User talk:Halibutt/Archive 20

Please add new comments in new sections. Thanks in advance. Halibutt

Archives(e) Sep 11, 2004 Oct 24, 2004 Nov 18, 2004 Jan 13, 2005 Apr 12, 2005 May 18, 2005 Jun 29, 2005 Aug 30, 2005 Nov 14, 2005 RfA-related (Nov 29) Jan 28, 2006 Mar 17, 2006 Jun 24, 2006 Nov 1, 2006 Sep 5, 2007 Mar 8, 2008 Oct 2, 2009 May 18, 2011 Dec 5, 2012 Mar 3, 2014 history reset Everything else

Re:Epigon

Well, regarding your maps, first thing is talking to him and explaining what GDFL license is about. I told him about the Gajl template and that not is using it is a copyvio. Let's see what is his reply.

In other news, are you following Talk:Camps for Russian prisoners and internees in Poland (1919-1924)? Your knowledge of Cyrillic would be appreciated there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Ghetto_Uprising_Warsaw.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ghetto_Uprising_Warsaw.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 17:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

1926 Polish copyright act

Z Image:Breguet 14 Kijów.jpg: "As such it falls under the 1926 copyright act, almost identical to the 1952 act." - mimo wszystko to jest znacząca róznica, i przydałaby się osobna template dla tych zdjęć. Inna sprawa - jeśli zdjęcie jest z 1920, to niezależnie chyba od tego kiedy było opublikowane, jest już w public domain chyba? A jak tam postęp z obroną PolishPD?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No, but I'll ask. Any chance you cna fix your talk page? It's really annoying that one cannot find the section edit buttons here...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Zapytałem się tu, tu, i na pl-wiki - zobaczymy, czy ktoś odpowie. A co do twojej strony, to ja w mojej Mozilli widzę straszne rzeczy: babel po lewej, archiwa i ToC na samym dole, edit linki zebrane w rządek na samym dole. To w sumie problem który widziałem na twoich stronach od kilku miesięcy, przynajmniej (i chyba nie jestem jedyny który o tym ci pisał)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Są pierwsze odpowiedzi na forach.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Co do strony, to nie mam praktycznie nic zmodyfikowane. Problem nr 1 to długość twoich szablonów archiwów i babel jest większa niż długośc strony; przeniesienie archiwów nad babel nieco polepsza sprawę, ale dalej długi ToC z prawej i Babel z lewej to dość wypaczają. Przeniesienie Babel na userpage mogłoby duuużo pomóc.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki in sound file license template

A user has transferred a bunch of your sound files to svwiki, so I transferred User:Halibutt/ogg - sv:Mall:Halibutt ogg - and added interwiki both here and there. To the best of my understanding, this must be correctly handled - right? Please tell me if there is something you would like to add! (The user labelled your files PD at svwiki, but we will have that fixed. Don't worry.) // Habj 20:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree Commons would be a better idea, but since this user already uploaded them at svwiki... // Habj 22:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Prawo autorskie

Zasadniczo mam dostep, ale nie w tym momencie, bo od paru tygodni cierpię na problemy z nowym windowsem XP, w związku z czym jeszcze nie próbowałem instalować sobie Lexa (w którym to chyba było). Na razie spróbuję jutro sprawdzić w pracy. Tak na marginesie, rzuć może okiem na moje stare "przemyślenia" na temat tych przepisów na pl:Dyskusja_Wikipedii:Prawa_autorskie - tak na dobrą sprawę nie możemy wiedzieć, czy faktycznie te zdjęcia nie są chronione, to jedynie domniemanie z tego, że ukazały się bez copyrightu... Pibwl [[User_talk:Pibwl|talk]] 18:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Mam te ustawy, poszly do Halibutta na gmaila.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Former landmarks of Warsaw

See [3].--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be a valid article - and that it would be long is just more reason to write it. Thx for Warsaw Arsenal - can you pleeese post your new articles at Portal:Poland/New_article_announcements - that way I can add referenced articles to Template:Did you know (or you can add them there yourself, to :>).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Anything you can tell me about the Staszic Palace (on the photo at Stanisław Staszic article) that is not mentioned in the pic description? I wonder if he founded it or if it was just named after him...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Greater Poland Uprising

Hi Halibutt, just wanted to let you know that I moved all the articles from Greater Poland Uprising to Wielkopolska Uprising to reflect the voting (I guess the admin forgot to do it himself). Appleseed (Talk) 18:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Vorkuta

Hi! I am of two minds about the Vorkuta image caption. In that particular context the Soviet slogan is indeed very similar to German's. It still feels uneasy, because that exact same slogan and many others similar to it were installed in many Soviet locations, not just in the forced labor camps. German slogan, on the other hand, was primarily used for concentration camps. Soviet was more generic. While the caption in its present form is somewhat valid, it may lead to wrong conclusions. Anyway, I'll leave the caption alone for now, but will try to think of a better way to re-write it to make it less ambiguous.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, please stop spreading lies. Other users had been at talk all along. And please add the accusiation of lieing to your userpage. The list is incomplete. And, btw, the list also contains lies :(. I never called you a troll. I called some of your actions trolling. Troll is someone who does nothing else. I never claimed you are the one. --Irpen 19:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and before you modify your list, please note, I haven't called you a lier either. I said that you lied at the specific occasions. Perhaps, even, you were simply mistaken and told "not truthes" not on purpose. So, please don't add a "lier" to the list. --Irpen 19:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

WU 1794

I think we managed to tone done that article to reasonable levels, but if you think we should NPOV it further, go ahead - nothing ventured, nothing gained. As for the M concentration camp, do you think it's a good time to send it to PR? I think that this article comprehensive enough to end up as a FA soon.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Warsaw Uprising

Dear Pan Halibutt. Before I ask my questions I want to express my admirations for your work and for many interesting articles you have published. You made a significant work for Polish studies on Wiki. It’s a proud work indeed. I have been interested in Warsaw uprising for a long time now. I have some questions regarding the participation of Foreign Volunteers on the German side in the uprising. There were allegations that 14 SS Galicia or Galizia (Ukrainian SS division) took part in uprising and conducted many brutalities. These allegations were denied by veterans of 14 Galicia and by some historians. It’s a fact that there were foreign volunteers fighting on German side in Warsaw (Kaminskis SS Brigade POHA and some members of POA-Russian Liberation Army). Maybe those Poles who gave testimonies about the atrocities confused Ukrainians with Russians? Also as I know Azerbaidjani volunteers were fighting against Poles in Warsaw. Did they commit atrocities? What other foreign volunteers of the Third Reich took part in the uprising? Thanks in advance and wishing you all the best. Please contribute more polish articles :) Noxchi Borz 16:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Pan Halibutt, Thanks so much for such an insightful and very informative information. I didn’t really expect to find out so many things in one day. Thanks to you now I have full information on Foreign Volunteers in Warsaw Uprising. I was well aware of RONA participation in uprising and also was convinced in the falsehood regarding Vlasov. However, Vlasov made numerous mistakes when he implemented Russian nationalistic policies in KONR regarding the self determination of many nations under Russian control. Although he later corrected that mistake. There was a big opposition from Ukrainian side about the involvement of 14 SS in the uprising. They still have firm believe that those were false allegations and polish provocations to present them as villains. I still don’t understand the main root causes of polish Ukrainian conflict. These are two very close nations. I think they have much greater enemy in the east. Its very sad to read about Azeri participation in the uprising. Azeris joined Wermacht due to many reasons but mainly for national liberation (others like Armenians Georgians, Baltic people, Ukrainians, Turkistani has same reasons). Is it true that Dmitry Shalikashvili (former officer in Polish army of Georgian decent) was member of Georgian SS (under BregadenFuhrer Tsulukidze) and he took part in the uprising? I think those were only allegations. He was one of the Georgian émigrés (of aristocratic background) who loved and admired Poland. Please visit: http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/Poland/georpol.htm

And please let me know what you think about it. I’m very happy to have found you because it’s very hard to meet a person which such a vast knowledge in military history. I have tons of questions but I don’t think you have enough time to answer them. They start from Ulans of Napoleon (in Spain and Waterloo) till the massacre of Polish officers by Soviets.  Thanks again for dedicating your time and giving me so much info. Im planning to start article on Georgians in Polish army and if you have some info or want to help out I would be grateful.  All the best Pan halibut. Best wishes. Noxchi Borz 18:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Pan Halibutt, You can not imagine how helpful this information was. I can’t express enough gratitude. This info actually will help me to do more research on those Georgians. As I know Polish government in 1920 also supported liberation movements within republics of Caucasus. From many émigrés in Poland they organized an organization called “Prometey” which was financed by Polish government in establishing military units composed of Caucasian nationals. They even had training camps all across Poland. Polish government also conducted serious research on cultures and history of Caucasian nations and collected great amount of information (later used by Germans Abwehr to form eastern volunteer units). There were some operations conducted in Georgia in 1930s. Via Turkey Georgian insurgents attacked Soviets but most of these operations failed. Many people in Tbilisi who have been involved were executed. Shakilashvilis biography is very interesting and controversial. He was one of the Georgian aristocrats who fled the Bolshevik invasion. He joined Polish army. In his work he expressed gratitude and love for Poland. When Germans invaded he was contacted by Georgian émigrés from Berlin (they had organized Georgian Committee White George). Members of that committee were his former friends and fellow aristocrats (count Amilakshvari, Prince Dadiani and Chavchavadze). They pleaded with him to join the Georgian Legion (under the command of a brilliant general Shalva Maglakelidze). He was convinced by Abwehr agents and by German propaganda for liberation of Georgia. He joined his friend who became BregadenFuhrer Michael Tsulukidze (former officer of Georgian Democratic Republic) in newly formed Georgian SS unit. Both of them had good relations with Admiral Canaris. During the uprising in Warsaw, Salikashvili refused to join German units in Poland and surrendered to the western allies in France. However, there was a version by Soviet propagandists who claimed that Shalikashvili took part I the uprising. By this claim they made him a villain. Before he died in US, John Shalikashvili (son and later a big man in US army) witnessed his last moments. He asked John to never forget Georgia and go back there someday. Its very interesting relationship Polish had with Georgians before and after WWII. Unfortunately many poles don’t know even a simple thing about Georgia (a country which admired them). With Kober I will try to make an article about it in Wiki. What do you think? Thanks a lot again Hali, I really appreciate your help. All the best. LD. Noxchi Borz 20:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Partisans in Poland

Halibutt, I decided to write here first because I want to treat the issue separately from the conflict with that filthy mouth fellow. I will respond to your question about pictures at that article's talk.

As for the "...in Poland" section, I have doubts about its appropriateness. I first thought that you were going to repeat what someone else tried to do before and write a section on AL. I seemed to have convinced that guy that while AL was indeed largely Soviet controlled, it was still not a Soviet partisan unit.

However, what you write, is a different matter. You are writing about the territories detached from Poland and attached to Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania before the war. As such, this material belongs to the existing sections, I think. I mean that Soviet partisans in WWII in the territories of the former Second Polish Republic might be a legitimate article but as a section here, it simply doesn't fit IMO. What do you say? --Irpen 18:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to fool me or yourself? Irpen, you're not trying to reach a compromise, you're trying your best to force the others to accept your views, which is a different matter. And a complete loss of time, if you asked me.

We've reached a compromise solution with Kuban Kazak and guess what? Irpen came and reverted to his preferred version. Which makes me think that using talk pages to reach a compromise makes no sense since there'd always be some Irpen to come and revert to what his POV tells him. I wasted enough time to prepare the articles you fix, I don't have enough time to waste on talking to a wall, as we say here in Poland. You have your views and apparently are dedicated to spreading them in wiki at all cost. So be it. You don't want to listen to arguments of other people - fine, do as you please. Want to change the articles to your liking - fine again. But be advised that it's a two-way road.

You've been complaining about Molobo's POV pushing, yet you become his mirror, just on the other side of the fence. He's using modern Polish sources which you find incredible - yet you're using either your own judgement (Volodarka) or some 19th century Russian prop (Orthodox church in Warsaw during the insurrection anyone?). It's your right to be hot-headed, but you don't have a right to assume my bad will or offend me the way you do. Want to continue your behaviour - feel free to. I will not offend you the way you did because in Poland it is believed that such behaviour tells more of the offending part and not of the offended person. However, if all wiki accepts your attitude, in no time all Russian-related articles will be vandalized the way you're vandalizing all articles you find related to Russia. You start adding Soviet propaganda - people will start adding Nazi one. For every liberation remark you add you will get a Soviet imperialism remark. This would be disruptive to the project and I believe that in the end all the people to adopt your ways would be banned, but the damage done to wikipedia would be serious. And it takes much more time to repair the image of Wikipedia once it starts reflect as radical views as yours.

Also, if you have a problem with international law not recognizing territorial changes through war then consult your MP and ask him to change it. Until then the Nazi-Soviet alliance and its outcome are not binding - at least not for anyone outside of USSR and Nazi Germany. The alternative is to call all sections according to the contemporary naming: Soviet partisans in General Government, Soviet Partisans in Reichskommissariat Ostland and so on. The territories I wrote about in the context of 1943 were detached from Poland in 1945 - and it was not before the war, but after it. Before the war those territories did not belong to the USSR. Check any contemporary map and you'll see. //Halibutt 22:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

hitchhiking wiki

Hi! I was googling for hitchhiking wikipedians and found you on the German Wikipedia. :) I'm looking for some more action on the Hitchhiker's Guide to Hitchhiking. I guess you might be interested... Guaka 15:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

User talk:217.25.31.2

This indeed seems to be a serious problem and I have to admit I don't see any way to solve it. All of those articles you mention seem to require very specific historical knowledge so it's hard to get an opinion from outside and a small group of users voting in a block and knowingly using unreliable sources can easily manipulate them to fit their political agenda. I'm afraid all I can offer here are are my sympathies and respect for the hard work you do here regardless of the circumstances. --217.25.31.2 08:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

RE:Okopy Świętej Trójcy

Halibutt, don't post disingenuous crap on my talk page. If you wanna vent your nationalism, go sing your national anthem and shed a tear or two at your flag and the glories of the Polish past - that way you won't bother busy people like me. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration

Hi! I filled an arbitration request concerning the usage of "liberation" in WP articles. If you are interested in, please add your name to the list of the involved parties and type your statement.

Please inform everybody who could be interested in.--AndriyK 20:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Apology

Halibutt, I have to admit that I was caught by surprise by your commentary at the Mediation case. Is it your opinion that I have some personal grudge against you? If so, I would like to set your mind at ease, as I do not. I respect you as a fellow editor on Wikipedia, as someone who I agree with in some cases, and disagree with in others. I remember that I did refer to an archive at your userpage at one point, when asked for details of reasons that I felt uncomfortable on the Polish Wikipedian Noticeboard, but I did not mean that as a condemnation of you. If I gave you that impression, I do apologize for it. Overall, I have no problem in working on articles with you, I respect your opinion (even if I occasionally disagree with it), and I look forward to collaborating with you in future efforts. --Elonka 02:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding "liberation" to "Words to avoid"

I filled the proposal for Words to avoid. Please find it here. I would be thankfull for your commennts, suggestions and corrections.--AndriyK 15:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC about Irpen's conduct

Hi! We filled a request for comment concerning the conduct of User:Irpen. Your comment is kindly invited.--AndriyK 16:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you take a look at articles regardging German Empire and Bismarck?

The usuall problem, I added references on policy towards Poles made by Bismarck and treatment of Poles in German Empire. Of course Scinurea arrived at once and deleted it as usually it is the case, seeing your impressive work that stopped Scinurea from messing up with Hakata and Kulturkampf articles, could you help in some time ? Especially since right now they are awfully biased. --Molobo 21:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Private - Invitation (Warsaw, 25.05.)

Witam, prywatne zaproszenie w ostatniej chwili niestety. :]

Tak się składa, ze prywatnie udzielam sie takze choralnie. :)
Chór Kameralny św. Cecylii - naście osób w wieku studenckim i postudenckim pod dyrekcją Marty Jakubiec - bedzie dawać drobny koncert XX-wiecznej muzyki sakralnej, z Polski i szeroko pojętych okolic. :)

Chór będzie śpiewał 25tego 06. (niedziela) podczas mszy łacińskiej w kościele św. Benona (tak tak :) ) koło Rynku Nowego Miasta - ul. Piesza 1, mały biały kościół ok. 30 m od Wisły. Msza łacińska o 13.30, ok. 14.30 po mszy dajemy koncert. Nie będzie on niestety długi, więc nie warto się spóźniać. :)

Za to utwory są niesztampowe i powinny się podobać, a i pogoda zapowiada się ładna, można więc będzie zrobić sobie udany spacer po. :) Wiem, ze amatorow takiej muzyki nie ma wielu - a szkoda, bo zdarzaja sie perelki. :)

Nieobecność rozumiem :), niemniej serdecznie zapraszam. :]

aegis maelstrom δ 19:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Taki spamming informacyjny uprawiam w sumie po raz pierwszy :) więc każdy feedback (zwłaszcza negatywny :]) będzie cenny.

Miło wiedzieć, że kogoś interesują takie rzeczy. :) I przepraszam, że tak późno - obecnie mam wikiurlop, garstkę czasu na poskładanie wielu spraw.

Pozdrowienia, aegis maelstrom δ 22:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On June 25, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Book of Henryków, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Very interesting article! --BRIAN0918 20:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Central Lithuania

Don't you see, Halibutt, that aside from political controversy of these topics, the names of these two articles are nonsensical. Central Lithuania nowdays is somewhere around Kėdainiai town and area. The creators of Litwa Srodkowa were probably dreaming about restoring Grand Duchy of Lithuania which would be once more part of Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth (quite imperialistic desires, IHMO, if they thought this is the center, then the whole country had to spread from sea to other sea) The area of Litwa Srodkowa now includes South East part of Republic of Lithuania and Western part of People Republic of Belarus. You get people lost in time and space with these kind of names. Rename the article to "Republic of Litwa Srodkowa", and even most nationalist Lithuanians will have little to object to. Why do you translate the name of this republic to English? If translated to English, it should be written in quotes "Central Lithuania". For example if we translate Lithuania in English, it will be "Rain Country", "Country of Pouring water", and without quotes it has no sense.

Name of the article Ethnic composition of Central Lithuania is even a bigger nonsense. Ethnic composition of Kėdainiai district is quite different from presented in your article. I don't have the statistical data now at my hand, but I suppose it must be ~90% Lithuanian. There is nothing wrong with having several censuses in one article, but, if you include censuses that were performed after "Central Lithuania" ceased to exist, you cannot call it "of Central Lithuania". I suggest to call the article "Censuses in Vilnius area". "Ethnic composition" counting during times of represions and wars was inacurate, since people were afraid for their life and safety if they choose the "wrong" ethnicity. There is an excerpt from a book "History of Lithuania" by Lithuanian historian Zigmantas Kiaupa:"On January 8, 1922 elections were held under occupation conditions to the "Central Lithuanian" Sejm and officially 60 percent of voters took part. The elections were boycotted by Lithuanians, Jews and some Belorussians and a certain percentage had doubts over whether they should vote." Juraune 10:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Marienkirche

Which convention requires this church to be given an English name? Adam 16:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Because I want to know. Why is Notre Dame de Paris not at Our Lady of Paris? Why is Basilica of the Sacré Cœur not at Basilica of the Sacred Heart? Why is Berliner Dom not at Berlin Cathedral? Adam 17:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On June 26, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Antoni Heda, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 19:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:tag-tagging

I would agree. The standard way to deal with such issues is to recommend the te,plate for deletion at WP:TFD with the same reasoning as you used on my talk page, and see what others think about it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Your article creation on DYK

On June 29, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1st Lithuanian-Belarusian Infantry Division, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Kimchi.sg 04:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Lublin

I thought Dr. Dan admitted that his introduction of the Lithuanian name for Lublin some months ago was a WP:Point edit. Please don't put it back in, as there are no reasonable grounds for its inclusion. The Union of Lublin was important for Lithuania, but this is not a good enough reason to give a Lithuanian name for Lublin in the lead. Similarly, even though the Munich Agreement was quite important for Czechoslovakia, I do not see the Czech name for Munich in the lead of that article. Balcer 08:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I can only suggest that you only make edits you yourself believe in and support, and avoid making edits "by request" from others. If someone feels strongly about making some change, they can just do it themselves and then justify it. Balcer 08:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, to be clear. My introduction of the Lithuanian name for Lublin was not a WP:Point edit. After being told, over and over, it was important to educate and inform the English speaking readers of the Polish versions of Lithuanian cities' names, that these readers should have the same reverse opportunities. It seemed logical and fair, at least at the time. So yes, there may have been some comingling of proving a point, but that was not my exclusive reason. During the PLC, Cracow and Lublin, had special significance to Lithuanian history, as the first capital, and the city where the Union of Lublin took place.

And Halibutt, thanks for having the courtesy to make the addition. I think my addition of it, lasted a day or two. Yours, about 5 minutes. Got Wilno? Dr. Dan 15:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Dan. I made the revert in 5 minutes by sheer coincidence, as Halibutt made the change just before my morning Wikipedia watchlist check, which has become part of my daily routine. Don't make too much out of it.

Anyway, I reacted strongly because I recall very clearly we have reached a good agreement over the issue of Lithuanian name of Lublin, and you agreed with me that it should not be given. I am quite suprised that you are still arguing over this point. Balcer 17:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually Balcer, I am not still arguing about this point. And "our good agreement" seemed to be lasting with most of the editors in English WK. Halibutt tends to be the exception.(see Konstantinas Sirvydas article and talk). That article is not the only occaision, either. Usually it's done, wrapped up in an enigmatic, pseudo-intellectual, blather about "historical" usuage, and some further nonsense that Lithuanian geographical names were invented in 1918. The 5 minute coincidence, worked out nicely, just "the luck of the draw". I'm sure it wouldn't have been left in much longer in any case. BTW, I got an email asking me what "Got Wilno?" meant. Just a humorous parody of the American advertising slogan, "Got Milk?". Dr. Dan 17:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification over Lublin. As for your dispute with Halibutt, I must say that for me the proper naming of the city located at coordinates 54°41′N 25°17′E is a problem that is simply unresolvable within the framework of Wikipedia. So, I am not going to get involved in your dispute with Halibutt over that issue. Balcer 18:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Great! I got a good laugh from you using the coordinates 54 41'N 25 degrees 17'E. That might be the only way to call it! Dr. Dan 18:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hallo

Hello! I made Michal Boym and Hans Boner, Brod (onomastics), Zuelz, etc. Can you expand the articles, or translate the onomastics articles?

by Szejnhertz, 04:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Polish football team kit

The meaning with the kit template is not to give the exact look of the kit down to manufacturer, club/FA badge, and barely visible relief (or what it would be called), but to give a correct but not very advanced info on how the kit looks "from the stands". The hussar may be nice as a picture of its own, but even if you intended to add arms, the feeling I get is still that it becomes a mishmash of details hard to really understand, "is the dress light grey or just dirty white?", "what's that tiny red spot on the shoulder?", "is there some kind of pattern in the grey?", and so on. I hope you understand what I mean and that I haven't upset you, but I still hope that you would refrain from re-adding it (maybe instead add only a single kit somewhere else in the article, see for example Arsenal F.C.). Best regards – Elisson • Talk 00:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess I upset you a little after all... WP:CIV still applies even if I reverted your two hours of work. And as said, you are still welcome to add the hussar kit as a standalone. My removal of the kit on the template page has an even simpler reason than the above, and that is because that page is a guide for others to see what kits they can use for teams, but the hussar kit is so specific that it would be useful for no other team except the Polish. – Elisson • Talk 11:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You can still add the hussar kit as a standalone similar to the original Arsenal kit seen some a bit down on Arsenal F.C., which might be a nice thing, and that'll keep your work in the article even when the national team changes kits again (which most teams seem to do like every year or so...) Anyway, I don't think there should be any detail added to the kit, take a look at how FIFA has represented it on this drawing, the only red details are sponsors, numbers, badge, a thin red cuff, and some red inside the shirt. Also take a look at for example this or this photo and you might agree with me that the shirt of the kit is actually best represented as plain white, no matter how boring that may be. ;) – Elisson • Talk 12:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Try it out. :) I am not sure about the note though, as technically, the infobox kit is still correct, but just a simpler, more stylistic, variant. I think just a caption under the standalone saying that it is the WC 2006 kit with full detail added, or something, will do. – Elisson • Talk 12:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Insight

Halibutt,

Catholic Insight should really be removed as it states, incorrectly that Virchow was Jewish. In fact he was Protestant (I think Lutheran). The whole thrust of the Catholic Insight article is on a Jewish war against Catholicism and how among other things Judaism was responsible for events such as the Kulturkampf. I think Catholic Insight is a good guide for what some sedevacanctists believe, but not for this. That's why I'd prefer only one quote.

JASpencer 13:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh and mea culpa on not using the citation engine. JASpencer 13:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Your article, Michał Boym, was selected for DYK!

On July 2, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michał Boym, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Templates for deletion

As you nominated Template:POV-because for deletion, you might also be interested in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 29#Template:Disputeabout. I think they should both be deleted for pretty much the same reasons. — Jul. 4, '06 [10:52] <freak|talk>

Viktor Suvorov and historical myths

Appearantly, we're not the only ones:D:

Most established historians argue that in such a situation Stalin had no alternative but to enter into a pact with Hitler instead. By way of example, A. J. P. Taylor (1906-90), the well-known English Professor of History, wrote: "It is difficult to see what other course Soviet Russia could have followed." He thinks the Ribbentrop-Pact was in the last resort anti-German: "It limited the German advance eastwards in case of war." Apparently Taylor thinks that the Germans would have taken Moscow if not the Pact had limited their penetration. The actual result of the Pact was, however, that Poland ceased to function as buffer in case of a German assault. A professorial chair at Oxford seems to be tantamount to a license to write sheer rubbish.

and

It granted that "if Soviet Russia had eventually to fight Hitler, the Western Powers would already be involved." Here Carr conveniently disregards the fact that both treaty parties were notorious breakers of treaties. None of them attached any importance to signatures on a piece of paper. Carr himself knew that the Pact did not prevent Hitler from attacking the Soviet Union in June 1941. How could the same Pact have prevented Hitler from attacking, let us say, in October 1939 as a direct continuation of the Poland campaign? The fact that he did not was of course due to quite other motives than any respect for a given word. in The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact provoked the outbreak of WW II. New evidence indicates Stalin as the architect of the Pact By Carl O. Nordling ([4]). --Constanz - Talk 09:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

Re: Mediation

Hi.

After numerous PAs by AndriyK and his absolute refusal to budge during the Mediation Cabal, I see no reason to reword my statement.

By the way, it is sad you did not participate further in the MedCab case :(

Best, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: OK, maybe "political agenda" was a bit ambigous, I changed it to "political considerations (i.e. on geopolitics and not on historical vocabulary)". best, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Muy estimado y bien recordado Halibutt:

Esta vez no tengo que molestarte por ningún bloqueo. Por el contrario, se trata de la página Voivodato, (voivodía o voivodia), que tu iniciaste en la es:wiki. Otros, antes que yo, la continuaron y añadieron dieciséis páginas más, correspondientes a la actual subdivisión territorial de Polonia.

Son esbozos, por el momento. Dos de ellas son sólo el título... Como es costumbre en todos los idiomas suelen adaptarse las palabras extranjeras. No siempre se consigue hacerlo felizmente. Querría conocer tu parecer respecto a que el voivodato de Lubusz pasó a llamarse LEBUS y no LUBUS, como parecería corresponder... Alguien convirtió a Lodz en Łódź, es decir lo volvió al polaco... etc.

Seguramente hay unas cuantas cosas más respecto a las cuales te gustaría opinar o lisa y llanamente: corregir. Me gustaría que lo hicieras, puesto que tú iniciaste esa página. (Por cierto, el Gran Diccionario Salvat ed.1992 dice que un “Voivoda” gobierna un Voivodato y no una voivodia ni una voivodía).

Notarás que retomé mi nombre original en castellano, en todas las wiki, por recomendación de la commons:wiki.

Tu amigo siempre, Gustavo. --Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 12:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Mauthausen-Gusen

Congrats again on the status and on seeing the article through to the main page. Quite a testament that you wrote an article on such a controversial and distasteful subject of enough quality and NPOV to earn the status. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Spotkanie Wikipedystów na Uznam

Hi Halibutt, as you attended the Meeting of Wikipedians on the Isle of Usedom last year, I thought you might be interested to know that a similar meeting might happen this year. Right now, it's in the early planning phase. If you're interested, please check de:Wikipedia:Treffen der Wikipedianer auf Usedom and leave your mark together with a list of dates which you would prefer, and a list of dates for which you already know that you're unable to attend. In that way, we will try to find the best date in the next couple of days. Sincerely Yours, --Uwe 19:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC) PS: perhaps you can help to communicate this to the Polish Wikipedia?

Hello

Hello. Thank you for Jan Boner, Michal Boym, etc.

Can you translate the Polish parts in the pages of Pohl, Baum, Eichhorn (Eiche), etc.? (Category:Onomastics) --Sheynhertz_געשׁ״ך 01:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Also

Hello! I made Johann Cornies, Chortitza articles. Do you know him? Can you expand their? See also Livshits, Bukszpan articles. --Sheynhertz_געשׁ״ך 17:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You won the battle....

....to get on the main page!

On 13 July, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Węgierska Górka, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

T-34 for Featured Article

I think I have corrected or responded to all of the objections at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/T-34. User:Kirill Lokshin, who filed the first and most complete critique, has changed his vote to "support". I haven't followed every single objector's suggestion, so please have a look at the article and let me know if you would still like to see any changes, or if you are willing to give it support for FA. Thanks for the comments—the FA review has already resulted in some notable improvements to the article. —Michael Z. 2006-07-13 17:47 Z

Maps of Polish history

Hi Halibutt. I just noticed the dispute regarding the Polish maps on Commons, so this might be as good a time as any. If you create any further images of Poland and her neighbours during the 1660s, could I persuade you to fix a few minor errors first? 1) The island Saaremaa (Ösel / Øsel) in Estonia was Danish until 1645 but Swedish since then. 2) Skåne / Scania and Blekinge were part of Denmark until 1658, and Karlskrona (in modern Sweden) was not founded until 1680. It had no predecessor during the Danish period (the population of Christianopel in easternmost Blekinge was moved to the new town, so the latter is now a minor village). On a very minor note, Bornholm was Swedish 1658-1660 but Danish for all other periods. I know these are small matters, but your maps are of high quality and it is a pity to have minor details spoil an otherwise very good impression. Both Rzeczpospolita.png, Rzeczpospolita voivodships.png, and Rzeczpospolita Potop.png need fixing. Regards. Valentinian ^(talk) 18:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

1939 map of Poland

Great work! I am writing and article on the 31 August 1939 border incidents and I cannot locate Hochlinden (Stodolny) anywhere on any map. And, where is Chwallentzitz, particularly in relation to Hochlinden? Can you assist my search? Also, which map is accurate to the date of 31 August 1939 on the German-Silesien/Polish frontier? Many thanks Dennis Whitehead denniswhitehead@gmail.com

Email

Would you mind shooting me a note at <myusername>@gmail.com? Renata 14:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

About szlachta

Does Poland republic have a ruling class of Szlachta. The link polish points to "officially the Republic of Poland". I think there is a logical problem, you should take care of it, like disamiguing it to Kingdom of Poland (1385–1569) for example:)--Lokyz 19:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here you go: according to Szlachta article someone might get impression, that Szlachta (pronounced: Image:Ltspkr.png ['šlaxta]) was the noble class in Poland (link, that points to "officially the Republic of Poland,<...> is a country located in Central Europe. It is bordered by Germany to the west, the Czech Republic and Slovakia to the south, Ukraine and Belarus to the east, and the Baltic Sea, Lithuania, and Russia (in the form of the Kaliningrad Oblast exclave) to the north. ") and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which two countries jointly formed the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. it is really funny, don't you think. I do especially like Kaliningrad oblast BEFORE Commonwealth ever existed:)--Lokyz 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Poland-centered world view in English Wikipedia

Halibutt, you rewrote the article Laurynas Gucevičius that I started and worked hard to make it more complete. Your references and edits show your Poland-centered world view. Also, you made some mistakes that I should address with you personally first. You deleted the part of the article about his parents. There is a church baptismal records "babtisavi infantem n(omi)ne Laurentium patris Symoni Masulis et Matris Catharinae Masulowa de villa Migance", his mothers maiden name Žekonyte (Ziekonaycia). You confused his godmother Ona Baltušytė-Gucewicz with his stepmother Kotryna Tamošiūnaitė, and he wasn't an orphan, only his mother has died, not his father. You should have noticed how little his biography had to do with ethnical Poland. Stanisław Poniatowski, not a King, but his contemporary, called him Lithuanian architect as it is shown in monographs by Eduardas Budreika. Please leave Lithuanian people and especially Lithuanian children some heritage too. Is this your policy to deny that people that lived ethnical lands of Lithuania could be of Baltic-Lithuanian origin?

Second problem is with the Battle of Grunwald and the list of Lithuanian banners. Battles and military interests me the least, but since I stumbled on a mistake in the list, I looked in history book written in Lithuanian by Mečislovas Jučas, called "Žalgirio mūšis" (Battle of Grunwald), 1990. I have found different names mentioned in historical sources: Albertus alias Maniwid, Stanislai alias Czupurna, Kynsegail, Giedygowd, Astik Radywillonis, Rumbaud Sunygailonis, Joannis Nemyr, Simeon Lingwen, Sigismund, Iwan Zedewid, Gasztolt. Could you please cite your sources of that list?

Finally, you should wake up to the reality that it is a year 2006 already. Lithuania is no part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the names of villages and cities in Polish are in many cases inapropriate and border with original research. Vilnius gives 6-11 million of internet counts, while your favorite Vilna only half a million, with Canadian village as one the first links. Juraune 15:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'll add that to the article as soon as possible, I simply did not understand much of the original discussions of his surname's evolution. I admit I don't speak Lithuanian well, but from that article it seemed to me that most of the names mentioned there were Lithuanian reconstructions rather than actual names. Take for instance the case of Gucewicz's father: Latin must've fooled either you or the author a tad, as his father's name was apparently not Masulis but Masul (Simoni Masulis means of Simon Masul in Latin), and his wife's name suggests just that. Masulowa has a typical Polish name ending; -owa is added to signify that the person is someone's wife, much like -yte or -aite in Lithuanian, -ova in Czech and so on. //Halibutt 15:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit your mistakes, since you constructs of Lithuanian words, toponyms and surnames is based on logic, and this practice in linguistics is called 'amateurish'. You would laugh at somebody not Polish and not being a linguist trying to reconstruct Polish names, so please understand, that for a native speaker of Lithuanian Masulis reconstructed to Masul is ridiculous. Since I speak Russian, there is no need to explain to me -owa meaning, while you do not know that -ienė was an indication of wife in Lithuanian (in modern times (21 century)this practice is changing too. Do not edit something that you do not understand. Adding typical Polish endings in records are not indication of people being ethnical Poles. Juraune 17:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As to the battle of Žalgiris - I don't really understand what does your list refer to. Is it some list of banner names? Or some notable people? Please elaborate on that. My source for the banner list (and the banner table) was mostly the book by Steponas Kucinskas (mentioned in the references), with excellent illustrations by Simonas Kobylinskas. I have it on my bookshelf and some time ago I decided to make some use of it. They listed the banners and their commanders the way I put them in the table. I guess their work was in turn based on the work of Ioannesas Longinusas, also mentioned in the references. //Halibutt 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not Lituanise the names of Polish authors, I have enough intelligence to understand what you are refering to. I will answer on this one later, since really do not have now for battle histories. Juraune 17:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As to the name problem - I understand your desire to pretend that Vilnius has always been a Lithuanian city and it was the vile Poles to occupy it. However, it was not that way in the real life. Calling the place with a modern name, when referring to historical times is like calling the battle of Stalingradas with the modern name of that town. I prefer the Polish name of that town, as it was used by the huge majority of its inhabitants between middle ages and 1945, but as a gesture of good will and a way to reach some compromise I use the neutral name of Vilna, which was the common English name for that town until relatively recently. If you don't like the English name we could stick to the Polish one, but I doubt that's what you really want. That's about it when referring to your wake up remark. Wake up yourself. //Halibutt 16:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not Lituanise the names of non Lithuanian localities for me also, I do not have the problem of understanding what Volgograd is and what is the Staliningrad battle. I also have no problem whatsoever in understanding that Vilnius has not always been a Lithuanian city and do not think in categories of 'vile' nationalities. You cannot talk about the history of this city in general, without regard of age, everything is changing and floating in real life. Since the times of Gediminas it wasn't one nationality or culture city. Lithuanians, Ruthenians, Germans, Jews, Tartars and Karaite, Polish, Swedish lived there. Before the written history of Vilnius, it has been a Baltic settelment for many centuries, that what sciences of archeology and anthropology can prove. To go even deeper into the ages B.C., Finno-Ugric people lived in the area. I am prepared to discuss with you this matter futher, so that you also could review your theories about Vilnius. Juraune 17:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)a

Halibutt, I see you bringing up again and again a straw man fallacy with the Battle of Stalingrad issue (totally unrelated as the city was actually renamed unlike the others and this was explained to you so many times that I already lost count). Please do not attempt to justify the name's Polonization, that became a solid part of your editing style, with the same false arguments. This has been discussed and not once (see here for instance) but nothing can be done I guess with your continuing to persist except scrupulously correcting you inside the articles. Or is it?

Perhaps the problem is indeed in what Juranune called this section a "Poland-centered world view" and some editors' forgetting that this is not pl-wiki. We could spend much more time on the actual content of the articles if you were not persisting so stubbornly with Polish or Polonized names all the time. I kept your Nowochwastów, Komarów, Mironówka and Wasylkowce and others in PSW series on purpose until that series is brought to overall NPOV normalcy, since this sticks out warning the potential readers of what to expect from the rest. Your articles look much more credible if they use the internationally accepted terminology. Please think it over one more time. --Irpen 18:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, speaking up in Halibutt's defense here, and not knowing anything about the article in particular that you're discussing, I still can confidently state that in the majority of Poland-related articles where I've seen him offer an opinion in polls, he usually votes for English/Latinized names, over Polish. --Elonka 19:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about placenames (towns and villages) not the personal names (like of the monarchs) and also, mostly, about the usage within articles and not the article's titles. --Irpen 19:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Recently Halibutt in Talk:Antanas Baranauskas announced, that he will be not wasting any more time for discussions, and will do the way he will be pleased. Let me cite: "All right, I'm tired of this endless discussion. Next time I will simply revert or add what I consider important and ignore the talk page. That would be easier and less time-consuming." Such an attitude disencourages to participate completely, because all arguments and references to recent research is ignored completely, because Halibutt discards them, showing his own exercises in ametuerish linguistic.--Lokyz 20:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Lokyz, and I thought you'd be pleased to see that I simply ended the discussion instead of reporting you for violation of civility... But now stating loudly and clearly that I won't accept any more offences is an argument against me myself, right? //Halibutt 03:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think that questions you cannot answer is insult, then report me. This tactics is used wide in Wikipedia, as I can see.--Lokyz 09:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Finally, you should wake up to the reality that it is a year 2006 already. Lithuania is no part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the names of villages and cities in Polish are in many cases inapropriate and border with original research.

Well said. If Halibutt woke up, he would discover than the Battle of Gruenwald was won by the Russians from Smolensk and that neither Lvov nor Minsk are parts of Poland, as well. But this is possible only in sci-fi world. In the HaliLand even Chernigov, Pskov and Smolensk still (and will always) belong to Poland. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, please stop your personal attacks.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, please, if that's a personal attack rather than a humourous retort, I'll be hearing confessions on Saturday and performing brit milahs on Monday. Dr. Dan 22:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Lokyz, let me quote the questions I couldn't answer then:

1. So much of the Polish spirit, and that's why your arguments make some people angry (and that's why Poles aren't very popular in Lithuania until nowadys)
2. I did call you nationalist because you're mixing few things - modern Polish nationality, modern Lithuanian nationality and Commonwealths nationalities e.g. "Litwiny" and "Koroniarze", and are applying the same Poland link. IMO you'e using modern approach.
3. Of cpourse it is easy - especially when you think, that Samogitians used Polish name for their city (which I never said nor suggested, so it's your invention, pure and simple)
4. Or dpo you think, that Warniai is a Polish word? Or do you think Lithuanian people were stupid enough not to know how to call theyr town? (and do you think the earth is flat? And when did you stop beating your wife?)
5. Or you just don't know where Varniai are located? (yeah, I'm an idiot)
6. Lithuanian accademical research would answer your question, or you need a speciffical GrandPolish reference? (why bother, I read Sienkiewiczius and that's enough for me)
7. As for accusation: I did not acuse you, I've just followinf your way of action. (really?)
8. Or is Sienkiewicz your only one source of knowledge about history? (you see?)
9. you assume he was Polish - and let me note - ONLY you. even most of Polish encyclopedias speak about him as Lithuanian. (this remark was added after I specifically stated twice that I agree he was Lithuanian)
10. As for you ignorance of talk page, please cite [citation needed] or I'll revert you. (humm...)
11. Because I've just learned a way of acting for a grown up editor. (then why bother posting such comments at my talk page?)
12. As for Baranauskas Polishness - well, I do not think you a have at least one reference, where it would be said "he was polish", unless you wil; wite it yourself. (and this again added after I stated for the third or fourth time that I believe he was Lithuanian)
13. Well. I do call you nationalist because you're using modern nationalistic understanding of notional indentity in times, when there was no mention of it:) (which is a complete absurd and slander)
14. anyway you chose to ignore this, so it looks like the fun is to begin, because you've run out of arguments and now yuo will try to push your bias:) (apparently, my dear. I can't prove to you I'm not a camel, especially that you continue the discussion not with my arguments, but with what you think they are)

No, I chose to ignore it specifically because you don't listen to my arguments and prefer to discuss with your own arguments you put in my mouth. I never said the guy was not Lithuanian, yet that's what you repeat over and over again. I never applied the modern view on nationalities in the article (and it was you to do just that, as I pointed out in the talk page), yet you call me names. If all of the above are questions I can't answer, then you are entitled to satisfaction. Really, you should be happy as I'm a perfect proof that slander goes unpunished in wikipedia. //Halibutt 03:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

But did say that he wasn't Lithuanian. Juraune 20:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I must agree, when taken out of context tehy sound trully awfull:) I will not cite all your statement, just one: "Right... So a guy who wrote some poems in Lithuanian is automatically a Lithuanian, right? Err... wrong, my dear." I love this one line very much becase it is a Himalay of political corectness and collaborative spirit. You know, peple say - you call them, and they gonna respond in the same way.

As for any assuming, well - I didn't assume anything. I just asked you qestions, to make sure you know the subject - and you didn't answer me. So I thought you just don't know answers.

As for for citation of your refusal to discuss issues: I wouldn't havee raised this question, if not your alteration of Gucevičius article just another day of this your announcement. It seemed related to me, also I just wanted to point everyone's attention to change of your attitude.--Lokyz 10:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds truly awful even within the context, it's simply a great example of incivility and lack of netiquette. You asked me whether I'm a moron and now you're puzzled why didn't I answer that. That's below my dignity, dear. I don't take part in disputes I have no idea on what are they about and that should be pretty clear to you after all of my arguments. And I also already explained the some poems in Lithuanian thingie at least twice, too bad you hadn't noticed that. Perhaps you could at times read the talk pages you post your slander on?

I'm still all for the original version of Polish-Lithuanian, too bad you did not agree to that and revert constantly to associate that guy with Lithuania only, as if he was born in 1992. Why am I replying to your accusations anyway? //Halibutt 11:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Shame on you, Halibutt, for adding Gucevičius article on your list of articles that you are proud of. I said what I wanted about this article before. Juraune 09:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Semper Fidelis

Witaj,

W hasle Semper Fidelis hest bledna informacja: In the 1990s the words along with Mortui sunt ut liberi vivamus (Latin for They died for us to live free) were a subject of a Polish-Ukrainian controversy regarding the restoration of a Polish military cemetery desecrated by the Soviets in L'viv. Czy moglbys poprawic ja (lub usunac) aby byla zgodna z informacja w hasle http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cmentarz_Orląt? - kontrowersje dotyczyly bowiem napisu na centralnie usytuowanej Mogile Pięciu Nieznanych z Persenkówki. Nie czuje sie na tyle silny w angielskim, by zrobic to dobrze, stad prosba do Ciebie.
Pozdrawiam Stako 09:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Galizisches_Infantrie_Regiment

Hi Halibutt,

I have nominated that article for deletion. See here. Greetings, Krankman 10:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Misza13's pile!

Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page. Misza13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing! NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm. Ability to decipher it indicates a properly functioning optical sensor array.

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

Szablon "Halibutt Copyright" zgłoszony do usunięcia

Odwiedź swoją dyskusję na Commons. 62.233.129.226 10:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem malutki

Witam tu Tymek 17:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Mam maly problem pracuje nad artykulem o futbolu w Polsce miedzywojennej i nie moge doklejac dalszych czesci gdyz otrzymuje informacje ze text zajmuje zbyt duzo jestem w roku 1936 i chcialbym to skonczyc jakos oto wzmiankowany artykul

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_soccer_%28football%29_in_interwar_period

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Polska_kontur_bialy.png

Hi,

I was wondering if you would be willing to license this image under the CC-by-SA 1.0 license so that I can make some location maps for Polish cities and voivodships and use them on Wikitravel. Thanks for considering! -- Wikitravel Sapphire 20:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem for us Wikitravellers is that we are only permitted to upload images that are CC-by-SA 1.0 or outright public domain. So from your message it is okay to relicense them under CC-by-SA 1.0? I'd of course make a note describing the other licenses. Thanks, again. -- Wikitravel Sapphire 04:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

futbol

witam tutaj Tymek 03:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

dzieki za odpowiedz na pytanie, moze problem wystepuje dlatego, ze pracuje na McIntoshu?

a co do drugiej czesci Twojej wypowiedzi, czyli kwestii o ktore sie nie pytalem:

- wiem o tym, ze okres prehistorii polskiego futbolu zostal przez Ciebie juz opisany. Widzialem ten artykul. Moj tekst natomiast nie traktuje o prehistorii lecz o okresie 1918-39,

- co do owej rzekomej gigantycznej przewagi - coz - nie spodziewalem sie, ze bedziesz (jako czlowiek inteligentny jak sadze) wydawal sady wartosciujace. Co do Twojego artykulu to jest dobry, ale skoro czepiasz sie mojego to skresle tez swa ocene Twego (choc zazwyczaj jestem daleki od oceniania innych, uwazam ze powinnismy wspolpracowac a nie krytykowac sie nawzajem). Otoz uwazam, ze opieranie sie na sympatycznych skadinad gawedziarzach-fantastach jak Leszek Mazan raczej dobrym pomyslem nie jest. Ale pisze to tylko sprowokowany Twa wiadomoscia.Poza tym - PZPN zalozono w Warszawie, a wsrod najstarszych polskich klubow jest cala masa klubow z zaboru austriackiego, ktor pominales. Pominales takze kluby i wydarzenia w zaborach pruskim i rosyjskim, a tam tez sporo sie dzialo.

- zrodla oczywiscie beda ale najpierw musze skonczyc artykul,

- soccer - coz - chce uniknac stosowania podwojnego nazewnictwa i nie chce,by komukolwiek mylilo sie z futbolem amerykanskim. Amerykanie problemu z tym nie maja najmniejszego,

- oba artykulu nie traktuja o tym samym, poniewaz 95 proc Twojego obejmuje czasy przed rokiem 1918, ja natomiast pisze o latach pozniejszych.

Symon Masulis

This is interesting. Patris and matris are clearly in the genitive; but Masulowa cannot be a genitive, and Masulis can only be a genitive if it is of the third declension -- but if that's the case, it could also be a nominative. Masulowa, since vowel quantity is not marked, could either be a nominative of the first declension or an ablative. Laurentium is the accusative of Laurentius (Sanctis Laurentius).

Is there a Polish surname Masul or maybe Masuł or Masow - something like that? It almost looks like the priest didn't bother trying to Latinize the Polish surnames, just the parents' Christian names, which already had an accepted Latin form and could be declined correctly.

Laurentium is clearly an accusative in apposition with infantem, nomine is an ablative of description. Symoni is problematic to analyze as a genitive, because Simon is usually declined on the pattern of nomen, nominis; thus Symoni, it would have to be a dative or ablative of the third declension (unless the priest was trying to make it a second declension masculine noun "Symonus"). If the dative was intended then, I would lean toward interpreting Catherinae as a dative too, not a genitive. And it makes sense for this to be a dative: a dative of possesion was the preferred manner of telling the name in early Classical Latin. My Allen & Greenough grammar tells me that "...Cicero prefers the nominative, Livy the dative; Sallust uses the dative only."

Did our parish priest happen to sign his name "Parasallustus?" Actually, if this is a standardized formula, it was probably drawn up at the diocesan or synodal level by an overeducated, classicizng snob who can't get a date with a girl and then filled in by a parish priest of more modest abilities -- that would explain his shying away from Latinizing the surnames. If I had been the priest, I would have put something like S. MASSOVLOVVS and C. MASSOVLOVVS. Doesn't that look like a nice Latinized Greek name? And the small caps are much more Roman-looking. And it could have been written dictated to an Egyptian slave, who would employ a brush and papyrus scroll, or maybe a stylus and wax tablet...oh, sorry, back to the task at hand.

So, in light of all that, my translation (and keep in mind, this is free, and you get what you pay for) is: "I did baptise the infant Wawrzyniec by name, of father Symon Masul (by name) and mother Katarzyna Masulowa (by name)." (Sorry, I can't translate that into good Polish, but at least I Polonized the names :D).

Baczynski

Hello. I noticed your comments on list of Polish Jews referring to Kryzsztof Kamil Baczynski and I agree with you. A user keeps adding Baczynski to the list using this source [5] as evidence. The source simply states that the Polish government for some reason or another tried to hide the fact that Baczynski's mother was of Jewish ancestry. The author, Filipowicz, sites Jozef Lewandowski, Szklo bolesne, obraz dni... Eseje nieprzedawnione (1991) as her source. That source in turn says that Baczynski's mother may have had Jewish ancestors. Exactly, what Pole at that time didn't have some Jewish ancestry? The source continue by saying that Baczynski didn't identify as a Jew. Then this source says Krzysztof was baptised Christian: [6]. Given this, I would appreciate if you can help me in my endeavour to remove Baczynski. 70.146.75.123 15:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a note

Zagłosowałeś dwa razy [7]--SylwiaS | talk 05:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Canon de 75 modele 1897 Schneider

Since you created this article, would you consider renaming it so it does not conflict with Canon de 75 modèle 1897? Moving it to Armata 75 mm wz. 1897 Schneider could be one option. The article could then be expanded to focus on the Polish use of this famous French gun.

As a side note, you may find this gallery on Commons interesting. Balcer 11:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

RE

Halibutt, what was the point of posting that on my talk page? Are you upset I discovered your second vote or something? But seriously, aren't you sick of all this aggravation? Surely, there is more to life that obsessing over a name? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ogorek kiszony

Q/A moved to Talk:Polish style pickled cucumber, where it belongs, since clearly other editors may have other opinions. As you may gess, I am not an expert of Polish cuisine, but I had reason for my move. Mukadderat 15:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't forget to announce new articles

Aleksander Gabszewicz, ORP Arctowski, and what have I missed in the past few weeks?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

AWB

Is that a backhanded way of saying, "Thank you for all the dozens of hours of work that you put into fixing these things that no one else wanted to take the time to fix?" In that case, "You're welcome."  :) And yes, that's a good idea about setting the "minor" flag. --Elonka 17:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

your message

Would the situation change if it was, say, me or Piotrus to post the links here? Would they be any more or any less offensive? Come on... //Halibutt 21:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Well, Mr. Veteran IP wasn't giving me any impressive diffs, he was just rambling at me about drops and buckets. I was saying that I had not seen diffs that show behaviour unambiguously deserving a block. I do not claim that I have seen everything related to this case, but I am sure that if there were any 'worse' diffs, they would have been posted to AN/I in giant letters, so I tend to assume that this was all a big over-excited hubbub about very little. dab (ᛏ) 21:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Vodka

Hi Halibutt, you've contributed to the Vodka article before. Would you take a look at my recent removal of a modifier-laden passage (by Mikkalai), which has been in the article for four months (I regret not noticing it in previous minor edits), asserting a Russian urban legend about how the Poles and the West tried to prevent the USSR from marketing vodka. I fear it will be immediately reinserted without discussion. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 10:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Answer

Hi there. I noticed that at the talk page you signed your name under my comments and changed most of them, adding what I never said. Could you be so kind as to move your comments below? I replied to Calgacus' points in points so that it would be easier to respond and follow the discussion. Your action spoiled the entire plan and it's currently impossible to distinguish who said what - and which point does the person refer to. Thanks in advance. //Halibutt 19:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't change any of your comments, just added my comments under your comments. We are not discussing 'Calgacus' points', we are discussing article about Jogaila. Juraune 19:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Polishogskolan.jpg

I found this above image on RandomImage patrol. I wonder if you or the other Polish editors have a use for this image? If not, I will arrange to have it deleted for being an unused fiar use image. Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering...

What is this bullshit??? --Adamrush 23:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sad

Thanks for your message as to our inner-Western discussion on the Polish. But I think it's sad, that you are not a Roman Catholic. Probably due to the ever increasing leftist "intellectual" tendency among modern Polish? (While those in the west are increasingly rejecting the neo-leftist tendency and political correctness and anti-religiosity, you seem to absorb it in Poland.) Do you live in a "recovered" territory or have you ever? Smith2006 09:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply re generalizations

Hello, Halibutt. How are you?

When I was in Poland I was told – by the president of Unimil, of all things – that Poland was 94 percent Catholic. Is this not the case?

I'm sure there are all sorts of Catholics in Poland, as elsewhere. But generally my impression was and is that the Polish RC Church is one of the most conservative doctrinally. I agree that "for centuries the church was the only all-national institution that was allowed to exist - and was crucial in preserving the Polish culture." I read about this somewhere in the context of the Church being a repository for the Polish sense of national identity, since the state was highly variable over the centuries. And I do think that those Poles who are very strongly nationalist or, if you prefer, patriotic, have an almost mystical passion about it, as some and possibly many Poles do about religion. (The same can be said of not a few Americans being simultaneously nationalistic and fanatically religious, but usually they aren't RC.)

Of course there are Poles who are moderate in their views. But this whole discussion started out as an explanation of why the squabble over German place-names still is going on here on Wiki. Please note that in the beginning I said, "the explanation I've heard from others" (italics added). By "others" I mean some other Wikipedians in the past. The thoughts above are an attempt to find a rational explanation for what seems to me to be an irrational phenomenon. If I've over-generalized, I'm only expressing what I've read and experienced. It seems to me that if there were nothing unusually nationalistic about Poles in general – that is, not all Poles, but many and perhaps most Poles – then we wouldn't be having these discussions on Wiki. And also, certain Polish politicians wouldn't occasionally raise the spurious specter of German revanchism – or at least "revisionism" – 60 years and three generations after the Third Reich, which shall forever remain a cause for collective shame among Germans.

PS: I thought you were Jewish?

Sca 16:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

To Smith2006 and Halibutt: Thank you both for your interesting comments. Of course I fully endorse the thought that one may be Jewish and Polish, Jewish and German (as many of the initial Jewish victims of the Nazis thought they were), Jewish and American, etc. What I meant was, I had the impression from what Halibutt said previously that whatever religious identity he had centered on being Jewish; I certainly did not mean that he was somehow not Polish in an ethnic, cultural or political (nationality) sense.

BTW, and I know this may sound like a cliché, but my best friend, whose last name is Etlinger, is Jewish, though not religiously so. Also, my long-time doctor, whose last name is Schneider, in whom I have confided much of a personal nature, is Jewish.

Mazel tov.

Sca 16:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

region "de facto/de jure"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abkhazia&diff=69407338&oldid=69375909 I think that this region which is not a state is not recognized by any other country. Is it true? --Georgianis 16:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course I fully endorse the thought that the region is "strongly supported by Russia, both military and political support"--Georgianis 16:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't even bother to answer.--Georgianis 07:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Usedom Meeting

Dear Halibutt, please check de:Wikipedia:Treffen der Wikipedianer auf Usedom. There is now a list of three weekends - August 25-27, September 1-3 and September 8-10. For each of these weekends I try to get a list of people who would like to attend. Please leave your signature for those weekend(s) which you would prefer. Of course, it's okay to put your signature for either one, two oder all three alternatives. I will then try to rent the place for the weekend which receives the most "votes". Costs (around six Euro per night) and other conditions are essentially the same as last year. Hope to see you! --Uwe 20:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Requesting permission for using your maps of Warsaw districts on Wikitravel

Czy zgodziłbyś się na wykorzystanie Twoich map dzielnic w artykule o Warszawie na angielskiej Wikitravel?

Właśnie skończyłem poprawiać tekst w tym artykule; znalazłem też trochę zdjęć, które ktoś wcześniej nagrał ale były nieużywane. Brakuje tylko map a one by się bardzo przydały, bo potem powstają takie kwiatki jak Botanical Garden - next to Łazienki, in Ursynów :)

212.186.80.57 16:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Wikitravel:User:CandleWithHare

Super. Tak, chodzi o CC-BY, z ShareAlike albo bez, wersja 1.0, 2.0 albo 2.5 (jest też do wyboru dual z GFDL) - nie bardzo się wyznaję na tych licencjach nie wiem czy to, co piszę, ma sens :)

A gdybyś jeszcze mógł sam to wgrać (zauważyłem, że masz tam konto), żeby nie było wątpliwości że jest to z Twoją zgodą. Jeśli nie to też dobrze, tylko może napisz tu że się zgadzasz po angielsku i potem przy u/l podam odsyłacz do tej strony - nie znam się i nie wiem czy jest jakaś standardowa procedura uzyskiwania zgody, jeśli coś źle mówię to popraw.

Dzięki.

212.186.80.57 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Wikitravel:User:CandleWithHare

Chętnie podam maila tylko, wybacz głupie pytanie: jak mam to zrobić żeby nie został na później dla spamerów? 212.186.80.57 19:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Wikitravel:User:CandleWithHare

Dobra, nie będę ortodoksyjny (ale potem go skasuję): ### (skasowany :) 212.186.80.57 19:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Wikitravel:User:CandleWithHare

Flag of Poland

Hi, Halibutt. I answered your question on Talk:Flag of Poland. Kpalion 19:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Communism in Poland

This is in response to your remarks to me on the talk page of the 17th German Infantry Division. Your remarks paraphrased rather exactly:

BTW, did you like the Communist cuisine in Communist Poland? And how about our Communist girls? I assure you there's nothing like a Communist schabowy in a Communist restaurant - provided they didn't turn off the Communist electricity so that you could (sic) listen to Communist hits on the radio.

Well now, how to respond to all of these questions. For some backround, I should state, for those who are unaware, that I'm a U.S. citizen, born in the U.S.A., who lived, and studied in communist Poland. You drogi Halibutt, were born after that criminality was on the ropes and the writing of that inevitable fact was on the wall. Your perspective is somewhat tainted by the fact that you probably had many relatives that held prominent positions in the PZPR (please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that I am). For most people, communist schabowy(pork chop) was a rarity (at the end of my studies, my ration card allowed for four pounds of meat {2 kilos} a month). One bar of soap was alloted per person a month (this was in the 1980's not WWII). As for communist girls, more Polish girls that I met hated the system as much as the rest of the Polish Nation did. If you want to know something more about communist girls check out Rosa Luxembourg or Krupskaya, if none of your relatives fit the bill. Regarding the electricity, they did't turn it off so you would miss the communist "hits", but it often failed on it's own, and it could cause you to miss recording some of the non-communist "hits" that were more popular in Poland. Towards the end of my stay, there were anti-communist broadcasts being beamed from roof tops by clandestine radio transmitters. I personally witnessed the dramatic uprising of the Polish Nation and their throwing off the yoke of this very criminal system. Don't kid yourself listening to some nostagia from the "Red Bourgeosie", of what it was. And please don't refer to it as an Independent Country (as you did), because both you and Gerald Ford (he got into trouble making that stupid remark), were wrong about that too. Dr. Dan 05:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, I’m sorry to say that but this time you went too far. Not that your words weren’t offensive earlier, but this time you went from general offences towards Poles as a whole into a very unpleasant personal attack of your opponent in a discussion. If you indeed were in Poland, then you should know what exactly you said. But in case you haven’t been here at all, I’ll say that I could make a supposition that your ancestors were slave traders or your father dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima to the same effect. Your words were very strong and certainly there was no need for them. I hope you’ll see your mistake and offer your apology to Halibutt.

Now, the other thing is that I’m afraid you misunderstood Halibutt entirely. Maybe it’s our Poglish that makes his words understandable to me but not to you, but I’ll try to make one more effort and explain. Halibutt didn’t try to tell you that the times of communism were glorious or in any other way positive. What he was saying is that we as a nation have no other history. There is no parallel world for the Poles. The country and we are as it is, no matter if we like it or not. I do remember the times you wrote about very well, thank you for the lesson on our own history. I do remember the taste of schabowy, and Halibutt is right, it didn’t change, and I’m sure that before WWII it tasted the same. And please, don’t worry, Poles are clever enough to know how to trade their ration cards for cigarettes and vodka to those for meat, and the US tourists who are not able to adept themselves into situation should take their USDs to one of the many Pewexes to buy some food, or simply go to a hotel restaurant for a decent meal. The lack of food was the least problem as I remember it, and we wouldn't go far as a nation if that was our main concern then, would we? Anyway, the point is that even with a communist government some things stay the same. So the schabowy was as real as the fact that 150,000 civilians were killed among others by the Wermacht division. No need to fabricate something that was already there.

But what you’re saying now, is:

1. that we should discard over 40 years of our own history because it’s all a communist fabrication – to which Halibutt says not all is a fabrication, the schabowy was real, as well as other things,

2. that we are all fools who cannot tell the truth from the communist propaganda – to which I say that your approach is extremely arrogant if you say that people who could pull down the whole system in their country cannot tell the facts from a tale, and even if we didn’t defeat the communists your approach still would be arrogant all the same. What gives you the right to think yourself cleverer than Polish historians, really?

Which leads me to a question – did they brainwash you during the communist studies at the communist Poland’s university? No, it’s not a sarcastic question. I’m serious. Because if they did then you should stay away from history articles for everyone’s good. But if they didn’t, then why you think that our historians are brainwashed?

Now, to the article in question. What we’re trying to say is that what you’re doing is nothing else but ORIGINAL RESEARCH. If you think that a source is incredible, bring another one, but keep your personal opinions to yourself. We’re not going to write them in the article and then put into references “per Dr. Dan”, are we? If you’re a historian, fine, make your own researches, write a book, have it reviewed by professionals, and then we’ll add your opinions into the article and add your work into references. Otherwise Dr. Dan is a wikipedian like any other and is not allowed to put unsourced POV into articles. If my meaning is still not clear, then please read the Wiki rules.

If you’re not going to write the book after all, then here are other possibilities: 1. Bring a source that says that people working for IPN are brainwashed and cannot tell which things from our over 40 years long history are facts, and which are just a fabricated propaganda. 2. Bring any source that says that there was not 760 mass executions of Polish civilians during the September Campaign, or that the 150,000 civilians who died then never existed, or that Wermacht never killed a single person. 3. Bring any source that says who killed the people if not Wermacht as IPN says. (No, I’m not saying that they all were killed by the single division and the article doesn’t say that either.) Otherwise I’m really at a loss what is your point other than to discredit our sources on the basis that according to you we are all communists.

I know that I might sound strong, however I hope I’m not giving an offence. I was trying not to, but I really would like you to see how offensive your approach towards us is, and I really hope you will stop it. It’s a source against a source rule that is valid here, not a source against anyone’s personal opinion about it or about a whole nation that it’s coming from. I personally think that New York Times is a propaganda crap, but you don’t see me running over articles here and deleting things from the ones that have it as a reference. If you don’t like the rules, then change them, but don’t break them till they’re valid. Halibutt holds to them, why don’t you start as well?--SylwiaS | talk 05:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

SylwiaS, You seem genuinely concerned and earnest in your remarks, but I couldn't dissagree with you more than with your sad attempt to deflect the reality of the discussion that Halibutt and I have been having about the 17th German Infantry Division, and Molobo originating the article for propaganda purposes. Honestly, you are not being offensive, because you are all over the place and only ocassionally making sense. I think I upset you in a deeper way, because I have observed this phenomenon (of you not making sense), when you get emotional, in the past. This is more evident when you "chime in" from left field leaving some doubt that you understand what as been said or written. Communist schabowy (pork chops), Communist girls, Communist hits, ad nauseum, are not elements that I introduced into the argument or have anything to do with my position regarding the article in question. But when Halibutt introduced this nonsense into the argument, I responded (not as a tourist with bucks), but as a student witness on a stipendium, who spent seven years in the PRL, and knows all about the Polish gifts of trading vodka, cigarettes, bars of soap for meat etc. Too bad this was in the 1980's (you'd expect it more in WWII). I really don't need any lessons from Halibutt's, I can assure you, or your absurd, But what you're saying now, is Blah, blah, blah. Because when it comes to the PRL, Halibutt cannot assure me of anything. And you Sylwia, please don't tell us what You are saying, and claim this is what I am saying. No one could possibly fall for your poor attempt to do so, in the above passage that you wrote. You don't have to apologize to me either. Dr. Dan 04:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the fact that you freely admit that you can’t see any sense in my words is quite flattering to me. No, please don’t even try to understand my meaning, I don’t expect you to, really. So, back to the discussion at hand – take out your original research and bring some sources.--SylwiaS | talk 05:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect you would be flattered by the idea that you make no sense. Especially when you make a remark like ...we are all fools that cannot tell the truth from communist propaganda... and tell us that what I'm saying. If you want to continue this joke of a conversation, I suggest getting off Hali's talk page and go to the division's talk page with it. And am I understanding you correctly that that you are now claiming that the 17th German Infantry Division, was directly responsible for 150,000 civilian deaths, and you have a source for that? Or were you confused when you wrote that too? Dr. Dan 14:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing to talk about neither here nor there unless you bring any sources.--SylwiaS | talk 21:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, are you saying the division killed 150,000 civilians? That's what you insinuated up above. If you don't have sources for that statement, or can't twist and turn what you meant by that fabrication of numbers, with some lame excuse, I'll have to agree with you. ... There's nothing to talk about neither here nor there unless you bring... up some sources! Try writing to Salomon Morel for some help. Dr. Dan 01:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Dan, enough is enough. I lost enough time already, only to be severely offended. You don't have to offend other people, at least not on my talk page. Sorry, but I'm fed up with your uncivil behaviour, personal remarks and patronising tone. Sorry, but this has been going on for long enough, one more such remark and I will ask some admin to block you for violation of WP:EQ, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Dig up some sources or stop wasting everyone's time. //Halibutt 07:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Applause

Halibutt, I applaud this remark from you above: Calling the place with a modern name, when referring to historical times is like calling the battle of Stalingrad with the modern name of that town. So right! The principle applies equally to Danzig, etc., during German times.

Sca 22:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps your definition of "German times" vis-a-vis Danzig/Gdańsk is different than mine. My view is, it was German ethnically from 1308 to 1945, and ought to be referred to as Danzig during that time. I believe you argued for Gdańsk from the 14XX through 17XX for poltical reasons.

Sca 01:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Imagined ethnicity? It's a matter of language, culture and ancestry, none of which are imagined, at least not in Europe. (In the American melting pot it's more complicated.)

Would it help any if I explained the nuances of my position, which have to do with reader perception, or would we be beating a dead horse?

Sca 15:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree to disagree.

Sca 20:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Warsaw

Greetings Halibutt. I noticed your edit to {{Warsaw-geo-stub}} and became a bit inspired so I looked up the article on the Coat of Arms of Warsaw. I've tried to clean it up a bit, but I simply don't understand this line: "This project has been introduced as the city’s coat of arms in 1938 ...". Which project are you referring to, or does it mean that the symbol did not enjoy official status before 1938? Happy editing. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Don't get me wrong, I couldn't honestly believe if this symbol had not been enjoyed official status before then. In Danish heraldry, we'd normally simply use the expression "the current version/design was adopted ...", so I'll update the article to something like this. I hope that's ok with you? Thanks again. Valentinian ^(talk) 23:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The ride

Well, I heard once an English actor saying that the Americans with the exception of Jews, Italians, Irish etc. lack the sense of irony, so maybe that's why? Anyway I don't have high hopes that I'll turn out to be any clearer. Unfortunately I'm not in Warsaw right now, but I wrote Piotr that 2 days for Warsaw is far too short, so hopefully I can join you another time.--SylwiaS | talk 06:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you going to show him?--SylwiaS | talk 07:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I once made a poll among friends that weren’t grown up here, and they all pointed to stadion as the most exciting attraction, lol. It was the first time I went there since last Perfect concert in late 1980s. You’re right about Praga, I’ve been living there for some years now and I still don’t know it, but at least I don’t have to cross two bridges anymore to get from one place in Praga to another. I used to at the beginning, it appeared that I knew Praga only horizontally, but I had no idea how the places would join vertically. Normally I always took the direct bridge.--SylwiaS | talk 05:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Baranauskas

I have no linguistic background so cannot answer that question. It might be from one of the dialects. But you are making a far-fetched assumption here. What does Renata or Renat or Rena mean in Lithuanian? Nothing. It's from Latin. Does it make me Italian? Renata 12:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right. Baranauskas is a dead horse. But I just wanted to drop you a quote from a letter Janusz Radziwiłł (1579-1620) wrote in 1615 to his brother: "Nors ir lietuviu esu gimęs ir lietuviu teks man mirti, tačiau turime vartoti tėvynėje lenkų kalbą" (translation: Even though I was born Lithuanian and I will die as Lithuanian, we have to use Polish in [our] homeland). Cited in: Algirdas Sabaliauskas, "Mes baltai," Gimatasis žodis (2002). Page 193. ISBN 9955512172. Renata 01:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Cursed soldiers

I think your edit to the lead paragraph is fine, except that you have introduced the information that the particular partisan was killed "in an ambush", which was not presented previously. Could you please cite your source, as the rest of the article is so well referenced? Also, it is unclear what "as late as 1963" means. Is there uncertainty as to the date of his death? Twisted86 06:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind response. This is an area of history we Americans know little about. I found the article beacuse it was a Did You Know feature. It piqued my interest because I just finished reading Mark Kurlansky's 1968, which discussed the Polish student movement extensively. Thanks again. Twisted86 07:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Warsawa Photos

Now added:

• 
  Palace of Culture and Science shadow, Warsaw
• 
  Warszawa Centralna
• Stadion Dziesieciolecia, Warsawa
  Stadion Dziesieciolecia, Warsawa
• 
  Castle Square, Warsaw
• 
  Towards Swietokrzyski Bridge, Warsaw
• 
  Church of the Holy Cross, Warsaw

Let me know if there're any more you'd like to use from my collection. It was a pleasure to visit your city, give me a shout if you've ever in mine! Thanks/wangi 23:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 22 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Józef Zeydlitz, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Usedom Meeting (again)

Hi Halibutt, the date is now finalized for the meeting - September 1 to September 3, 2006 (the first weekend in september). It's mostly business as usual (=as last year) except for the fact that you don't need to bring your own tent. We have to use two large tents for six persons each which are already there. They are equipped with real beds. So in essence, bring everything as planned for three days of camping (including sleeping bag), except for your own tent. The actual costs depend on the exact number of participants. Right now, its 55 Euro for each tent with 8 people, so 110 Euro/ 8 people = 13,75 euro per person for the weekend. If more people attend, the price will go down. In addition to that price, everybody has to pay 2 Euro per day for using the bathroom and the shower. Food and beverages will be bought together as last year, I will organize the BBQ for friday. Contact me for any questions. It's no problem to pick you up from the train station or at the border, just let me know. If you need my phone number, send me an e-mail. Hope to see you! --Uwe 14:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Poland/New article announcements

A ja sie nie dam i bede Cie spamowac az zaczniesz z tego korzystac :D -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Warsaw_siege1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Warsaw_siege1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your Skin

Hello, sorry if im bothering you, but could you show me how to use your skin on my homepage? all help and assistance would be gratefully recieved, Thank You L Trezise 20:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:MSG

One like, or similar to yours :)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving Sich Rifles

Hey Halibutt, I wanted to let you know that I went ahead and moved the Sich Rifles article to Sich Riflemen to better reflect translation of Sichovi Striltsi into Enlish. I confirmed this by using Google's Book search (searched: "Sich Riflemen").--Riurik ^(discuss) 20:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, your sarcastic self-description is hillarious. It is really amazing that people actually called you some of these names. Props for sarcasm.--Riurik ^(discuss) 18:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Snakeskin street?

Halibutt, as an author of Image:Uprising Barykady.png you might perhaps help me find an answer to a followig riddle. A friend of my father's has access to some notes of a British pilot (or somebody like that) regarding the Warsaw Uprising. Within them, he found a notice that on 18th August the German's regained control over the "High School on Snakeskin street". Most probably, the "High School" in question is Politechnika, but we are wondering about the "Snakeskin street". This might an attempt at a phonetic transcription of "Śniadeckich" or "Szóstego Sierpnia", but it might as well be a reference to a German name of one of the streets surrounding the Politechnika area. Are you perhaps aware where we could find German names of streets used during the occupation, or maybe have an idea what else could be meant by "Snakeskin street"? Thanks in advance! Bravada, talk - 18:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! You must have done quite a lot of research! Now you know much more about the whole issue than I ever did :D I'll forward the info you provided to my father and his friends to let them delve into that deeper... I'll let you know if they make something out of it. Thanks again and have a good day. Bravada, talk - 10:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. I take it that by University of Science you mean Politechnika. If this is not the case, could you give me the Polish name of whatever you mean for that!

Boxes

Pardon my untechie ignorance, but where does one get all these crazy user boxes? I see Lysy has a bunch of them, too. Sca 17:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I did manage to find it on my own. Sca 12:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

image deletion warning

Image:Warsaw siege1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Warsaw siege1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Denniss 12:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:German plane over Warsaw 1939.jpg :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

thank you for removing your personal attack

Thank you for removing your personal attack upon me from Talk:Invasion of Poland (1939). A piece of advice would be to read over your writing with a clear mind before hitting that save page button, it works for me.

--Jadger 01:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

here is what I was referring to: [[8]]

again, thank you for removing your personal attack upon me

--Jadger 00:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Halibutt/Tables

Sorry... or not... I was fixing needless redirects to the Kaczyński brothers and your User:Halibutt/Tables popped up. When the deed was done I realized you might not like it... My apologies, Ya ya ya ya ya ya 05:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Unknown Soldier

Halibutt, do you by any chance still have the photos I sent you a year or so ago of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Warsaw? If so, do you think you could place them on my talk page? (I no longer have them in digitized form.) Thanks.

Sca 12:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

A gift

I was in the mood... : User:Piotrus/Sandbox#Poetry. Comments and corrections appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Andrzej Munk.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Andrzej Munk.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Muzulman

I stumbled upon Mussulmen, which offers a different perspective. Would you like to merge the two? `'mikka (t) 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Poland's WW2 losses

Radio Polonia reported on 9/6/06[9]that a commission is being set up to investigate Poland's WW2 losses. Do you have any knowledge on this recent development? I need the help of Polish Wipedians since my Polish language skills are at a basic level. Barney Dombrowski AKA--Woogie10w 23:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Legal status of Halibott

Please do not run a bot without prior approval. Sysops are supposed to block unapproved bots without hesitation according to official policy. I know that your bot may be innocuous but they surely have their reasons. Sciurinæ 17:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Move of Warsaw Gdańska station to Warszawa Gdańska

Hi. You moved Warsaw Gdańska station to Warszawa Gdańska. In doing so you made two changes:

• You changed Warsaw to Warszawa. I'm not sure about this. On the one hand our article on the city is called Warsaw not Warszawa. On the other hand I've looked at a few other cities where the city name has an English variant and railway stations named after the city (eg. Cologne/Koln, Milan/Milano) and they use the english language variant for the city article and the local variant for the station name prefix. So as I cannot establish a consensus amongst myself, I will accept this change (at least for now).

• You dropped station. Looking at lots of other station articles, it definately seems to be the convention to include the word station in the name, although there is little consensus on whether it should be station or Station. Judging by your comment on the move, I suspect this change wasn't the main thrust of your change. So I'm going to add that back in; please get back to me if you strongly disagree.

Now what are we going to do about Warsaw Central station. Should it be renamed Warszawa Centralna station?. -- Chris j wood 11:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your reply. Actually I already renamed Warsaw Central station to Warszawa Centralna station before I saw your reply. Having read your reply, I'm happy to go along with using the local name of the station (eg. Warszawa Centralna rather than Warsaw Central). I'm still less comfortable with dropping the station though. Whilst this may work for stations in big cities where the fact there is more than one station means that the station has some sort of qualifier (eg. Gdańska or Centralna), I don't think it works in the general case. Most stations are the only station in the place they are located in, and are therefore named with no suffix. Whilst this works in the constrained railway context (if you are buying a railway ticket, you are likely buying it to a railway station), in WP it leads to an obvious ambiguity between the place (town, village, whatever) and the railway station serving that place. I think for this reason, most articles on railway stations do include the word station (on wp:en), and I'm loath to do something special for Poland without understanding how we would resolve this issue. -- Chris j wood 17:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks again for your reply. There is a project (Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains) which deals with railway related issues. Having looked again, I'm not sure of the scope of the current nnaming standards (are they global or country specific). I need to spend a bit more time (that I don't have right now) looking to be sure. By all means take a look yourself, or make the suggestion.

On a different subject, perhaps you can answer my curiosity. On a recent visit to Warsaw, I came across Warszawa Śródmieście station just to the east of Warszawa Centralna (not to be confused with the WKD station of the same name just to the west of Warszawa Centralna). On the day I was there, it seemed closed. It also seemed so close to Warszawa Centralna that I wasn't sure if it was a separate station (in the platforms, trains, etc context), or just a different station building accessing the same platforms. Do you know?. -- Chris j wood 10:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Purple Barnstar

For staying alive under the torrent of personal attacks and other violations of civility. Ac fortia et patere. Awarded by User:Piotrus 00:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC).

Piąte urodziny polskojęzycznej Wikipedii czyli Jimbo w Warszawie itepe. :)

Disclaimer: this message discusses recent secret plans of Polish Cabal, including hostile takeover of Wikipedia servers (Brion Vibber included), and as a such it must remain confidential. Especially the word about kidnapping Mr. Stallman and enforcing obligatory translation to Polish in the next version of GFDL should not be spread yet. Under these circumstances, you certainly understand the rationale behind the secrecy. Best, a.m.

Hej Halibutcie, :) (wybacz ew. nieprawidłową odmianę)

Nie wiem, czy jesteś na bieżąco z wydarzeniami u polskiej społeczności, chciałem jednak poinformować Cię o bankiecie z okazji pięciolecia polskojęzycznej Wikipedii. Spotkanie odbędzie się w tę sobotę (23.09.) w Auli VII SGH w Warszawie. Z tej okazji do Polski przylatuje Jimmy Wales, można będzie też spotkać nieco polskich uczestników projektu. Imprezę współorganizuje Creative Commons Polska.

Myślę, że nic by się nie stało strasznego, gdybyś wpadł, jeśli masz chwilę czasu. To samo IMVHO odnosi się do całej polskiej społeczności siedzącej na en.wiki, jeśli mnie czyta :] - rzadko trafia się okazja do wymiany doświadczeń.

Dokładne dane na stronie stowarzyszenia - piąte urodziny.

Pozdrawiam serdecznie, :)

aegis maelstrom δ 00:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

O, byłoby tym bardziej miło. :) Jak pewnie zauważyłeś, istnieje nawet sekcja dla mediów. :)

Przy okazji, czy wiesz, gdzie ew. taką informację można zamieścić dla warszawskich (i nie tylko :) ) Wikipedystów piszących na en.wiki?

Pozdrawiam, :) aegis maelstrom δ 10:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award

Congratulations, Halibutt, you have been nominated for the Esperanza User Page Contest! The judges have received the fifteen entries, and are ready to start judging. The judges will take a week to complete the judging process, and they will contact all the participants when the judging is done.

Please drop by the contest page for contest updates and questions. Take care, and good luck!

Daniel.Bryant 07:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Jogaila redux

Dear Halibutt, I don't think such edits on well-established articles of contentious nature are very helpful. They make it impossible to compare the two versions of the page and to assess the scale of your changes. Please consider editing in small steps. Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I will consider this. On the other hand, while the article was blocked, I had the option to either work on the article in my own namespace or not to work on it at all. I believe that the earlier option was more beneficial to the project, even if review of the entirely-new article might be a tad more difficult than if I added 200+ changes in a row instead of one. //Halibutt 07:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Podhale_Rifles

Please modify this template to only use the colors listed in Wikipedia:Colours in order to increase the readability of this template for those with impaired vision and to also fit in with the general visual theme of Wikipedia. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  16:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean as the nav template in question already is compliant with WP:COLOUR, as it uses colours listed at web colors. //Halibutt 18:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the Wikimedia colour schemes listed at Wikipedia:Colours. The biggest problem is that anyone who is colour blind will not be able to read half your nav template because you've mixed dark text (blue links) with dark backgrounds (black/grey). Please only use light, neutral colours as demonstrated at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Color. Bright yellow should also be avoided as it's a glaring distraction that is sorely mismatched with Wikipedia's colour scheme. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Borislav_CoA_Soviet.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Borislav_CoA_Soviet.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Soviet-Georgian War

Hello Pan Halibutt, please join the topic here User:Kober/Georgian-Soviet War and add if you have any additional info before Kober will publish it. Thanks. Ldingley 20:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

re:Gucewicz

WP:PAIN, so applicably named, may be a good place to demand satisfaction. Asking for mediation first may be helpful, too, although personally I find that the best outcome is that the offender gets tired and stops offending - but hell would freeze before you get an apology.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A break ?

While I admired your patience so far, maybe it's the time you should consider taking a break ? At least for the LT-PL issues ? I mean it. Sincerely. You seem too stressed with this to me and you risk making mistakes that you and others would regret later. --Lysy^talk 10:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the above in the context of these edits: [10], [11]. --Lysy^talk 11:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, this is a good evidence for an RFC. Also, I still think it qualifies for WP:POINT, esp. after reading your last comment. :-( . I'm not surprised that you've lost your patience, but the way you're demonstrating this, may be not the best one. Also, I can only comment again, that this will serve nobody. Sigh. --Lysy^talk 11:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lysy. Those edits were less than constructive; there are good ways to make your case - and bad ones. This represent the latter. In other words: don't let them drag you down to their level. Working on Jagiello/Jogaila is a much better idea.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Slavomiras Borevičius

OK, it is time for your joking to end. You are potentially offending people, both here in the Wikipedia community and the wider readership, so be careful and be serious from now on.

. I have deleted the redirect. Please in future avoid ethnic jokes in the article space Alex Bakharev 02:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, people do get annoyed by your joke. Also I guess even a joke repeated umpteen times is not that fanny any more. I do not want to make threats but as a personal favor for me can you stop all this Lithuanian last name jokes? You might even want to apologize to the Lithuanian editors and return the working relations with them Alex Bakharev 07:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If there is a case of a personal attack against you I will try to intervene (if I will aware of the attack, most of your articles is not on my watchlist) . Regarding the edit conflicts over content of articles, I guess you are not the only one to have this. There are facts and there are presentations of facts (like the main title of the article, the nationality in the lead, etc.) sometimes productive editors have to choose if they want to spend the time fighting over the presentations or writing articles, the time is always limited. Happy editing Alex Bakharev 09:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, I will agree with Alex here. Simply put, nie znizaj sie do ich poziomu; nic dobrego z tego nie bedzie - a tylko stracisz szacunek innych. Inna sprawa, ze nie wiem jakbym ja sie zachowal pod taka nawalnica plucia... jak napisales, faktycznie wakacje od czegokolwiek zwiazanego z Litwa moga byc dobrym pomyslem.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza User Page Award

Greetings, Halibutt. The judges would like to announce that the winner for the Esperanza User Page Contest has been chosen. Congratulations to MacGyverMagic for winning the contest. The winning entry can be found here.

If you'd like to participate in the contest again, check by the contest page in a few days and sign up. See you around. Daniel.Bryant 10:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Polish Voivodships

Hi, I've been making infoboxes for various country subdivisions, and I made one for Poland's Voivodeships, not realizing that you had already written one. Mine is at Template:Infobox Voivodeship, and it's been applied to all but two voivodeship articles, one of which is the Masovian Voivodeship, which uses your template. Would it be OK with you if I switched it to my template and converted Template:Infobox Polish Voivodships into a redirect to Template:Infobox Voivodeship? I think what I've written is more suitable because it's more compact without extraneous information, and it is laid out better on Mozilla-based browsers. In the long run, anyway, it would be stupid to have two infoboxes for the same thing. LittleDan^talk 20:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess I could add a few more fields. Even though I'm an inclusionist too, I think infoboxes need to be relatively compact to emphasize useful information, which is part of the reason I left out the logo field. Actually, I don't live in Poland; how important are those logos compared to the coat of arms and flag in everyday life; do you see them often? I'll add in optional fields for the marshall of the voivodship and the voivode and the timespan, but not much else. I definitely won't add fields for everything the Podlachian Voivodeship has; most of that information should be in the article or a separate table. LittleDan^talk 21:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts on Jogaila/Wladyslaw/Vladislav/Ladislaus

At its simplest, he's a Lithuanian; he should have a Lithuanian name. And calling him a Polish name, when the Kingdom of Poland was the last bastion of Latin, is rather odd. Rather like having a Henryk III Walezy article (ok, perhaps not that bad). Actually, that makes we wonder about Stefan Batory. Stephen Bathory would more English, but I won't say anything if you don't.

Anyway, you're going about this the wrong way. Bolesław Chrobry is already at Boleslaw I of Poland, and so on. The top-down method would be better: change the guidelines. The stupid monarchs naming stuff is under discussion now at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles), because some of the people who wrote the existing Ladislaus II of Poland rules think they don't work. The page is dominated, as usual, by people who think that a rule that works for post-1066 English kings and nobles must surely work for all the ignorant foreigners, whether that's Poles, Russians, or Scots. Complete bollocks, of course. If we were going to do that, stick with the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica: it represents the finest hour of latinisation and anglicisation. No nasty foreign names, no diacritics: anglocentric heaven ! [Don't underestimate the irrational prejudice that many Americans have against any foreign words, anywhere, anytime. Like they say, if English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for them. This is not a joke !]

It isn't just Polish kings being forced to use strange naming: List of rulers of Halych and Volhynia doesn't resemble any English-language material I've seen, neither does Rulers of Kievan Rus', and I wasn't impressed by any of the South Slavic equivalents either when I looked at them recently. Moving Byzantine rulers from old-fashioned Latinate to modern-style Greek names (Alexius → Alexios; Andronicus → Andronikos; et cetera) was a major struggle. Calgacus and I have complained, we don't like the naming of Scottish kings any better than you like the Polish ones. But if more people contributed, then we might get the guidelines rewritten. There are Scandinavian editors who don't like the way Norwegian, Danish and Swedish kings are named. Ghirla and Irpen might have some ideas. You're not happy, Piotrus isn't happy ...

While I Jogaila best, I'd sooner have Wladyslaw II Jagiello or Władysław II Jagiełło than Ladislaus II of Poland. And on that subject, I'll be surprised if a second RM isn't opened soon after this one, if the article is moved to Wladyslaw, to move it to Ladislaus. Better to just change the guidelines, which shouldn't be hard given the small number of people who take any interest.

Czesc ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

To reply to your points.

Lithuanian - Lithuanian name. Well, most of your examples aren't disputed. I can't think of an analogous case. Most similar examples of foreign rulers are easy because they came from a much larger or much smaller country. Poland and Lithuania were more or less equal, so the example of James VI of Scotland becoming James I of England doesn't help. Baptismal names you didn't mention: Vajk-Istvan of Hungary is Stephen on Wikipedia, but Boris-Michael of Bulgaria is Boris. I'm not sure if there are many other examples like that, but it might persuade people if you can show that baptised rulers usually show up under their baptismal names.

You might have dropped "of Poland", but that's still what the guideline says.

I'm not proposing to hold anything hostage; I'm pointing out that there are people who support the current guidelines, and who would probably support any new ones, when requested moves come up. If every other Piast and Jagiellon king was named in the Władysław II Jagiełło style, wouldn't there be more support for moving Jogaila ? The Byzantine emperors got moved in the face of considerable opposition because the people who wanted the move organised, and came up with a good argument (the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium uses these forms and it is the standard source). I'm not sure if there's a comparable argument for Poland, but it would be worth your time looking for one.

The requested move ended up at Jogaila because there was no agreement to compromise between people who wanted Władysław II Jagiełło and Wladyslaw II Jagiello. Other requested moves have ended up the same way. See Talk:Harald I of Norway for an example where almost everyone wanted a move, but no move happened because there was no agreement on where to move to. The Byzantine case is also relevant here. Do I think what happened was right ? Well it was better than Ladislaus II of Poland. I'm not sure I'd go any further than that. I might have moved it to Jogaila or to Wladyslaw II Jagiello, I'm still not sure which. The votes were equal, but the article had once been called something close to Wladyslaw II Jagiello, so that might have counted for something. Anyway, a real compromise would be something which would please absolutely nobody. Władysław-Jogaila for example.

I won't be unduly concerned if the article is moved, but it will be a waste of everyone's time if nothing constructive comes of it. John Kenney's idea of calling articles Something Somethingelse (Prince of Somewhere) is quite a good one. Why not have names like Bolesław IV (Prince of Mazovia), or Władysław I (King of Poland), which look vaguely professional, like you might find in a serious modern reference book. Thanks for listening to my rant ! Let me know what you think. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On October 25, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kazimierz Leski, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For the hundreds of quality articles you ahve written for us about Poland.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Kazimierz Leski

Great work on the excellent Kazimierz Leski article! --Kralizec! (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

lol, your quite a spin doctor

I am not dumb Hali, it was not a 16:16 tie. You kept combining the votes for multiple versions of the name that even slightly resembled what you wanted. And if you did not notice, the previous message left for me was one from the last vote, you have actually succeeded in awakening one of your sleeping opponents. thanks

--Jadger 10:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Prośba

Mam prośbę, czy mógłbyś zrobiś zdjęcia herbów województw kijowskiego i nowogródzkiego ze starej sali poselskiej w Zamku Królewskim. Prosiłem Bastiana o zwektoryzowanie herbów województw I RP i przesłałem mu odpowiednie materiały, niestety tych dwóch nie mam. Pozdrawiam Poznaniak

Dzięki za tyle, postaram się coś z tego wykombinować. Pamiętam o tym orzełku wojsk lotniczych tylko ostatnio nie miałem za dużo czasu (mam nadzieję, że będzie za parę dni). Pozdrawiam Poznaniak

Read article talk pages again

Try another shot. M.K. 22:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as it takes. M.K. 10:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN is a strange place, which seems not even to be mentioned on WP:DR. WP:RFC/USER seems like your best option - although personally I'd consider just concentrating on editing articles. Despite his offensive behaviour on talk, he is not putting misleading or false content into articles (at least not that I am aware of), and the 'Jogaila victory' will last only as long as it takes for more real academics to come to Wiki and point out it's an unreasonable name. Let him have it for now, and concentrate on content creation. Even if it would end up in ArbCom and they would force him to apologize, I don't think it would be worth the time wasted (same applies to Ghirla as long as he is not damaging articles).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)