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 15. 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), Archive 13 (moved 28 October, 2006), Archive 14 (moved 27 December, 2006), Archive 15 (moved 4 February, 2007)

Have seen worse days. Reasons for my raising wikistress: Average levels of trolling by few users... Wikipedia is a kawaii mistress :) If you have come here to place a request for a re-confirmation of my adminship, please note that I will either: seek community approval of my adminship through an RfC; (no consensus = no change) choose to take the matter to ArbComm; resign my powers and stand again for adminship; at my discretion once the "six editors in good standing" count has been met using my own criteria and the matter concerns my admin powers rather than a non-admin editing concern. Remember, this is a voluntary action, and does not preclude an RfC or RfAr being initiated by others, should others feel they have no recourse. My "good standing" criteria include a) the requirement that if the user is calling for recall is an admin, the admin must themselves have been in this category for at least a week. b) the requirement that the user should be neutral towards my person. This means that if a user is or has been involved in a DR procedure with me as a party, I doubt that user is neutral and I reserve the right to not count this editor as "an editor in good standing" in this case. Hint: it's easy to find a neutral party, like mediators - if you can convince them you are right... c) I reserve the right to impose additional criteria in the future. I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms. A misunderstanding In your list of Poles you have listed two different people called Józef Bielawski. Now you have a link to Józef Bielawski because I have created an article about him. The problem is that I have created an article about Józef Bielawski - the Islamic scholar and not about Józef Bielawski - the violinist, or Józef Bielawski - the writer. I suggest we create a disambiguation page to solve this problem. Kkrystian 15:25 (UTC) 16 January 2007 Law and Justice, German National People's Party Witam! Proszę spojżec na historię tych artykułów. Moim zdaniem User:Deutscher Patriot powinien zostac przynajmniej ostrzeżony przez admina lub zablokowany(jestem za). Proszę o reakcję. Pozdrawiam. Medard Expandable toolbox buttons? I know you like replies on your talk page (the "new messages" comment at the top tells me that). But just putting the reply here always feels a little odd and stops the conversation flow. So I've done the next best thing and added a message to tell you that a reply can be found next to your query on my talk page. If you'd like be to always put the full reply here let me know. --MarkS (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC) I have added a reply to your original question on my talk page. I have now created a version of XEB for testing (ie. I won't keep changing it) which (I believe) covers your request. This Test version is available for you to have a look at if you wish. More details on my talk page. --MarkS (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Social Darwinism At 05:15 on 26 January 2007, as your edit summary states, you moved Social Darwinism to Social darwinism: no need to capitalize. This move appears to have been made without first placing move or merge tags on the article, and the talk page has not been moved, causing some confusion. All the references I've checked use the capitalised form, which is consistently used in the article: going through the first 100 in a google search, the uncapitalised varsion is used by one "History 203 lecture list" with a generally eccentric approach to capitals, Evowiki which dispenses with the capital in the title but uses it in the article, and two chat type pages [1] [2]. Doesn't seem to me like much usage, and the page is now inconsistent. Any evidence that we shouldn't move the title back? .. dave souza, talk 10:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks, your willingness to have it changed back is appreciated. Sorry I missed the earlier discussion, and I must admit to having reverted some vandalism on the page without noticing that the title had changed. Anyway, though it's not obvious, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents section concludes that "Philosophies, theories, doctrines, and systems of thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper noun:", and so Darwinism as deriving from the proper noun "Darwin" always begins with a capital letter, even when preceded by "social". I've changed back a page move in the past, but don't have much experience of it: is this something you'd prefer to do yourself? Thanks for your helpfulness, .. dave souza, talk 20:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Your removal of information Probably you "missed" it, but the word, which you and your close ally user:Lysy, trying to remove [3] [4] is directly referenced by English sources. M.K. 13:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC) So, may question - why are you deleting referenced formulation? M.K. 13:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Can you explain how third party English source can be not neutral? And how did you come to this conclusion? And such formulation, which was removed, is not limited with one EN source. BTW, i can't asses you link because it shows only summary. M.K. 10:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC) I still waiting for answers. M.K. 09:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Notes in small print I have a question - how to make a list of notes, or references (like at the end of the Poland prehistory article I'm working on) make appear in small print? Also how to have a date and time automatically appended to the signature (like the one below)? Orczar Re:My monobook.js Thanks for the note. I wasn't aware of the category problem (and it looks like I'm not the only one). I believe I fixed it (don't see my page in the category anymore), but if you see any problems, don't hesitiate to tell me. Gavia immer (u|t) 17:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC) mono Done. I didn't notice that. Thanks. lijealso 10:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC) link http://nasz-czas.tripod.com/317/czas3.html Request for Mediation A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jogaila. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly. This message delivered: 16:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC). Spellings You're quite right. I can't tell you how unintuitive such names are to me (after being a good speller all my life, I now turn out to be dyslexic in Polish!). I have been making offline changes to the map already, actually (I somehow left out Kaunas altogether), but it will be one of the last things I add, in case some more blunders reveal themselves in the meantime. For the N place, MK suggested Navahrudak; Calgacus suggested Novogrudok. I presume the first is Belarusian and the second Russian. Which of those two do you think would be more appropriate? (I made an innocent mistake in using the Polish version and was suspected of Polish POV! Me, who can't even spell Dobrzyń!) qp10qp 20:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC) An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Władysław Wejtko, was selected for DYK! On February 8, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Władysław Wejtko, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 22:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Re: Honestly, I am not interested in this and to be honest with you, when you hear "Czech legion" or something like this, think about several dozen of people :), not thousands. ;) Cz historiography very like exaggerating such things. - Darwinek 21:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Wow! Wyjątki się zdarzają :). Gdybyś kiedy wybierał się na Zaolzie, to daj wiedzieć, tak na marginesie. - Darwinek 21:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Thingummyjig Either Jagello or Jagiello would be fine, although if you were aiming for a vote, I suspect that Jagiello would get the "use English" votes. I'm not sure any of the other ones fill me with boundless enthusiasm. The two you mention have the advantage that they should both be recognisable to anyone whose national mythology the subject forms part of, without actually using a myth-specific name. Thanks for submitting Salmson 2 and Aeroplanes Voisin for T:DYK. I decided to submit a couple of "articles for creation" ones I'd seen and some other odds and ends. We can't have the DYK bit entirely filled with Central/East European stuff written by you, Irpen, and Halibutt... As for whether Poland is in Central or Eastern Europe, the answer is "Yes, it is". Hope that helps! Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC) I would accept either, and would be interested to see Shilkanni's evidence that Jagello is better Latin. As Angus predicts, I would prefer Jagiello, because it seems to be more common in English; but I was thinking of proposing Jagello myself, because it's somebody else's first choice. It also has the advantage of giving everybody (but Shilkanni) something to gain from Mediation, which may mean that the next attempt won't be torpedoed. (And if that doesn't work, how about a move to "What-his-name"? ;-> "Thingummyjig" is just so British.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Other names would be at best marginally acceptable, and I forget where I drew the line; there was an approval poll one or two WP:RM's back. I am willing to tolerate Jogaila, but I don't like it; I might feel the same about Ladislaus or Wladyslaw. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Polish First Army Unit InfoBox added! W. B. Wilson 08:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Jarosław Kaczyński I have reverted your edit to the talk page of this article, and I must say your edit summary was rather misleading. you said "rm {{LGBTProject|class=start}} per talk and article content (nothing to support it". I see nothing in the talk to indicate consensus was achieved regarding the tagging of this article, only the placement of the subject in the LGBT category, which is an entirely different matter. He clearly falls within the scope of our project due to the irrational, homophobic statements he has made--statements which were removed from the article in the last whitewash, but which I have reinserted. I would ask that sourced statements not be removed from articles, so as not to create a POV article, which is what was happening on this one. Jeffpw 08:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Sci-fi Niestety, nie przypominam sobie takiego filmu/serialu. Jestem jeszcze stosunkowo młody a takie kawałki były wyświetlane niemal tylko za komuny. Teraz ludzie patrzą na to jako na śmieszne socjalistyczne eksperymenty, więc nie ma ich w telewizji. Przypominam sobie tylko jeden słynny sci-fi film, gdzie bohaterzy przenoszą się w przeszłość, żeby zatrzymać Hitlera. To chyba jedyny taki czeski kawałek wyświetlany w obecnych czasach w TV. - Darwinek 10:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Afaik that movie is "Zitra rano vstanu a oparim se cajem" ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Ciao If I asked you some translation from Polish (don't know when or what, simply I wrote some articles on Polish rulers, from... French. Can't imagine the fatigue!!) wikipedia, can you help me? Bye and good work. --Attilios 10:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC) RE: Dziwne pytanie :) (Darwinek's page) I think it should be a series "Navstevnici" (Visitors), check this site [5]. But they are visitors from the future not from the space. And that paste seems to be "Amarouny" - you put that to the dish to a couple of tablets and it will create some kind of gelatine. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 11:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC) You should have it :) See Návštěvníci (TV series) (redirect Navstevnici and other official names). I am a fan of the old TV series. Including polish two - Czterej pancerni i pies and Stawka wieksza niz zycie and the greatest movie ever - Seksmisja :-D ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 08:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Cheers Thanks for your note, Piotrus. I've still a bit to do at Jagiello, chasing up the remaining points raised at FAC. I fear that only medieval, preferably late medieval, topics float my boat when it comes to history, though I did help copy-edit Finnish Civil War. To be honest, I'm so atrociously slow that I'm not looking beyond my interrupted project Anton Chekhov, which I'll move back to after finishing up at Jg. I must say, your Witold Pilecki is a wonderful article: what a guy! Keep up your good work. qp10qp 01:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC) An article which you started, or significantly expanded, H. Cegielski - Poznań S.A., was selected for DYK! On February 12, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article H. Cegielski - Poznań S.A., which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 03:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Rejs Greetings, Proconsol. I have a request: please check out a raging debate over at the Rejs talk page regarding the proper reference for the name of the article on Poland's greatest work of cinematography. Oh, and I enjoyed the Witold Pilecki article as well - what a story! Many thanks, Benzamin 17:15, 12 February 2007 UTC Your DYK nomination for Włodzimierz Steyer was successful Did you know? was updated. On February 12, 2007, a fact from the article Włodzimierz Steyer, 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. Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 23:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC) On February 13, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stanislav Poplavsky, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. Thanks again Piotrus. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007. The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 7 12 February 2007 About the Signpost US government agencies discovered editing Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation Board recapitulates licensing policy principles WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing" News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones 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 05:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Translation request File:Ordemilitar.gif Hiya, I'm currently working on the Knights Templar article, trying to get it to GA status, and I'd like to use an image from the Polish Wikipedia. Could you please translate its description for me? Thanks, Elonka 09:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Re: Zamówienie na szablon Done, but I'm beginning to wonder if we need all these templates that simply mirror categories. I'm not sure if the little extra information they contain, such as chronology, is worth the effort of creating and maintaining them. I find it more useful when templates present an interesting theme or category subset (e.g. Template:Polish statehood). I think some serious pruning is in order. Appleseed (Talk) 15:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Polish obscenity? I gather from the dictionary that this edit contains a slightly denatured obscene insult in Polish. The poster has denied this on my Talk page, so I am wondering if there is some slang usage unknown to me which would make this civil discourse. If so, what does it mean? If there isn't, would you be willing to co-sign an RfC? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC) It is possible that the misspelling was part of the point; he insists on "official" names, which is why he was on Talk:Tenedos in the first place/ Leaving off the slash may be irony about the spellings preferred in English, like Wladislaw. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Hungary 1848 Dzien dobry, Piotrus, and dziekuje for posting on the Hungarian noticeboard about 1848! You're absolutely right that we need an article on that event--it was a momentous event in Hungary's history and one of the most significant (certainly the fiercest) revolutions of 1848. I'm still technically on wikibreak, but I was planning to start a 48 article as soon as I return (in 2 weeks, or thereabouts.) It reminds me, a couple months back I bounced some ideas around with Alensha about trying to set up some sort of informal "alliance" (oh, all right, a cabal) :) of Polish and Hungarian Wikipedians, sort of like a wikiproject but not as organized. :) I just figured that since Poland and Hungary have traditionally been friends and so much of Central-Eastern European history involves both, there could be potential for a very fruitful collaboration here. What do you think? Polak, Węgier, dwa bratanki, i do szabli, i do szklanki! :) K. Lásztocska 03:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Waldemar Matuska Tag Hi, could you please check this [6] Consensus was already set but some disputors ignore that and keep adding accuracy tag on the page. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 08:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Stop right now Do not come back at me and warn me for something that was discussed and taken care of in the past. Should you try to push this issue, you will be reported. Your call. You state that my words were only 'partially correct' and you also state that you are not involved in this matter. Next time do your research, and find out that this issue was already handled. Therefore, you cannot come back and issue out late warnings as you did. As far as translation for confirmation, the translation is incorrect because there was not a proper usage of terminology. The irony is that Pmanderson can do all the intelligent insults and slandering without warning. An admin - Newyorkbrad - has informed both myself and Pmanderson to cease and move on. I have done so, it seems that Pmanderson will not. I will not stand for being slandered, nor will I accept accusations. Pmanderson needs to back down and move on to better edits, as I chose to do. Rarelibra 14:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)