudzej sławy rozweselał;
• Był celnik, który nie kradł; szewc, który nie pijał;
• Żołnierz, co się nie chwalił; łotr, co nie rozbijał;
• Był minister rzetelny, o sobie nie myślał;
• Był na koniec poeta, co nigdy nie zmyślał.
• - A cóż to jest za bajka? Wszystko to być może!
• - Prawda, jednakże ja to między bajki włożę.

Niema sprawy, jak cos znajde podam linka. Mozliwe ze na tej stronie http://monika.univ.gda.pl/~literat/books.htm kiedys sie pojawia wiersze etc, w jezyku angielskim. Narazie sa tylko biogramy.--Witkacy 04:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Dzieki za wstawienie :)--Witkacy 02:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Canopic jars

Glad to be of service. And, as a result, I had a pleasant morning, creating two Canopus articles and disambiguating another 30 or so. –Hajor 22:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Polish Wikipedians' notice board

zapraszam.--Witkacy 13:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Po prawej zostawilem Ci maly kwadracik (Shortcut), link WNBP prowadzi na skroty do celu :) A caly link to Wikipedia:Polish Wikipedians' notice board.--Witkacy 04:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I jak znalazles droge do polskiego zajazdu? Jeszcze cos Krasickiego, co by sie przydalo po ang. moze gdzies na to wpadniesz:

• Niósł ślepy kulawego, dobrze im się działo;
• Ale że to ślepemu nieznośne się zdało,
• Iż musiał zawżdy słuchać, co kulawy prawi,
• Wziął kij w rękę: "Ten - rzecze - z szwanku nos wybawi".
• Idą; a wtem kulawy krzyknie: "Umknij w lewo!"
• Ślepy wprost i, choć z kijem, uderzył łbem w drzewo.
• Idą dalej; kulawy przestrzega od wody -
• Ślepy w bród: sakwy zmaczał, nie wyszli bez szkody*
• Na koniec, przestrzeżony, gdy nie mijał dołu,
• I ślepy, i kulawy zginęli pospołu.
• -I ten winien, co kijem bezpieczeństwo mierzył,
• -I ten, co bezpieczeństwa głupiemu powierzył.

--Witkacy 22:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dzieki za wiersz, w ramach wdziecznosci, zimne piwko czeka na Ciebie w polskiej kanciapie ;)--Witkacy 06:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dzieki za poprawki na mojej stronie. Moze Cie zainteresuje - stworzylem kategorie "wiersze" na Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Poland z pomyslem by wstawiac tam co tydzien lub dwa jakis polski wiersz. [2].--Witkacy 12:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

History of Poland (1945-1989)

If you could check this out, see if anything can be improved - I plan PR and FAC for it soon. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

anti-Polonism

• Moglbys dac glos na zostawienie - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Polonism dzieki--Witkacy 4 July 2005 22:29 (UTC)

Voting

Please vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland. --Ttyre 17:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Asymmetric warfare

I removed your edit on Asymmetric warfare. This information belongs to separate article where more details could be given. Pavel Vozenilek 21:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Science Studies

I've never heard Science Studies being termed 'logology'. Could you be mistaken? A Google Scholar search implies that the term can be used for the study of knowledge more generally; but not the study of scientific knowledge, which is surely different from other forms of knowledge production.--Nicholas 17:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Please fill out summary box

... when you edit articles. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

..for corrections :) at PL/SU war. Cheers, --Irpen 00:30, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Prus

As far as I remember, there's no [h] in Polish IPA at all. In fact in modern Polish the sound is barely ever used - and if ever, it's more or less correspondent to the hardest "h" you can imagine, similar to the Ukrainian sound. On the contrary, the standard "ch" (and "h" as well) are simply put down as phoneme [x] (or arch-phoneme [X]).

As to the wikiquote tables - I fixed it, it should work now (be sure to refresh your browser). BTW, thanks for your corrections to all the articles I've been working on. Good to have you here :) Halibutt 11:04, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the Prus thingie. However, I have no idea as to what might've happened to the Constitution. Perhaps you could ask the admins there? Halibutt 11:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cipher Bureau

Witaj ! Ciesze sie, ze znalazles chwile by dodac nieco informacji do tego szablonu. Dopracowalem go jeszcze przed chwila,juz raczej pod katem graficznym. Wydaje mi sie, ze teraz jest bardziej przejrzysty, ponadto usunalem powtarzajace sie linki do Biura Szyfrow, zostawiajac jeden najwaniejszy. Ustawilem takze Sekcje 3 jako link, moze ktos napisze nieco na temat szyfrow rosyjskich, moze ja, jesli znajde czas :). Pozdrawiam Listowy 11:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:CITE

Hey, could you adduce a reference for the assertion you added to Gresham's Law? I don't see it in the existing refs. --Maru (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. --Maru (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

re: May 3rd Constitution

Wikiquote: it was not my addition by user:Jeffq's change] - you should ask him.

Wikisource: I was sure I made some redirects once. Oh well, found it tnx to the the links on Polish wikipedia. It was not easy - apparently it was removed by the vandal, so if I didn't remebered it was there, I might have been dead stopped myself. Here is the Polish text and here is the English version. Btw, what is really strange is that my account on Wikisource apparently got deleted (?). Strangerer and strangerer... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy editing. Alphax ^τεχ 06:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Copernicus spoof?

No, this edit seems pretty valid and reasonable. They've put a lot of effort to find the grave. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 07:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

References

I noticed that on several occasions you reverted my work on converting the book references to manual of style format templates. What is the reason behind that? And may I ask you not to do it again? After all it takes time to do that and it's quite frustrating to see that someone reverts it without explanation or any reason given.

Cheers, Halibutt 20:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

June of Poznan

This needs a better title. So do Coastal cities events and possibly March 1968 events (see article's talk pages). Any suggestions? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your vote on my RfA. Halibutt 07:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

pałac na...

Logologist, nazwa Pałac na Wodzie jest niepoprawna. To taka nielogiczność językowa, która przyjęła się w gwarze warszawiaków, więc nic złego w tym, że moja babcia tak mówiła. Ale generalnie ten pałac jest zbudowany na wyspie i tak się oficjalnie nazywa. Zresztą sprawdź tutaj. --SylwiaS 08:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Photo

Image:Gralinski, Rozycki and Smolenski.jpg
Witaj, zdecydowalem ostatecznie oznaczyc ta fotografie jako "PD". Aczkolwiek bede ja obserwowal, w razie gdyby pojawily sie nowsze informacje-ponad to, co dotychczas ustalilismy, wtedy mozna dokonac modyfikacji. Pozdrawiam, Listowy 12:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Gwiazdka

For your many valuable contributions, especially translating Angielski into proper English, I, Piotrus, present you with the The Barnstar.

Gwiazdeczka dla Pana, a przy okazji polecam Wikipedia:Babel, przydatna rzecz. Aha - zerknij na Talk:Christianization_of_Poland przy okazji.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You surely deserved it! Halibutt 02:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think it is far from controversial, so I went aheed, deleted the redirect (which has almost no history) and moved the article. Rembember one thing about moves - avoid 'double redirects' (there are some from the communist moves - you need to check what links here (like [Special:Whatlinkshere/Pozna%C5%84_1956_protests here]) and fix all former redirects, cause Wiki want follow more then one redirect.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Wisła: done. In future, see Wikipedia:Requested moves if I am not around.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Moje RfA

Thanks. WikiThanks.

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Nyah, patience is for pensioners :) Thanks again. Halibutt 06:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Marian Rejewski as a Featured Article

Hi there,

My copy of Kozaczuk's Enigma book is due back to the library in a week or so; before then, I wondered if you were interested in a joint effort to get Marian Rejewski featured? I don't think it's far off. — Matt Crypto 10:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Patek

Mam coś takiego:

Po upadku powstania - podobnie jak wielu innych oficerów i żołnierzy Wojska Polskiego - musiał udać się na emigrację. W początkowym okresie swego pobytu na obczyźnie, z polecenia generała Bema organizował szlak ewakuacyjny dla polskich powstańców z Prus do Francji. Był komendantem punktu etapowego w Bambergu k. Monachium - jednego z pięciu punktów, jakie znajdowały się na trasie przemarszu powstańców.

Jak przetłumaczyć punkt etapowy?--SylwiaS 12:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sądzę, "staging point." Jest to po angielsku bardziej jednoznaczne, niż "stage." W tym wypadku kalka chyba najlepiej wypada. Analogicznie istnieje podobny wyraz "staging area." logologist 15:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Dzięki. A "niezależny sekundnik"?--SylwiaS 15:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Czy można poprosić o kontekst? "Sekundnik" u zegarka (np. firmy Patek-Philippe) będzie zapewne "second hand" ale nie bardzo wiem, co to jest "niezależny sekundnik" — "independent second hand"? logologist 19:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Pewnie,ale nie wiem, czy to pomoże:

Spośród zastosowanych przez firmę nowatorskich rozwiązań technicznych najważniejszymi były: naciąg za pomocą koronki (1841 r.) i niezależny sekundnik ( 1846 r.), a także rozpoczęcie produkcji zegarków naręcznych, które obecnie zdominowały wszystkie inne rodzaje zegarków.

"Naciąg za pomocą koronki" to jest chyba "key-less winding mechanism". W każdym razie coś takiego znalazłam na stronie muzeum.--SylwiaS 20:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Może dawniej sekundnik w ogóle nie istniał? A "naciąg" czy nie był również używany do nastawiania — nie tylko do "nakręcania" ("winding") — zegarka? logologist 23:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Tak nakręcanie i nastawianie. Chodzi o to, że wcześniej były kluczyki, którymi się te zagarki nakręcało, a Patek Philippe wprowadził takie, które działają na takiej samej zasadzie jak teraz. Nakręcać kluczykiem trzeba było bardzo często, a cały mechanizm był dużo większy i zegarek wyglądał jak jajko (tyle dziś wyczytałam). Ze wskazówką, to chyba masz rację, bo przeczytałam również, że wcześniej jej nie było, bo i tak nie można było precyzyjnie zmierzyć czasu. Czyli "second hand" czy "second wing"?--SylwiaS 02:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Tu jest coś co się nazywa "split second hand" [3]. Może to o to chodzi?--SylwiaS 02:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Wskazówka w zegarku — czy to sekundnik, czy minutnik (?) — to po angielsku "hand". Czyli: "second hand". O "split second hand" dotąd nie słyszałem; wątpię, czy coś bardziej skomplikowanego, jak po prostu "second hand" wymyślono już w 1839 r. — 150 lat przed ukazaniem się owego "Calibre 1989".

Dziękuję za ciekawe wiadomości z dziejów zegarka! logologist 03:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Bardzo proszę i dziękuję za pomoc. Dokończę jutro, bo próbowałam tłumaczyć związki Patka z Polską z francuskiego. Od tego głowa pęka! :D--SylwiaS 04:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions/Geographic_names

Have you seen this? I think this is the solution for our ills.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Contract Sejm

The article on Contract Sejm was partially translated from Polish, though I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with the title. Any ideas? Halibutt 13:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I simply forgot what is the English term for tura wyborów. As to references - I'll see what I can do. Halibutt 11:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Minor

Not to trespass on your turf :) as your command of English is much superior to mine, but can you breake a machine? Perhaps it would sound better as 'broke the Enigma code'? When I see just 'broke the Enigma', I have this vision of him picking up the machine and smashing it to pieces :D --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not "broke the Enigma," but "broke Enigma": i.e., broke the Enigma cipher — the cipher produced using the Enigma machine.

In any case, it's Enigma cipher. Please don't do what our Anglophone friends too often insist on doing: blurring the very basic distinction between a "code" and a "cipher." logologist 05:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment

Did you delete my comment [4]unwillingly or it wasn't as witty as I though? --SylwiaS | talk 19:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I certainly didn't delete it. I think it's a wonderful comment! Could you put it back in? logologist 19:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Wojsyl already put it for me. Glad you liked it!--SylwiaS | talk 19:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Signature

Can you add a direct link to your talk page in your signature? It saves a few seconds when one wants to leave you a message :) See Wikipedia:Signature for 'how to'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Signature#Customizing_your_signature. Consider adding something like [[User:Logologist|Logologist]] | [[User_talk:Logologist|Talk]] to your preferences signature field (and turn on 'raw signatures') for the following effect: Logologist | Talk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Statuty piotrkowskie

Logologist, I want to create an article about Statuty piotrkowskie--should I call it "Statutes of Piotrków" or "Piotrków Statutes"? Appleseed (Talk) 18:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"Piotrków Statutes," analogously to "Magdeburg Law," "Nuremberg Laws," etc. In most cases, I think, extraneous words like "of" should be avoided. Also, "Piotrków" is a more specific word in this context than "Statutes" and therefore, in English, is better placed first. logologist 23:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Mieszko

Hi Logologist, I don't mean to nitpick, but from what I understand ca (no period) is a valid abbreviation of circa. Also, I think it's best not to add a period to every item in a list. Appleseed (Talk) 20:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a matter of taste. I usually find a period after an abbreviation more satisfying. In some countries, one abbreviates "mister," "doctor," etc. (!) with a period; in some, without. A period after each item in a listing gives me more of a sense of completion.

But feel free to dump the periods where you see fit, if it doesn't diminish clarity.

Oh, could you try untangling the Mieszko IV Tanglefoot article? I find the text confusing, especially the final sentence. logologist 21:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Which sentence--"You can help Wikipedia by expanding it"? :) If you're referring to the "Mieszko I" part, I guess that was his ordinal as Duke of Opole, what with the whole numbering mess during the period of fragmentation. One of these days I'm going to redo all the Polish monarchs articles. In the meantime, we can always steal from the Polish WP. Appleseed (Talk) 22:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, at first I didn't notice the ordinal disparity. Sounds good. logologist 23:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:List of Polish monarchs

Please do not remove other user's comments from talk pages. --bainer (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Whose comments did I remove? logologist 05:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd guess he refers to this. Edit conflict?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The comment in question must have been deleted accidentally or by someone other than me.

I tried creating a "direct link to [my] talk page" and turning on "raw signatures," per your suggestion. Did it work? logologist|Talk 21:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it works - tnx! But it looks like john's comments were deleted again and he is pointing the finger at you. It would be good if you could solve this (who deleted them) before somebody begings to be really offended.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Use common names policy

Can I take your comment on Talk:Partitions of Poland to mean that you would also be in favour of a Use correct names, redirect from common names policy? ^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ ✉ 13:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If in this case "correct name" signifies "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" — yes, definitely. I think that is the logical and truthful solution. (Indeed, given that option, I don't understand the opposition to "official" use of correct names!) logologist|Talk 21:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've encountered similar problems with getting East Timor to be at Timor-Leste, yes... ^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ ✉ 15:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the presumption should be that an individual, monarch, country or subdivision of a country should be called by its authentic name. That is the approach I've taken in Talk:List of Polish monarchs, "Proposal," and in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland, "Terminology."

Using "common names" too often introduces inconsistencies in nomenclature, patronizes readers as well as the "translated" entity, and distorts perceptions of history.

I hope a broader review of the "common names policy" will eventually be undertaken. logologist|Talk 21:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

As do I, yes. ^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ ✉ 23:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Jadwiga

Calling her "Queen Jadwiga" seems inconsistent, since the other monarchs don't have "King" prepended to their names. I would also say it's slightly inaccurate, since she was crowned Rex. I say "slightly" because in Polish she is often called Królowa Jadwiga, so that isn't so clear-cut either. How about we call her Jadwiga Angevin? This would match the Polish Jadwiga Andegaweńska, and conform to our current naming of monarchs such as Aleksander Jagiellon and Anna Jagiellon.

If Jadwiga Andegaweńska is one of the accepted Polish usages, then that is doubtless an ideal solution. Incidentally, I've the impression (I haven't checked this) that Christina of Sweden was another female "king." logologist|Talk 21:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding August II, I strongly support keeping "the Strong"--even the German WP calls him that. I'll have to think about August III. Appleseed (Talk) 16:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. Please let me know if you see problems with any of the other anglicizations. ("Bolesław V the Chaste," for example?) You seem to have an exceptional sense for equivalents in translating between the two languages. logologist|Talk 21:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Renaming done

Done, with the exception of Zbigniew, I am still not happy with sigle names for them. Also, I moved Władysław to Władysław IV Vasa and Jan to Jan II Kazimierz Vasa, since they should be the same as Zygmunt III Vasa (we should be consistent). Please take care of all the double redirects, if you would be so kind.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:Ote

Well, why not merge them and make one into a redirect?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

How does one do it? logologist|Talk 01:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. It's really simple: copy&paste&edit info from the page you want gone into the one you think has the proper title, then when all the info is moved, just delete the content of the old page and replace it with a redirect.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

DR and RFC

I assumed you'd take care of double redirects left after my delete/move actions per your requests? If not, let me know, as people are complaing about the DR. In other news, it may not be up your alley, but very few people have came through RfC I posted about History of the World, and there is a slow but pointless revert war there (see Talk:History_of_the_World#Graph_straw_poll), so I am now down to asking fellow Wikipedians to take a look if they have time and will - I'd appreciate any comments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Good job, I don't think there is anything special that needs to be done.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Rejewski memorial

The memorial in Bydgoszcz is pretty new, 2005. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 15:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

wojewódtwa

Niezły bałagan tu jest teraz. Pomorze Zachodnie to co innego niż województwo zachodniopomorskie. Trzeba to wszystko popoprawiać, a nazwy województw powinny zostać po angielsku, tak łatwiej czytelnikom w tym języku. Pzdr Gdarin | talk 17:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Oda

Hi Logologist, I see you were able to straighten out the Oda articles while I was on break from WP--thanks. Appleseed (Talk) 23:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Lista artystów

Mam pytanie dot. listy Polaków. W głównej liście jest categoria Fine Arts. Oprócz tego istnieje osobna lista Polish painters. Ale nie ma żadnej innej. W związku z tym lista artystów w List of famous Poles robi się za długa i nie ma ich gdzie przenieść. Jaka nazwa byłaby dobra na osobną listę grupującą różnych artystów. List of Polish Fine Artists?--SylwiaS | talk 21:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If by "arts" or "fine arts" you mean painting, sculpture, photography and the like, and excluding performing arts, music, dance, literature, etc., then the best terms are "visual arts," "visual artists." logologist|Talk 21:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Great! Thanks.--SylwiaS | talk 22:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Poles

Well, I just made a voting there. There's no sense to keep the discussion anymore. The problem is the great amount of non-Poles being brought to the list. The list is getting too large, and really not clear. Many of the new Poles are completely unkown in Poland. So how they are going to be the most famous Poles who should be on the list? Anyhow, there are two editors. One wants the list to be clear. Not too many names in one group etc. I moved some artist elsewhere and the same may be done with other people. But in the same time when I move really well known famous Poles elsewhere, the article gets addtional names, like this list of American Football players [5]. The other editor uses the criterion of surname. So everyone with a surname with the suffix "ski" is added. No matter if the person is a Pole, or e.g. their family emigrated 100 years ago. This way soon there will be only Americans on the list, and we'll have to do another list. Maybe List of Poles from Poland.--SylwiaS | talk 09:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I unswered your question there. It was about Germans of course. I posted about the voting on our board, and I'll post also on Antidote's talk page, but I don't know who else should be informed. Is there any Polonia board here?--SylwiaS | talk 10:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That should be fine. I don't know of a Polonia board. logologist|Talk 11:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Warmia-Mazury

I'm sorry, I haven't been here on time to post there something, and now I see it's moved already. I'm surprised it's done with so little voices. I think we should wait with moving anything for the general voiting results at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland#Terminology. But then, there's no voting.--SylwiaS | talk 08:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Your point about using nouns rather than adjectives is very convincing to me. It's after all like we would translate into Polish Jeanne d'Arc or Joan of Arc as Joanna Arska or even Joanna Łukowska. Perhaps it's not the most proper example, but shows the oddity anyway. Well, in Polish we can use either a noun or an adjective, so maybe simply Polskie Kingdom would be a better example. I think we make the same mistake with PLC. There is Commonwealth of Nations, Commonwealth of England, Australia, Dominica etc, but Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Norman Davis uses Poland-Lithuania in his "Europe". Maybe we should rather use Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania? After all we wouldn't translate Rzeczpospolita Polska as Polska Republic, yet we use Polish republic and Polish state alhough there is no such a thing as English Kingdom or British Kingdom.

I live in Poland (or if we are going to be even more creative with the geo terminology - in Warsawshire), so I have all the diacritics in my keyboard. But here it seems that you should choose 'Polish' from the 'More characters' bar below.--SylwiaS | talk 12:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

February 13

It occurred to me, it might be nice to feature "Marian Rejewski" on February 13, the 26th anniversary of his death. logologist|Talk 11:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. You might wish to ask User:Raul654 nicely if/when the article is promoted (Raul selects the main page featured article). — Matt Crypto 21:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Scandinavian connections to Mieszko I

It's amazing, really, what theories some people will believe. If he cannot provide sources, revert him. I see he is providing some scandinavian-language source now, though. It would be nice if you can find something that clearly lablels those theories as false to debunk him... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Podkarpaty Voivodship

Witaj, Podkarpaty to chyba jakis potworek jezykykowy :/ Chyba nie ma takiego slowa, wojewodztwo podkarpackie pochodzi raczej od Podkarpacie. Pozdrawiam Meteor2017 23:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Zgadza się. Dziękuję! logologist|Talk 00:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Tnx

For copyedit of Offices in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I am looking forward to the finished version.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:email

I reply here because it is at the moment easier for me - and the email had nothing that looked private in the first place, I hope you don't mind.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

> Please notice that the Wikipedia article on "Offices in the > Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth," in discussing the three principal > "prowincyje" (Wielkopolska, Malopolska, Lithuania), titles that section, > "District offices."

That's (as the entire article) is my translation of "urzad ziemski".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

> If we were to consistently render "prowincyje" as "districts (prowincyje), > " that should remove the only plausible objection against reserving the > English word "province" for the Polish "wojewodztwo." > We could then use the usual English equivalents for such administrative > units, respectively "province" and "county," for "wojewodztwo" and > "powiat," thereby bringing the terminology into line with that of most of > the rest of today's world.

I think that prowincja (not 'prowincyja') is a larger entity that voivodship. If not for the PLC times when they used the 'prowincja' for Crown/GDL/Rus/Prusy, it would all be so much easier. I guess we could settle on something like voivodship-level province and province-level province, but the second part is kind of funny (maslo maslane...). Province ('wojewodztwo') or province ('voivodship') are also aleternatives to consider. What about using voivodship (province) for voividship, and just province in those few historical contexts where it's merited, plus there is an explanation of this in the PLC article (geography section) and we can add them to voivodship/province articles?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

> (Please see the article, "Voivodships of Poland"--the closing section, on > "Etymology and usage of 'voivodship.'")

> For now, let's refine the article on Polish-Lithuanian offices. But, as > we work on that, perhaps we could consider the foregoing idea?

I am, I am, I just can't see the best solution. Have this problem been reffered to RfC yet? Maybe some outside votes will be helpful?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the English translation of the Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791, on Wikisource, you will see that "prowincyja" appears in the main text only once, otherwise only in the Signatures section at the end. Where the word does appear, it is rendered as "province [prowincyja]." Elsewhere, "województwo" is rendered as "province [województwo]." Thus the historic distinction is maintained. logologist|Talk 17:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Jogaila

I am going to revert this POV pusher.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"POV pusher"? Yeah, that's fair. You have an interesting philosophy on admin integrity. - Calgacus 18:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Please improve your manners. I refer to [this edit] on Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, . - Calgacus 18:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Greater Poland Uprisings

Hi Logologist, I entertained the idea of moving the article to "Greater Poland Uprising (1806)", but 1) all the other Greater Poland Uprising articles use the "of" format, and 2) the Polish WP uses "powstanie wielkopolskie XXXX roku". However, it doesn't really matter that much to me, as long as all the Greater Poland Uprising articles are consistent. I also prefer the English "Greater Poland" over "Wielkopolska". I don't think it sounds like "Greater German Reich" any more than "Greater London". Appleseed (Talk) 02:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As a rule, I favor using the fewest words that will do the job; I think it minimizes the strain on the reader in processing the information he reads — hence my preference for parentheses rather than an "of."

"Greater Poland" is not strictly a translation so much as a paraphrase of "Wielkopolska" (literally, "Great Poland"), though it probably reflects the medieval Latin rendition (I think it was something like "Polonia major"). If it were up to me, I'd just use the original Polish. And I would still hold out for it, when it comes to the present-day province (województwo). logologist|Talk 02:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Logologist, I was going to argue that moving "Greater Poland Uprising" to "Wielkopolska Uprising" would make about as much sense as moving "November Uprising" to "Listopad Uprising" (which to me is not much). But after a bit of Google research, I'm not so sure anymore. "Great/er Poland Uprising" are more popular with Google than "Wielkopolska Uprising", but those two English terms give no Google Books results, whereas the Polish returns one. Once again, Google only confused me. :) So at this point, I don't really case what we move the articles to, as long as they're all the same. Appleseed (Talk) 04:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Where the old 18th-century "prowincyje" (Wielkopolska, Małopolska and Lithuania) are concerned, I agree with you: consistency is important, and moreover these terms are today more historic than practical. So I think you can use the Anglicizations for these with a clear conscience. But if it proves possible, I'd rather use authentic Polish names (in the noun forms, as in English) for present-day major Polish geographic entities, which from pity for English readers I would call "provinces" and "counties." The only plausible objection to the former term that might be raised, I think, involves the historic "prowincyje" that ceased to exist 211 years ago. Perhaps, time permitting, we can discuss these matters further. logologist|Talk 04:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So we agree that the articles should be moved to "Wielkopolska Uprising (1XXX)"? Appleseed (Talk) 00:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. Thank you for being willing to understand my demur at "translating" proper names. I think it does a disservice to both Poles and non-Poles. logologist|Talk 01:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, we should be all set now. Appleseed (Talk) 16:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that when we are talking about "prowincja" during any of Greater Poland Uprisings we dont think about provinces of PLC but Prussian/German provinces of South Prussia, Grand Duchy of Poznań or Province of Posen. Radomil talk 15:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, words change meaning over time. (Some persons might even take a Heraclitean view that a word never has the same meaning twice.) Hence I have no reluctance about using the word "province" as the English equivalent for the Polish "województwo." The 19th-century Hansom cab was a horse-drawn vehicle, the 20th-century taxi cab was a motor-powered vehicle; yet the difference in the nature of their respective horse powers does not prevent our calling the taxi a "cab," and no one confuses the present-day motorized cab with the old horse-drawn one. Moreover, the Polish "provinces" (województwa) have repeatedly, in recent times, even changed their geographic extents. logologist|Talk 21:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Warsaw Uprising

Logologist, it looks like Piotruś wants to bring Warsaw Uprising to FA. That article is the main one in the Template:Warsaw Uprising series. I'm not happy with the names of some of the articles in the series--they're long and awkward. For starters, I'd like to move "Lead up to the Warsaw Uprising" to "Prelude to the Warsaw Uprising" and "The capitulation of Warsaw after the Warsaw Uprising" to "Capitulation of Warsaw after the Warsaw Uprising" and "Aftereffects of the Warsaw Uprising" to "Legacy of the Warsaw Uprising". The other names aren't great either. Can you take a look at them before I start making changes? Thanks. Appleseed (Talk) 00:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing my attention to the Warsaw Uprising series. I see your point about the titles. I'd like to read all the articles, and perhaps do some editing. That may give me a sense of how best to phrase the titles. It would take a few days.

One possibility which might have merit would be to tie the constituent articles together with a common main title, "Warsaw Uprising," then differentiate each with a colon, followed by an appropriate subtitle, e.g.: "overview," "prelude," "course," "external support," "capitulation," "legacy," "cultural representations," "forces," "chief actors," "statistics." logologist|Talk 02:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I like your idea, but I don't know if it conforms to the WP article naming conventions. I'll have to look into it. Appleseed (Talk) 04:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that WU is already a FA. It's the series of subarticles that has been now nominated for 'Featured series'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Solidarity

See Talk:Solidarity. I don't think Polish version is the best, but surely solidarity should be a disambig.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

With one of the disambiguees being something like "Solidarity (Polish political movement)." logologist|Talk 19:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Commune

How "commune" should be properly used? Commune of Chorosz or Chorosz Commune?--SylwiaS | talk 01:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The English language permits both usages: "State of New York," "New York State." I would, however, at each administrative level — województwo, powiat, gmina — place the specific name first: "Chorosz Commune."

Actually, New York is the only state I can think of that uses that form. You never hear of "California State" or "West Virginia State". Appleseed (Talk) 21:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This puts the focus of interest (Chorosz) first; and it also reduces the number of words required by one, making it the more elegant solution. logologist|Talk 01:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ziemia?

I jak bys waśc to przetłumaczył: pl:Ziemia (administracja)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Prawdopodobnie wyrazem "District," przez analogię do "Lake District." Również użyłbym "district" na "dzielnicę" miasta. logologist|Talk 00:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Uwaga techniczna: kopiuj odpowiedzi na strony pytajacego, bo malo kto sprawdza cudze strony po odpowiedu (ja nie - dopiero teraz przeczytalem twoja odpowiedz).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

History rhymes

Ciekawy artykul, ale... czy to nie podpada pod Wikipedia:NOR? Zwlaszcza biorac pod uwage konstrukcje 'leadu' i sam tytul.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

False Friends of the Slavist

Please have a look at wikibooks:False Friends of the Slavist. With your language skills, you can help us very much there, though there is not too much to be done. See also wikibooks:Talk:False Friends of the Slavist for details on what is still needed. Thanks in advance! --Daniel Bunčić 18:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

I am planning to move this list from my userspace to mainspace soon, but I am not happy with it looks (it's kind of ugly). Suggestions (to a name as well) appreciated. I am thinking of moving names and dates of officeholders to more general articles - otherwise this could be a VERY long lists. Hetmans are done, and some bishops already have lists in 'Bishops of...' articles. In case of voivodes, 'voivodship of...' with a subsection on voivodes is good enough, but where should we move castellans? Creating almost a hundred of 'castellan of...' may not be looked upon that friendly by some AfD crowd. Should they be added to the city's article? Castellans (as szlachta in general) didn't have much to do in cities, I don't think they even had any 'office' there. And there are ministers and court officials too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Piotruś, I'm not sure I follow. Are you trying to create an article to list all the other WP articles that list Polish people by office? Appleseed (Talk) 16:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Wielkopolska Uprising

Logologist, thanks for letting me know about the vote. Have you looked at the discussion lately? The move was completed (prematurely) but I asked the admin to hold off so we can get some more input. I'll post on the board so others can vote too. Appleseed (Talk) 14:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Cryptography

Hey -- I reverted this back to my version and made some further edits to improve the article. I explained myself on the talk page; if you want to discuss further, I'll be watching it. Mangojuice 18:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Move of Talk:Marszałek sejmu?

What do you think?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Rokosz

Hi Logologist, just wondering how you feel about using "rokosz" in the English WP. I'm not crazy about using an apostrophe to create a plural of a foreign word, as in Category:Polish rokosz's. Appleseed (Talk) 18:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a little monstrosity. While rokosz deserves it's own article, making a category is going too far - rebellions will be better (this category could have uprisings and such, too). Category:Polish rebellions, than?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Logologist, I see you've already created the category. I was going to suggest we name it Rebellions of Poland, which would fit the naming conventions of Category:Rebellion.

Also, what do you think about merging Category:Polish confederations into our new rebellions category? Rebellions and confederations are not quite the same thing, but because confederations are a Polish phenomenon, it's hard to place that category in other categories.

Where possible, I try to avoid prepositions (such as "of"), hence my bias in favor of "Polish rebellions" over "Rebellions of Poland." Both expressions can be ambiguous; if you like, I could expand on their implications. A precedent for "Polish rebellions" is "Cossack uprisings."

I would favor keeping separate categories for "Polish rebellions," "Polish confederations" and "Polish uprisings," while placing a particular event in more than one category where appropriate. Thus the Bar Confederation was both a confederation and a rebellion. And the January Uprising was both an uprising and a rebellion. The Warsaw Confederation, however, was not really a rebellion. Among the three overlapping categories, we should have the field pretty well covered. logologist|Talk 04:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Poglish

As they say in the movies, "oh be-have". Seriously, though, we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so don't make joke edits. Some readers looking for a serious article might not find them amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do a bit seriously here. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write whatever you want (as long as it's not offensive).

Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 07:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russsian_claims_about_Warsaw_Uprising_1794 The author tries to put information from non-objective source as objective article. The source is from Imperial Russia regarding Polish uprising against its occupation. Imperial Russia was known for fabricating and being source of many antipolish fabrications. Because I didn't want to delete this(no blanking) I moved it to a proper article that would deal with claim. --Molobo 03:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please fix double redirects after the move

Like here. Tnx.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Double redirects.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Wesołych Świąt! Dr. Dan 15:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR

Hello you listed some people (Józef Piłsudski, Edmund Charaszkiewicz) on the new [[Category:Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR]] can someone add a reference on the Category talk:Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR when he predicted this?

Thanks for the addition and support, I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Thanks, Travb 13:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool, so they did predict the collapse of the USSR? thanks for your time, and for responding.Travb 14:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

And thank you for the cleanup :) Valentinian ^(talk) 00:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Saints Wikiproject

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.

• {{User Saints WikiProject}}

This user is a member of
WikiProject Saints.

I also invite you to join the discussion on prayers and infoboxes here: Prayers_are_NPOV.

Thanks! --evrik 17:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

GG

A my wlasnie z Balcerem i Halibuttem urzadzamy konferencje na GG. Bardzo polecam korzystanie z GG!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Voivodships

Are you aware that a lot of the Voivodship articles are being renamed? Rich Farmbrough 13:06 7 May 2006 (UTC).

Thank you. Yes, I've noticed the doings of William Allen Simpson. I would be interested in your candid take on the województwo-naming disputes: "Voivodship" vs. "Province"? "Polish" vs. "English" vs. "Latin" name versions, in English-language texts?

I thought I had come to workable solutions to these questions, using "province" and Polish "main-entry" (noun), rather than adjectival, forms for the geographic entities. I failed to convince some of the more vocal Polish editors, and I suppose they are now getting their comeuppance, courtesy of William Allen Simpson.

Actually, I would rather see the province names in their unmodified Polish adjectival forms, as they are now being introduced by William Allen Simpson, than in the various odd and arbitrary "anglicizations" and "latinizations." I still feel that my versions were a good solution; but I'm not sure I have time or energy to endlessly tilt at windmills — I'm at present inclined to leave that to the Don Quixotes who keep gallivanting about countrysides with which they have little familiarity. logologist|Talk 08:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see them consistent, but I thought that the Polish Geography Project had worked out a consistent solution. I'm also aware that the general naming policy is to use the most common version for the title of the article, and if this is "technically" wrong to introduce and use the correct term within the article. Vovoidships were a new concept to me when I came to WP, but one that tickled my interest, whereas I'm not aware of any of these regions being in the common parlance as per, say Florence, wiht the possible exception of Pomerania (?). I wanted to alert people as to what's going on without making a fuss, because I could see it would be a massive job to undo these changes. I also don't want to mount Rocinante. Perhaps one of the project pages is the place to bring it up? Rich Farmbrough 20:00 9 May 2006 (UTC).

Some discussion has begun at Wikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board. This question could use the perspectives of English native-speakers, in addition to native Poles and bilingual Polish-and-English speakers. I hope you'll join in. logologist|Talk 14:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Pope Stephen IX (or X)

I thank you very much for your vote on Talk:Pope Stephen X. :o) Švitrigaila 17:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Renaming "History of the world" to "Human History"

Please discuss and vote at Talk:History_of_the_world#Name_ambiguity Thank you, __ Maysara 12:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Important

You have been accused of Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry at Talk:Casimir_III_of_Poland#Poll_results. I'd strongly recommend defending your good name and going with the 'checkuser'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 08:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Please do not use Sockpuppets to influence the course of discussion and consensus-finding. Such activity is unhelpful and undermines the encyclopedia. I have blocked three of your sockpuppets indefinitely and further such activity will result in a temporary block of your main account. Best, Mackensen (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I am very disappointed in your behaviour. You have done us a proverbial 'niedźwiedzia przysługa', and failed my trust - and likely that of most other members of our project. That said, I hope you will work hard to repair the damage done and regain the position of a trusted contributor, many of your content creation and English language edits were beneficial to our project. Please concentrate on those good points of yours in the future.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is very sad that you did this foolish thing, of course I doubt it will change the massive Polonophobia we already experience, but why give ammo to the ones that shoot you ? --Molobo 19:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I join the others in expressing my profound dismay at your behavior. I hope that you will issue a formal apology. Balcer 21:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto disappointment :( — Matt Crypto 00:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Aye... —Nightstallion (?) 10:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Logologist, if you're still there, just apologize and return to editing. Using sockpuppets for voting was childish and harmful, but we all do stupid things sometimes and it's not the end of the world. I've always admired your edits and I would not like to see en.wiki loosing a valuable editor like yourself. --Lysy^talk 07:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Support. We need your contribution and enWiki will not be the same without you. Let’s forget about past mistakes. Best wishes, Listowy 11:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Just come back. --SylwiaS | talk 06:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This "editor" should be banned forevermore for that he/she is done. M.K. 15:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Seeing as you are back to editing Wikipedia, I will kindly remind you that many users still await your comment on the sockpuppet issue. An apology would be ideal, and go a long way towards clearing the air. Please consider it. Balcer 20:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm very glad to see Logologist back editing. As you say, it might help, but it's not necessary to apologise for past mistakes on Wikipedia; it's merely necessary not to keep repeating them. — Matt Crypto 21:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Mattcrypto, it's not necessary to apologize. Good manners and courtesy are not necessary either, in the world we live in today. Dr. Dan 23:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The latter assertion—as exemplified by the logorrheic and crude Dr. Dan, aka Calgacus, who emulate the demagogy once practiced by their compatriot, Senator Joseph McCarthy. logologist|Talk 07:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)