User talk:Piotrus

File:Kyokpae banner.png

File:WikipediaSignpost icon.png You have the right to stay informed. Exercise it by reading the Wikipedia Signpost today.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Piotrus/Archive 13. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied!. Thank you.

Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Please sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks in advance.

Archive

Talk archives: Archive 1 (moved Jan 17, 2005), Archive 2 (moved Feb 21, 2005), Archive 3 (moved May 19, 2005), Archive 4 (moved July 14, 2005), Archive 5 (moved September 27, 2005), Archive 6 (moved November 23, 2005), Archive 7 (moved January 7, 2006), Archive 8 (moved 19 March, 2006), Archive 9 (moved 6 May, 2006), Archive 10 (moved 17 June, 2006), Archive 11 (moved 28 July, 2006), Archive 12 (moved 25 September, 2006)

Have seen worse days. Reasons for my raising wikistress: not many :) Wikipedia is a kawaii mistress :) To remind me not to take things too seriously around here! If you have come here to place a request for a re-confirmation of my adminship, please note that, at my discretion, I will either: seek community approval of my adminship through a modified RfC; (no consensus == no change) (see separate section for process) choose to take the matter to ArbCom; (see separate section for process) resign my powers "under a cloud" and possibly stand again for adminship at some later date of my choosing; (see separate section for process) once the "six editors in good standing" count has been met using my own criteria and the matter concerns use of my admin powers at this wiki rather than a non-admin editing concern (use the standard dispute resolution mechanisms), a use of CheckUser (use the ombudsman process, or take the matter to the Audit Subcommittee, as appropriate, if standard dispute resolution does not resolve the matter), or actions at another wiki (use the processes at that wiki). The rest of this page fills out particulars and commits to certain processes in advance so as to reduce ambiguity or the possible perception that I will change the rules as I go along to get the desired outcome. Note: This page has a talk page because I value input and feedback on this whole thing. There's some lively discussion there already, and you, gentle reader, are invited to comment as well. The Recall Petition process The petition shall operate as follows: A clerk of my sole choosing, but chosen for ability to be impartial, will be selected by me to make sure that the petition process itself is smooth and that the requirements for petitioners are satisfied. The petition start time will be constituted as when the first eligible petitioner announces intention to recall by posting on my talk page. Ineligible petitioners (as judged by me) will not start the process unless I choose to waive eligibility for that petitioner. Such waiver shall be binding. If it takes longer than 24 hours to find a clerk and begin the process, the petition start time will be constituted as when the page is created and ready for use. A page in my user space will be created with sections for certified, unknown, and uncertified petitioners. If attempts are made to delete the page, I will counter them to the best of my ability within the limits of policy and common practice (one recreate for a summary deletion, then I will work the MfD or DRV process as appropriate to argue for retention)... assistance in arguing the case for retention by those participating would be appreciated, but is not required as a condition of participation in the petition process. Deleting, or arguing for deletion of, the petition page by a petitioner, however, shall cause that petitioner to be disqualified from certification of the petition, unless I explicitly waive that disqualification. If the community ultimately deletes the page and it sticks I don't quite know what to do but will try to be reasonable. Additional sections may be added as the community desires for comments of whatever sort. These shall have no bearing on the petition outcome except to sway public opinion. The clerk is empowered to enforce decorum at the clerk's (and my) discretion, subject of course to public opinion not looking kindly on suppression of expression. I reserve the right to waive eligibility and numeric requirements at my sole discretion on a case by case basis. This means that I can deem a petition certified when it strictly would not have been. However this is only a waiver, it cannot make anyone ineligible or raise any numeric requirements. Waiver of requirements for one person does not waive them for others by default. The clerk will move petitioner signatures from unknown to certified or uncertified based on eligibility. After exactly 5 days the petition shall be over and the clerk shall carry out a tally of eligible petitioners. If at least 6 petitioners including the initiator are eligible, the petition shall be deemed certified and the next step of the process will be initiated. (the next step is one of the three, Modified RfC, self initiated RfAr, or resign "under a cloud" and stand for RfA at some later date of my choosing) as given above, at my choosing... the decision may be announced in advance of certification, at my option, but need not be. The modified RfC process (choice 1) This is one of the three possible "next steps" after a certified recall. The modified RfC will be constituted as follows: A page in my userspace will be created. Certification of the RfC will be waived. If attempts are made to delete the page, I will counter them to the best of my ability within the limits of policy and common practice (one recreate for a summary deletion, then I will work the MfD or DRV process as appropriate to argue for retention)... assistance in arguing the case for retention by those participating would be appreciated but is not required as a condition of participation in the process. Arguing for deletion, however, shall cause that person's comments to be stricken or construed as favorable to retaining adminship, whichever is appropriate or more favourable to me, at my discretion. If the community ultimately deletes the page and it sticks I don't quite know what to do but will try to be reasonable. A clerk of my sole choosing, but chosen for ability to be impartial, will be appointed to make sure that the RfC process itself goes smoothly, and to determine eligibility where appropriate. Preference would be given to the same clerk that clerked the petition, if that clerk is willing and if I feel they have done an adequate job. The RfC will be started by referencing the entire text of the recall petition Two questions will be included: Should I keep my adminship/Should I resign my adminship Anyone qualified to vote in an ArbCom election, as construed in the most recent previous one to the initiation of the petition, or one then ongoing, whichever is more favourable (looser voting requirements), can sign under either of these two questions. Those not qualified will have their signatures and comments moved to sections that make it clear what their views are, but that do not count toward the total. Any other sections desired may be added but will not have bearing on the outcome except to sway public opinion At the end of exactly 5 days the modified RfC shall be over and the clerk shall carry out a tally of eligible commenters. If a simple majority to retain exists, I will not resign. If tied, or if a majority does not exist, I shall resign. Resignation shall be construed to have been "under a cloud", and if I wish to regain my adminship I will have to stand again via the normal RfA process. Those that consider this not to be an RfC are welcome to give it whatever term they wish but these process steps will be used, and supersede standard RfC process where there is a conflict. The conclusion of the RfC after the outcome is certified and my action is taken, if any, will conclude the matter as far as I am concerned, but the community is of course able to take whatever other steps they wish including starting a regular RfC, initiating an ArbCom case, etc. The RfAr process (choice 2) This is one of the three possible "next steps" after a certified recall. The RfAr will be initiated as follows: I will initiate the case myself, perhaps with assistance from the petition clerk if the clerk is willing. I will name myself and the certified petitioners as parties. I will state that I feel sufficient notice has been given to all parties. I will incorporate, by reference, the petition, and ask that arbcom consider it as evidence. I will ask any arbitrators that were petitioners to recuse but leave that decision to their good judgement. I will otherwise cooperate in whatever way possible, answering any questions asked to the best of my ability. I reserve the right to present material in my own defense. I reserve the right to suggest that other persons be named as parties. I undertake to carry all this out in the shortest reasonably possible time consistent with external events. Final determination of whether to take the case rests with ArbCom but I will strongly recommend that the case be taken and I would certainly appreciate (but not require) petitioners to also so strongly urge/recommend as well. If ArbCom declines to take the case, that concludes the matter as far as I am concerned, but the community is of course able to take whatever other steps they wish including initiating other cases. I reserve the right, but not the obligation, to initiate either choice 1 or 3 in this case. (I will try to be reasonable) If ArbCom takes the case, their judgement on principles, findings, and remedies will be binding on me, I will not work to circumvent them. The conclusion of the case will conclude the matter as far as I am concerned, but the community is of course able to take whatever other steps they wish including initiating other cases. Resignation (choice 3) This is one of the three possible "next steps" after a certified recall. The resignation shall be constituted as "under a cloud" meaning that a re RfA has standard success criteria as then constituted by the community and that withdrawing midway through is not an option for regaining admin status. Only a successful RfA will suffice. I may choose to stand again for RfA immediately, at some later date of my own choosing, or never, as I deem appropriate. Grace period Any change in any provision of this that makes it more stringent to qualify a petition or participate in any other part of the process, or more likely to lead to an outcome more favourable to me shall have a 2 week "grace period" during which any recall initiated will be under the old terms. Any change that is of the opposite sense (easier to qualify/participate, less favourable to me) shall go into effect immediately. No Double Jeopardy Once this process concludes for matters raised by petitioners during an instance of this process, I will not honor a second recall request regarding the same matters. If however new matters arise, the community is welcome to initiate another recall. No vexatious litigants No petitioner may initiate or support a petition for my recall more than three times in any 365 day period. This does not apply to participation in a modified RfC. Severability This is about my commitment to the community to be accountable, not about a category membership. Thus, the provisions of this page shall survive if, for example, the CAT:AOTR (or successor, whatever named) is deleted, renamed, listified. etc., and under any other reasonable circumstances. Only my explicitly stated withdrawal from this commitment itself will suffice. No withdrawal I do not intend to withdraw but that's an intent, not a promise. However, I promise not to withdraw to escape the consequences of this commitment. The only time I will withdraw from this category is if no recall is currently underway. This is subject to the same 2 week grace period as the eligibility or any other changes, so any withdrawal has at least 2 weeks to go into effect. Notes I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms. Shadowrun wiki Jestem mattness - Witaj, Piotrze. Znalazłem cię poprzez Twoje wpisy w 6th world wiki, anglojęzycznej wiki o Shadowrun RPG. Tak się składa, że sam prowadzę wiki o tym systemie, ale po polsku (tak. Wiem, że bliższy jest Ci EDek, niż SR.). Widzę, że masz doświadczenie w posługiwaniu się wiki. Byłbym wdzięczny, gdybyś rzucił okiem na Polską wiki, i podzielił się uwagami (sam nie wiem, jak ulepszyć nawigację po niej :( ). Jeszcze jedno - z założenia NIE LOGUJĘ się na wikipedii - dlatego najlepiej po prostu skomentuj na stronach dyskusji, bądź na mojej stronie dyskusji (jako admin muszę się tam logować...). W razie czego jest jeszcze mail: mattness@op.pl Pozdrawiam i z niecierpliwością czekam na opinię. mattness Wikifying Essays Hey Piotr, it's Jeff. I'd like to use this account from now on, and I wondered if you could help me contribute some of the essays I've written to the Wiki. I'll dig them up and start posting them on my user page. It would be great if you could take a look at them for me and give me ideas or whatever to get them into the wiki. Thanks! St. Liebowitz 15:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Hey, I noticed your comment about inline citations. Actually, there are fotnotes in all my essays, but I had to remove them when I converted to rich text. With a little work they could be put back in. St. Liebowitz 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC) DYK On November 13, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of the Border, 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 again for your many contributions bringing Poland to the rest of the world PiotrBlnguyen (bananabucket) 23:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Signpost updated for November 13th. The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery Volume 2, Issue 46 13 November 2006 About the Signpost Full accessibility, dramatic growth reported for Chinese Wikipedia ArbCom elections: Information on Elections Report identifies Wikipedia as a leader in non-US traffic News and notes: Board passes four resolutions, milestones Wikipedia in the News Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Kaczism problems Redirect pages blocked me from moving Kaczyzm to Kaczism. Thus I was forced to copy&paste it again. Additionally article was IPA corrected by me, thus reverting would waste new good changes in it. Please move old Kaczyzm history to Kaczism history.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikinger (talk • contribs) . Commons endanger Wikipedias Piotrus, as per this, please, as a courtesy, do not tag my images such that they are deleted from enwiki with the copy left in commons only. Commons, being largely ruled by copyright freaks represent a true danger for Wikipedia as those fellas change their rules as they see fit based on the whims of certain unsatisfied in the real life ambitions of becoming copyright lawyers or otherwise being in a position to tell others what to do. I can reasonably defend most images in en-wiki, whose whatchlist I check regularly, but if the image gets copied to commons, then (based on the copy being present in commons) deleted from enwiki, and then due to another twist of mind by Lupo or his likes becomes ineligible for commons and gets deleted, it becomes totally gone from wikispace and all info on the source becomes lost as well, since I don't keep local copies and lists of sources of all images I upload. As per this, each action of an image being copied to commons from Wikipedia thretens to reduce the amount of useful content rather than enriches that. If you need an image in Polish Wiki, make a local copy there as you see fit. Of course I cannot demand an exceptional treatment of images I upload since there is no policy that authorizes me to demand anything in connection with free license images but I hope you see the reasons of my request and will honor it as a courtesy to me. I have always viewed commons with suspicion due to the paranoiac attitudes that was prevalent there and mostly avoided uploading anything to commons. But nevertheless, due to the series of the catastrophes perpetrated by certain wannabe experts some of the images I uploaded to Wikipedia are lost forever as someone copied them to commons (with best intentions), someone else tagged them redundant after that, then someone yet else whimsically decided that the acceptable image is no more acceptable and deleted it from commons. To make a long story short, please do not do it if possible. --Irpen 06:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Correct me if I am wrong, but can't deleted images on enwiki be undeleted now? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC) They can. Of course you have to be an admin.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC) The problem is not an undeletion. The problem is tracking. If I see the image frivolously deleted, I can request an undeletion. But note that the deletion does not show up in the watchlist and the corpses of deleted images are removed from articles by bots in no time. I cannot possibly keep track of every image all the time. Irpen 00:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC) You know I share your sentiment on copyright paranoia, and I completely agree that the recent deletion of SovietPD can only be described as a catastrophe. Nonetheless I would like to think that eventually all images egligible for PD and other free licences will be nicely organized on Commons. I have found in the past that if an image is deleted from commons, a friendly admin can restore it so I can either correct the missing source/copyright info or take it to wiki for fair use. If I see your image, I will ask you before tagging it with NC in the future - but perhaps we can have some sort of a tag that sais 'although this image is in Commons, please leave a local copy here'? On another note, which version do you think is better: Image:German Soviet.jpg or Image:Germans and Soviets3.jpg?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC) I am afraid your solution is not universal. How do you know that images eligible for free license will remain eligible forever if the rules are changed on the whim by a certain cabal motivated by anything but the content (see my past comment). Additionally, commons rules may change to, say, allow only images that are free worldwide. How do you know then that what's PD in US is also PD in Fiji? Are you sure there are no countries with copyright terms of 300 years past the author's death. I cannot predict other possible twists in the minds of Lupo and his likes. The safest way is to avoid commons. If you want to play with it, it is your business. I only request that you do not endanger my images by copying them to commons. You are free to ignore my request as I don't own any of the images I uploaded. It is just a request for a personal favor. --Irpen 00:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) and DYK It was originally in the template, but due to the short right-hand side of the Main Page, I commented it out. It's still there (see the template wikicode), and I left a note at the time for the next updating admin to include it. Apologies for the trouble caused. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC) DYK On 16 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Laments (Treny), 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. --Allen3 talk 02:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Bad style? Hello. You wrote on my talk-page: Please don't link to other wikipedias like this; this is bad style. Most of those articles have articles on English wikipedia which are linked properly to Polish one - so please remove the :pl: links, and instead add English wikipedia links, like this. Thanks! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 02:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC) All I did is add links to where there was no links at all. In my oppinion active links (to a term explained in a foreign language) are better than nothing. I will check though if any of those terms are featured in the English Wikipedia. Poeticbent 03:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Właśnie sprawdziłem. Haseł tych nie ma w angielskiej Wikipedii. Pozdrawiam. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You searched for Sąd Najwyższy [Index] No page with that title exists. Poeticbent 03:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Poeticbent" Proszę usunąć moje aktywne linki samemu, jeżeli uważa je Pan za zbędne. Chciałem pomóc naszej stronie na ile byłem w stanie, bo spełnia ona rolę nie tylko informacyjną, lecz także pomocniczą. Kłaniam się Poeticbent 03:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Obawiam się, że nie zrozumiał Pan moich intencji. Proszę sprawdzić w angielskiej Wikipedii następujące hasła: Sąd Najwyższy Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny Trybunał Konstytucyjny Trybunał Stanu Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich Są to zwroty polskie, których nie ma w angielskiej Wikipedii, bowiem znajdują się tam wyłącznie ich angielskie tłumaczenia. Skoro podajemy polską wersję tych zwrotów, możemy podać także linki na strony, gdzie są one użyte w języku polskim. Jeżeli moja motywacja nie przekonuje Pana jednak, możemy wrócić do początku i uczynić te zwroty martwymi. Pozdrawiam Poeticbent 04:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Skoro twierdzi Pan, że „zwyczajowo” nie linkuje się polskich zwrotów do polskiej Wikipedii wobec tego pomogę Panu i usunę te linki sam. Jednocześnie zwracam uwagę, że nie istnieje możliwość użycia funkcji „Redirect” w wypadku zwrotu, który nie jest aktywny, jak pokazane przeze mnie polskie słowa z nawiasów. Poeticbent 04:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Proszę pójść na stronę i zobaczyć, które linki są, a których nie ma. Poeticbent 05:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Moje gratulacje. Sprawę linków uważam za zamkniętą. Poeticbent 05:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Image:Cover of book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.jpg I removed this image from The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and tagged it as replaced orphaned fair use, because there's already a PD image of the original edition's cover. No offense, but I think fair use images should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. If you disagree with my actions, please let me know. --Slowking Man 06:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC) I have replied to your message on my Talk page. --Slowking Man 08:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC) fr Pardon my french, mais mon anglais n'est pas terrible ;-) Ouis, pourquoi pas. Enfin, je peux rien promettre, surtout au niveau de la vitesse. Mais si tu a des idees, n'hesite pas a me signaler, de temps a l'autre. --Beaumont (@) 12:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Oh, Piotrus, I'm a native speaker of koalang ;-) I've seen your post there and I've already tried to respond to it positively ;-) As for userboxes - now you know me well and this is far enough ;-)--Beaumont (@) 17:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Yes, I know... Still hesitating, though. For example, someone could be surprised with what I declare ;-) More seriously, I see too much nationalism here and I prefer not to publish any personal stuff (there are some other reasons too). Many users do the same. Maybe when I get more accustomed to, I'll change my mind. :-) --Beaumont (@) 18:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC) BTW, If you speak my native language we could use it from time to time ;-) Probably, you're right. We'll see. Anyway I try to subscribe to this: Most people assume the fights are going to be the left versus the right, but it always is the reasonable versus the jerks (guess the source). Actually, nowadays, even German natives become "Polish nationalists" ;-) I think this will make you smile :-) Best, --Beaumont (@) 23:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC) ca y est. On verra bien ce que ca donne ;-) --Beaumont (@) 14:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC) More precisely, I've translated a fragment from frwiki. Otherwise, frwiki is not that much different from what can be found here. --Beaumont (@) 14:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Jan Muskata Just a comment about this bishop, as I just came across him in a book and then went to the wiki article. Robert Bartlett, in his award winning work, The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change, 950-1350, writes the following: "Racial animosities surfaced in a clear-cut form in the dispute between Archbishop Swinka and Bishop John of Cracow, which culminated in the bishop's suspension in 1308. The charges brought against the bishop, by members of his own chapter among others, include the accusation that 'he is attempting to expel the lord Wladyslaw, duke of Cracow, the true heir, from his land, and to expel the Polish people and to introduce aliens into their works and possessions'. He supposedly affirmed: 'If I cannot complete what I have begun and expel the Polish people, I would rather die than live'. A recurrent charge, raised by no less than ten of the witnesses in the commission of inquiry, was his failure to appoint Poles to ecclesiastical office: 'he does not promote the Polish people, but foreigners and Germans; 'he does not promote worthy Poles, saying that they are unfit for benefices'; 'he does not promote Poles born in the land but foreign Germans' ... 'he has placed virtually none but Germans in the church of Cracow'." (pp. 224-5, with notes on p. 267 giving the individual citations.) This presumably means he was not Polish, no, or not a Polish-speaking one at least (the article implies he was)? He certainly seems to be an interesting character, and this whole inquest looks like it would make an interesting article. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Kiev I will most surely fix redirs. I was goind to this right away, but decided to see how the talks go in Talk:Polish Expedition to Kiev. `'mikkanarxi 23:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Katyn censorship Dear Piotrus, thank you for your message. While we are at it, I want to mention to you that your censorship of Katyn pages does not look nice. In fact it made me think that the revisionist theory (that all documents were forged by KGB, trying to discredit Communism) is likely to be true. Otherwise there would not be any reason for anybody to censor it. I would not go into deletion wars with you, of course, but I will mention this to some people. Best regards Tiphareth 23:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC) DYK On 18 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Combat Organization of the Polish Socialist Party, 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. --Allen3 talk 01:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC) WikiProject Awards News There are several issues that the WikiProject needs to address. Do we need a coordinator (or more than one) to coordinate our efforts and act as an arbiter? Please place your thoughts here. Could someone work on archiving the talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Awards? Do we need to develop better guidelines for the Wikipedia:WikiProject awards? Finally, could you please weigh in on the following discussions so we can move them to conclusion: LGBT Barnstar Islamic Award Working Man’s Barnstar. Sincerely, --evrik (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Katyn Add link about stalin dying at 10 pm on march 5th 1953, under trivial, i do not see that, i suggest, you as a polish dude, brush up on your history.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.3.104 (talk • contribs) 16:43, November 18, 2006. Dear anon, please see Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Gaius Julius Et tu, Brute ... (...contra me?)Space Cadet 20:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 64.107.3.104 Thank you for taking action about this user. He edits from several IPs and has been a nusiance on the Yasser Arafat article for several days. --Strothra 21:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Please note that user is evading block by editing as 66.99.3.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). You can see the edit history of Yasser Arafat to see how the two are making the exact same edits in order to advance an edit war. He also edits as 66.99.3.172, 64.107.2.2, 66.99.1.109, 66.99.0.8, and 64.107.1.221. --Strothra 22:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Re: Drobna uwaga Proszę wybaczyć, ale „Talk page” jest jedynym prywatnym podwórkiem każdego Wikipedysty. To miejsce, gdzie sami decydujemy o wszystkim. Osobiście lubię mieć moją własną stronę czystą. Prawo to mam zagwarantowane regułami portalu. Oto odnośny cytat: “The [Wikipedia policy of non-removal] does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion…” See: Help Page Jedną z przyczyn mojej decyzji o nie zachowywaniu treści roboczych rozmów jest to, że rejestrowane są one przez wszystkie poszukiwarki (jak np. Google), co bardzo mnie irytuje. Poeticbent 10:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Mam nadzieję, że nie poczuł się Pan urażony moją raczej niestandardową postawą w tej sprawie. Zarazem dziękuję Panu za ładny wpis na mojej stronie na temat „contributions related to Poland”. Ten wpis pragnę sobie zachować w drodze wyjątku. Pozdrawiam Poeticbent 17:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Re: Prawo Wolność Tomku, oczywiście.--  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Prośba Mam prośbę. Nie wiem jak stworzyć odpowiedni link do artykułu, który stworzyłem. Tytuł artykułu brzmi: Career of Nicodemus Dyzma. Chciałbym aby linkował się on także z hasła: The Career of Nicodemus Dyzma. Z góry dziękuję za pomoc. Poeticbent 20:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Przepraszam za zamieszanie, ale sam nauczyłem się w międzyczasie, jak to zrobić. Wykorzystałem funkcję „move” dwukrotnie tak, aby tytuł powieści Tadeusza Dołęgi-Mostowicza linkował się z trzech alternatyw. Pozdrawiam raz jeszcze. Poeticbent 22:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Polish-Russian Wars OK, I created Template:Polish-Russian Wars (I took liberties with the name, hope you don't mind). It's kind of plain now, but we can work on that. Appleseed (Talk) 21:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Piotrus, would you want me to make another overall review specifically for you to explain why the incorrect usage of the M. word as a substitute for Russia is not just wrong but also offensive and POVish? I did that a couple of times, but I can do it for you again if you need such an overview. For now, compare Ukraine with Little Russia. --Irpen 03:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Please do (or provide a link to a place you did that); bear in mind I'd like to see a reference for that being offensive, and I'd expect that issue to be discussed in the article on Muscovy itself. For the record, I don't use this term to offend, and I think it's as applicable and non-offensive as using 'Polish-Lithuanian' for the times of PLC.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC) I am afraid, I cannot quickly come up with a bunch of English language sources here (will do if you insist) but the issue is very similar to the Little Russia/Ukraine terminological dispute. Both are proper when used in the right context and imporper and offensive when used in the wrong one. Part of the problem is the claim that the Rus-rooted term was usurped by the Moscow rulers, whose state and its successors (including the modern RU empire and even modern Russa) has nothing to do with Kievan Rus legacy, which whole and fully belongs to Ukraine and, perhaps, Belarus, while the Muscovites are not even East Slavs, but have originated from ... (pick the version you like: Mongols from the east, Finno-Ugric tribes of the north, frogs and snakes from the swamps, etc.) It is not uncommon at the Ukrainian nationalist web-sites to not ever encounter the word "Russian people" or "Russian government", but only "the Muscovites" or the "Muscovite authorities". Similarly, using Little Russia interchangeable to the Left-bank Ukraine in the context of the 18th and most of the 19th century (and earlier), reflects the proper usage. Using the term Little Russian as a substitute of Ukrainian language in the later context, is not just improper but is often done on purpose to imply that such language does not exist. --Irpen 04:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Beware of false friends. For example, Polish moskal is offensive and derives from Moskwa (Polish for Moscow) - but that doesn't mean Muscovite, deriving from Muscovy, has the same derogatory meaning in English. If you have refs to prove that it does I will immediatly stop using it, otherwise I will stick with what seems to be majority of English academics.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Dwie rzeczy do naprawy Gratuluje szybkieko opanowania "move", dwie rzeczy o ktorych trzeba pamietac: avoid Wikipedia:Double redirects use Wikipedia:Categories -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Dzięki. Poeticbent 03:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Niestety nic z tego nie rozumiem. How to fix a double redirect Suppose page title A redirects to B which in turn redirects to C. Follow a link to A. You will see a page containing: (a) the page title B; (b) a large link to C; (c) a very small notice in the corner saying "redirected from A". Click the "A" in "redirected from A". You will see a page containing: (a) the page title A; (b) a large link to B. Click "Edit this page" and change B to C. Pozdrawiam Poeticbent 04:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Prosze klinkac na Career of Nicodemus Dyzma i zobaczyc gdzie ta strona nas zaprowadzi.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Zrobione. "Double redirect" jest poprawiony. Poeticbent 14:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Recovered Territories Should I understand that your concept is in English speaking counties the possession of Recovered Territories by Poland is not accepted? If so check the atlas. In English speaking counters the term Recovered Territories can be unknown, but the territories are accepted as integral part of Poland. Do not put together the attitude of English speaking countries in the same sentence with German attitude. It equalize some Germans arrogance with lack of knowledge in USA, for example. Andrew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.183 (talk • contribs) 12:30, November 20, 2006. I am sorry, I don't understand your post, could you work on the grammar and style? I gather English is not your native language?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC) DYK nom Did you know? was updated. On 20 November, 2006, a fact from the article Muscovite-Lithuanian Wars, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. --GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Block Hi Piotrus, could you block User:209.57.92.138, who has been warned and blocked many times. He recently vandalized Kingdom of Poland (1320–1385). Appleseed (Talk) 19:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks. And by the way, I'd be interested to hear from you here. Appleseed (Talk) 22:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Announcements Why do I have to do all the work? ;-{ I wish other people would tweak this and announce it. Septentrionalis 21:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)