User talk:Piotrus/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14

Contents

copyrigth

Czesc pan Piotrek, Im Thorek Sekuterski/Sredzinski Herby Leliwa.

I want to make a commercial book about Polish Nobility. I would like to use sources from wikipedia.org like example the text about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miko%C5%82aj_Hieronim_Sieniawski

Mikołaj Hieronim Sieniawski (1645-1683) was a Polish noble (szlachcic), military leader, politician.

Son of the starost of Lwów Adam Hieronim Sieniawski and Wiktoria Elżbieta Potocka, the daughter of Hetman Stanisław "Rewera" Potocki. He married in 1662 the daughter of Court and Grand Marshal Prince Aleksander Ludwik Radziwiłł, Princess Cecylia Maria Radziwiłł.


Leliwa Coat of ArmsHe was Grand Guardian of the Crown since 1644, Great Chorąży of the Crown since 1668, Court Marshall of the Crown since 1676, starost of Lwów since 1679, voivode of Volhynian Voivodship since 1679, Field Crown Hetman since 1682 and starost of Radom, Rohatyn, and Piaseczno.

He became famous as a talented commander in wars against Cossacks and Tatars during the reign of King Jan II Kazimierz. In the rank of a Chorąży he companioned Jan Sobieski in the Chocim expedition.

He was Marshal of the Coronation Sejm on March 2 - March 14, 1676 in Kraków.

Like his son Adam Mikołaj, he participated in the Vienna expedition of 1683.


My version in my book is edited, modified or changed and shortend also i will use the photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mikolaj_Hieronim_Sieniawski_%281645-1683%29.jpg


since all this history information is provided by users often anonymus and without sources i may use them? Im also using Boniecki and Niesiecki as source. Will there be a publishng problem with my commercial book?

Jenki for for yout pomoc Piotrek... Thorek Sekuterski/Sredzinski Sweden I would apreciate if the answer is sent to my email: Thoreks@Hotmail.com Jenki Pan.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.180.104.200 (talkcontribs) User:193.180.104.200, 09:03, September 8, 2006 (UTC)

Please accept my apology

with reference to your following comment : //It is proposed that this article be deleted, because of the following concern:

Hoax/vandalism, one google hit, creator vandalised two other articles replacing them with this content.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus //

Dear Sir, I didn't comitted the above action itentionaly/knowingly. All I wanted to do was to submit a new article about a very important but lesser know warrior clan of India, I thought that edited page will not replace the original one but will be "saved as". Please let me assure you that such mistake will not be repeated in future. I couldn't understood your comment "one google hit" . Please explain. If it is a fault than it may have done unknowingly.

 Please don't delete the article titled as : "Mall Sainthwar Rajputs" a warrior race of India.

Thanks Yours faithfully Shalendra Singh email : Singh_shalendra06@yahoo.co.in India

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalendrasingh (talkcontribs) 13:23, October 10, 2006

Regarding verification of the article "Mall Sainthwar Rajputs"

At present I am unable to give you the reference of any English book which affirms to this because this article has been taken from hidi books which i will let you no soon. present reference on google search you may see is http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/RAJPUT_Mall_Sainthwar/

rgards shalendra

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalendrasingh (talkcontribs) 04:55, October 12, 2006

evewiki

hey can you give me a convo / evemail ingame (PreTender) about the evewiki admin place—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.169.89 (talkcontribs)

Mining Guide

Hi,

the mining guide was my first post here on wiki and im not the author. i only copied it from the eve-online forum and fixed some calculations. sure id like to help building "the" wiki mining guide. english is not my mother tongue, so my words will be simple :) u should ask Halada via eve mail, he is the original author of this guide and wants to make a guide on his own homepage.

i also made a nice spreadsheed to calculate the mining yield with all the bonuses. u may take a look: http://www.andreas-brandt.de/eve/mining/index.html

u can send me eve mail or mail me here at wiki, ill check it regularely.

Karodnotos

Dzień Dobry!

Dzień dobry! Mam pytanie w sprawie Pańskiego artykułu pt. "List of Poles" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus/List_of_Poles/Rutowicz-Schreiber ). Znalazł się tam mój pradziadek (Stefan Sabiniewicz nr 356 1904-1971, farmaceuta) i brat dziadka ( Stefan Sabiniewicz nr 357 1935 - 1985 inżynier chemik). Chciałbym się dowiedzieć, czemu ich Pan tam umieścił, i jakie były kryteria umieszczania. Byłbym bardzo wdzięczny za odpowiedź. Pozdrawiam Jakub Rokicki

Signpost updated for October 16th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 42 16 October 2006 About the Signpost

Wikipedia partially unblocked in mainland China $100 million copyright fund stems discussion
Floyd Landis adopts "the Wikipedia defense" as appeal strategy News and notes: Logo votes begin, milestones
Wikipedia in the news Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line 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 18:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Solidarity

Hello, thanks for the message. I am, just like you are, also not a native speaker of English, but will try to take a look at the article again if you'd like (although it'd really be best if a native speaker did it). As for the references, yes, thanks, that what bothered me appears to have been resolved. --Ouro 19:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

History of S

Thanks for your message. Sure, I have had intention to do so. Still, I'm thinking of a nice rationale (and I'm leaving for tommorow, so I'll not be there before friday). Hope, we have still some time left. Best --Beaumont (@) 11:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, just a minute, please ;) --Beaumont (@) 15:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
... I guess I've missed it. I intended to vote. I'm so sorry for a very bad timing :( Actually, it is only now that I realize the (negative) decision was made yesterday. I was offline (on a trip). I could have done it before. I didn't think it goes so quickly. Really sorry. BTW, on the FAC list there are some older articles, which is relatively surprising. Nevertheless, I put my vote. --Beaumont (@) 19:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

from wikipedia to the classroom

Hi Piotr! Glad you liked the paper. I agree that contributing to Wikipedia is a great learning experience. Like I mentioned at Wikimania, though, there are a few reasons why Wikipedia isn't always the ideal writing enviornment for students. One of the problems is that high school students learning about very basic biology concepts, for example, don't have much room to write anymore on Wikipedia. The goal for learning is the collaborative, public writing experience, not the production of a single artifact; the goal for the Wikipedia community is obviously the artifact. Students also can't use primary material from their lab work, upload datasets, etc, to support their writing on Wikipedia. Although it may not be as critical in science as in humanities, students sometimes need to have room to write POV material and refine it, etc, without being shot down. Finally, I wonder if the Wikipedia community would really be that much better off for my dumping in classrooms full of high school students who don't necessarily want to be there and asking them to edit for a grade...

That said, the students who use Science Online as a learning environment are certainly be encouraged to write on Wikipedia as well! It is going fine, we just started a small study with 15 students a couple weeks ago. :-) I'd love to hear more about how you use Wikipedia in the classroom if you make your paper available. --Andicat 11:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

new Poland article

Roman Odzierzyński. Hope you can turn it into a proper stub. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Bereishit FAC

You have not replied to the Bereishit (parsha) for four days now. Could you please either withdraw your objection or reply to my point please? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 18:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

One Google Hit Explained

  1. Please note that Indian History is not found in the net in the same magnitude as European or American History.
  2. Also most of the Indian magazines (dailies, weeklies) do not have a online version.
  3. Another factor is that the vernacular (Hindi, Tamil etc) magazines use different fonts and is not searchable by Google
  4. Another problem is the use of different spelling for the same name. For example, my town is referred to as Tuticorin, Thoothukudi, Thoothukkudi, தூத்துக்குடி etc. You can get the complete picture only if you search all these. Even then since most of the matter is not online, you may not even get one hit

If something does not turn up in Google, it does not mean that it is non-notable for the above reasons.  Doctor Bruno  00:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

More on it

Please note that the Google test is totally useless for India related topics. I am very sure about this, but most of the europeans and americans are not able to understand this

Then, I am very much convinced that the votes there are NOT SOCKPUPPETS, but made by persons from that community who are not able to understand the wikipedian rules

I agree that it is terribly formatted, but that is not a criteria for deletion. When American villages with population less than 1000 can have an article, why not an article for a community which has more people  Doctor Bruno  12:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On October 18, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fighting Solidarity, 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.

Hi. Could you do the necessary tweaks to the Georgian Indepdence treaty please? Also, do you know why Bravad quit? That makes me very upset.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On October 20, 2006, a fact from the article Mury (song), 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.

Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Decency

Piotrus, I have not spoken with you for months, but this edit is beyond the pale. Please don't do this again. Thanks, Ghirla -трёп- 08:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus would understand if his article, say History of Solidarity, or any other one was moved to Polish propaganda or images of his favored AK army were deleted with similar summaries. Those soldiers, not just Russian, btw, but also Ukrainian, Georgian, Jewish, gave their lives while ridding Europe from the Nazism. Since the time I've heard Piotrus responding to the discussion of this at the article's talk with the jokes about watches, I am not surprised by such edits supplied with such summaries. I thought I would be able to take this stuff less emotionally next time. I overestimated myself though. It still hurts. Thanks for the lesson. --Irpen 08:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As the Łódź (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) history's shows, the picture is deemed dubious/controversial/inappopriate by quite a few editors, so please stop adding this Soviet propaganda photo to this article. Nobody is denying the SU role in defeating the Nazism, unfortunatly, you seem to be blind to what follows.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If "quite a few" means you and Lysy, this is just ain't enough to call it a consensus... And honestly, this stubborn resistance is pretty much meaningless. This photograph was not staged (unless you can prove the contrary), so it depicts a real event. That its coverage of the event may not be exhaustive is another problem, but in no way a reason to remove it... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you have proof it was not staged? On a discussion page somewhere we already noted that some of the 'civilians' are dressed in Russian uniforms. Anyway, I think there is no need to force those controversial photos into the articles about cities, feel free to use them in articles about WWII battles and such.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The proof needs to be that it was staged, not the other way around. The picture is properly sourced. --Irpen 07:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I must add to what EED wrote at Alex' talk that two more users are probably in line for being commended by you as well for their racist atta.. er-r-r, good humored jokes. One is an ex-Ghirla stalker turned Irpen-stalker for this edit. Another one is your good old friend who made this inoffensive edit. Give them both their barnstars, Piotrus. Why not? --Irpen 07:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Decency II

Indeed, there are good ways and bad ways. The good ways do not work and anyone is free to slander my good name and insist on even the most absurd claims. The bad ways do not work either, but at least they are refreshing. Anyway, the matter is closed now and I'm not going to write any more articles on known Lithuanians, except perhaps for expanding the articles on Lechas Valensas and Marija Konopnickiene. //Halibutt 00:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

More DYKs

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 20 October, 2006, a fact from the article Treaty of Moscow (1920), 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.

--ALoan (Talk) 13:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Template

You're right, it is. I was editing someone's talk page and saw the full code of the template instead of the template name in braces, so I thought maybe you were cutting and pasting the whole thing. Appleseed (Talk) 14:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure it's big enough? I'm afraid they might miss it. :-) Appleseed (Talk) 14:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

re:Prosba

I don't know if your Polish is good, so I'll write slowly :P

nie ma sprawy, choć nie obiecuję (mogę po prostu zapomnieć), ale o ile będe pamiętać – nie ma sprawy!

Szczur Zosia 07:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Adminowie

Już mam polski noticeboard w swoim watchliście. Z tymi adminami to ciekawa sprawa. Wymień proszę, którzy adminowie są z Polski (oprócz ciebie). Ilu adminów jest Polaków, ale nie z Polski, to inna sprawa. Jak wiesz, ja jestem Polakem, ale z Zaolzia, więc odpadam z kategorii polscy adminowie z Polski. Nie jestem tego pewien, ale myślę, że jestem tutaj na en wiki pierwszym adminem z Rep. Cz.. To byłoby fantastyczne, Czesi nic o nas nie wiedzą, ale pierwszy admin z RC byłby Polakiem :)). A co du ruskich, jestem przekonany, że nawet artykuł o kuchni polskiej nie przeszedłby. Trzymaj się. - Darwinek 16:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate a translation of this communication. Thanks, Ghirla -трёп- 17:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Translation requested --Irpen 06:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sure Darwinek will translate it for you if you ask him.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, even though Piotrus does not want to translate, I understood it. Leaving the issue of adminship aside, I find the statement that those Russians would commit themselves to derailment of the articles even about the Polish kitchen rather inapropriate. The problem with articles Piotrus tries to get a FA label is that they are overloaded with Politics and he manages to do that even to the articles about the Polish arts, such as Renaissance in Poland claiming Russia's owing its cultural development to the the culture transmitted to it from Poland. --Irpen 21:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
For which we have references. But of course anybody who claims that Poland might have done something good and Russia not so good instantly becomes a Polish pov pusher, even if his book is published by Cambridge or Oxford... I am sorry Irpen, but I used to think you were a reasonable contributor. Unfortunatly it seems increasingly you see everything in white and black colors; it's hard to discuss anything anymore with you.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem are not the facts themselves, but the way you present them. No, nothing is black or white, it's just that sometimes, you (or other people) present them as being so, such as depicting, quite Reagan-ishly, as "bad" (e.g. the USSR) and "good" (e.g. Poland) And the other problem is the style you sometimes use, "nicyfying" one camp and "demonizing" the other. One very nice example would be the way you depict the PRP. Sure, that wasn't the best place in this crappy world, but depicting it as something that did only bad things is (a lot of) POV.
I'm not going to discuss the Renaissance in Poland because I don't know the article, but if you take, on Russian Enlightenment, the famous paragraph that you inserted and the one I finally came up with... You recognized yourself that all important information was kept, your version however, was plagued with stuff such as "ironically", "magnificent", "pearl" and so on. Maybe balancing your style could help to alleviate the problem? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Grafikm, I have stated in many places that just like anybody, I am not neutral. It is impossible for anyone to be truly neutral, and WP:NPOV states that very thing. Yes, my Polish POV can be certainly seen in some of my edits, I am well aware of that and I don't object to people pointing that out and correcting it; on the contrary, I invite this, as I did in this FAC, where I replied to your comments, addressing most (I hope), and when I invited you to provide further ones. What I have the problem is are some users who instead of offering constructive criticism like you tend to, accuse me of spreading propaganda, are immune to any possiblity they are not neutral, while spreading their POV, for which they fail to provide any references... This kind of behaviour is not only annoying, it damages our articles, and this is not good. And note also that Irpen's objection (let's not talk about Ghirla's, it's rather pathetic) does not criticize specific facts or style; he deems the entire topic unencyclopedic, a 'fork', a 'propaganda', and lo and behold, his two main content objectiosn are 1) unrelated to the article (he criticizes Świerczewski's article) and 2) that I dare to claim Solidarity contributed to the fall of communism (and of course, I have refs, he doesn't, but that doesn't bend his belief in his infallibility...). Last but not least, consider that I have written several FAs about Polish-Russian controversial topics. Could I really 'sneak' a propaganda piece several times? Through FA process? Sorry, but such accusations are either stemming from bad faith or a sudden laps of intelligence.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, first, a majority of your FAs are indeed devoid of criticism, even those about non-controversial events (I'm thinking of Warsaw Uprising, for one thing). And by the way, I did not opposed the FA (just commented its flaws). So don't jump the gun too quickly...
However, some things are by definition beyond referencing, and some things in politics are among them. If we take the partitions of Poland, for instance, you can reference every fact 5 times from different academic sources that will agree with each other - no problem with POV or something. What happens next, though, is an opinion about the event. But there is no such thing as "bad" and "good" in politics (especially if you consider the times we're talking about). Countries played games, attacked each other, made allies, made ennemies, then became allies again and so on. There is no "good" and "bad" there.
With History of Solidarity, the problem is quite similar. No one (or at least not me) questions your references. However, your text is altered by the fact that you look at these events from the point of view of an Occidental educated person. And the picture you get from reading the article is that the Polish communist governement was inherently evil and (by definition) those who fought it as inherently good. And that's a lot more difficult. Your former FAs were on controversial subjects, that's true, but these were military subjects. POV or not, you cannot push issues too much (one way or another). When talking about internal fights, things are quite different... I don't know all of your FAs by heart (there's too many of them), but it seems to me you're dealing with such a delicate subject for the first time, so there might be some adjustments to do... I'll recheck the HoS article for sure... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
And certainly any article written mostly by one person will have style and opinion problems. I tried to avoid putting my personal slant on the article, but as I wrote above, I realize it is impossible. What is needed to truly address this problem - and I say this a based on my past experiences in editing FAs to neutrality - is for editors like you, to go through the article and comment on POV issues (or, what is nice, edit it yourself). That said, I don't think there is much difference between military articles and internal strife or biographies or whatever. They all suffer from the same POV problems and all can be improved in the same way. Last but not least, please note one other issue: in the FAC the only people who commented on the POV were users of Russian POV. Which is good: to achieve NPOV we must address concerns of all involved parties. But again, there is a difference between constructive criticism you are providing (in other words, pointing specific problems that can be fixed), and objecting on some abstract terms of 'propaganda' or 'unencyclopedic topic'. I know you did not object. I wouldn't mind if you did, you have specific, actionable comments. Irpen and Ghirla did not - they just acted like 'naysayers'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now I am called 'a naysayer'. I wonder what offense will come next but back to the issue. "Unencyclopedic" is a valid objection. Article's being filled with propaganda (I did not say it about this article btw) would also be a valid objection. I did not follow all your FAC nominations. I can only comment on those I was involved with to some extent. Pilsudski indeed suffered from terrible POV problems and I was not alone at pointed that out. PSW and PMW were FA voted without a single Russian/Ukrainian editor taking part. I bet the nomination would have been more difficult for those articles that to this day suffer from excessive polonophile POV. You say that ridding articles from POV can be achieved by editors going through them and correcting them towards NPOV. Note that this is exactly what I've done many times with PSW and how I was howled by your friends for that. This is exactly why I gave up on Polish topics except for the articles that touch on the topics that are of my consern. This is exactly why I did not even try to NPOV Pilsudski after I commented on its deficiences during an attempt to FA it. I simply do not have time for endless arguing and edit warring with your friends. But when such articles are attempted to be FAed I must take into account the possibility of 24-hour exposure on the mainpage. I object to POVed articles being there, that's all. Write an article about Polish kitchen, as Darwinek suggested. You will see absolutely no POV-based objections there, unless of course, it will say something like Ukrainians being tought to cook exquisite dishes by Poles. --Irpen 01:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It was Ghirla who called it propaganda. You just called it a 'unnecessary POV fork'. PSW was coauthored by a major Russian article's contributors AND an academic at one of the western universities, User:172 - sadly not very active in the recent months. Thank you for clarifying that you intend not to help NPOV the article, simply object to it and similar ones being FAed. It's always good to know who is willing to help and who is not.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Russian and Ukrainian editors started to work on PSW way too late. It was already an FA and I am de-POVing it for months already despite the enormous resistance. 172 did try to take a go through this article, but unfortunately he did not have enough time. The article has indeed gone through partial NPOVing lately (Polish war crimes in Ukraine well documented by the witness memoirs are still not covered) and it is very dificult to work on this article due to an enormous resistance. As for my "not willing" to help with Pilsudski and Solidarity, you are wrong again. I am willing but unable to because adding each peace of info to those articles takes so much effort that I feel helpless and persistence would require all the time I have here. Only if the article touches the topics of my primary concern (PSW, KO), I am willing to go through this. Pilsudski and Solidarity are not among such topics. I let them stay as POVed as they are except when they are attempted to get FAed because I care about Wikipedia's reputation and nothing can hurt it more in the eyes of a stranger who sees a POV article being called "one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community." --Irpen 01:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The article was given a throughout edit by User:172 before it even became an FA. I see no reason to repeat myself and comment on your giant POV about 'good Russia helps Ukraine, bad Poland hurts Ukraine' which you attempt to insert into every article under the guise of NPOVing; the fact that I use English academic sources and you rely on Ukrainian popular press (Zerkado...) is a testament enough to how POVed each of us really are.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
It is forgivable to forget things from such a long ago history but after 172 made his last edit, the article underwent a very extensive editing by yourself and Halibutt. You may remember that it even included the incredible "It was a sad day for Ukrainians..." paragraph about the Poles having to leave Kiev (very NPOV, also a copyvio, btw). As for Zerkalo article (and I said that to you before) the article is simply a reprint from the Pilsudski chapter of the academic book written by the professor of History in Kiev University. Zerkalo's role in it is simply the source being available online. The original book (The Figures of the XX century, LCCN 2004-440333, ISBN 9668290011) would otherwise have to be obtained from the libraries.
I will not even comment on the words you put in my mouth ('good Russia helps Ukraine, bad Poland hurts Ukraine'). I will just note that many times I disagreed and argued with Ghirla, Kuban kazak, Grafik and others. The difference, though, is that it is usually easier to convince the Russian editors than your compatriots. Perhaps, the Poland's school history course, of which I read in several articles, brainwashes your friends. Dunno. If so, things will be only getting worse as last time I checked, the Ministry of Education in Poland was given to a renowned Polish ultra-nationalist and a xenophobe.
However, this is all the deflection of the main point here. I called you repeatedly to deal with excesses from your friends while you continue to provide them your unqualified support. The Russian variant of Molobo (user:Nixer) is kept at bay, to the contrary, by his compatriots as you can easily see from his block log. --Irpen 03:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Instead of trying to argue semantics over past edits, I'll commend you on policing Nixer. Is there some specific Polish editor whose recent edits have been harmful to the the well being of our fellow editors? Please point out specific edits and I'll look into them. PS. Indeed, the recent Polish governement is nothing to be proud of. On the other hand, Russia faires little better, and Ukrainie is a mess too. And so is Hungary and most of other EE countries... not a good decade for that part of the world in term of governance, but at least they haven't messed up anything serious... yet.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Move request

Could you move ORP Ouragan to Ouragan? The second is at present a useless redirect, and this ship was never called ORP anyway (check pl:OF Ouragan).Balcer 19:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it should not be under ORP Ouragan, as that prefix was never used. We could move it to OF Ouragan, but why should we use a Polish prefix (okret francuski) for a French destroyer on English Wikipedia? Maybe French destroyer Ouragan is the solution. I moved it there for now. Balcer 15:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Kazimieras Garšva

I've tried to find some more information on dr. Kazimieras Garšva with google and found this. I think his word there explain well what kind of "historian" he is. --Lysytalk 19:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

And what of it, Lysy? Dr. Dan 01:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
That KG is the leader of Vilnija - an organisation described by western academic sources as 'extremist and nationalistic'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Lysy. Dr. Dan 03:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Respect Other Countries and Cultures

Please note that most of the Indian books will be in Non-English and most of that will be offline. You should note that we cannot just like that go to a library and verify the books. We have our own jobs and family. Just because no Indian user could go to a library, a source cannot be ignored. Not every one is a sock puppet. Online Access is not common in India (unlike your country) and pretty costly. We pay around Rs 20 (that is the cost of 10 cups of coffee) per hour of Internet Usage. (Work out in your currency) Maintaining one account is pretty difficult. How can most people think of socks !!! (except for few teenage fanatics in cities who are rich enough to have computers and broadband access at their home). Your words few offline non-English books whose existence cannot be verified and and the poor quality of the article is just a final nail to the coffin give me an impression that your intention was not a healthy discussion, but getting the article deleted. If you really want to improve Wikipedia, give some time and hear the opinion of those who are new to wikipedia. On the other hand, if you are hell bent on removing articles regarding which you have no idea and you want to satisfy your ego that your AFD has succeeded, carry on... But remember that you are acting against the spirit of Wikipedia.  Doctor Bruno  14:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC) Lastly remember that I am in no way related to those Vishen Rajputs of Majhauli who got the area of Madhuban following administrative division of the Majhauli kingdom. If that had been the case, I would have given sources. I am an user from India who is fed up with SYSTEMIC BIAS in Wikipedia.  Doctor Bruno  14:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

First I would like to thank you for your sincere reply to my (?? arrogant) message. I am sorry if that had hurt. I would like to point out a lot of your assumptions are wrong
  1. Thus India has more Internet users than Poland. May be. thus it should have more Wikipedians, too Need not be. Most of the Indian Wikipedians live out side India. Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indian_Wikipedians and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Resident_Indian_Wikipedians and you will know the difference. Most of the internet connection that were counted are the ones given to Call Centres and Software industries. Net penetration in India is pretty poor. Please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Complete_list_of_language_Wikipedias_available Polish Wikipedia has 307391 articles. Hindi Wikipedia has 3039 articles. I am sure that you understand that your logic is not valid
  2. Indian language can be further discounted as a factor affecting this analysis, as no Indian-language website has been presented to support it (and don't tell me Indian wikipedians are to busy to use google...). You are again missing the boat. Indian Wikipedians can point out a site only when that exists. Unfortunately web sites for organisation etc are not common (as of today) in India. Do you know that of the 100+ medical colleges only 10 have websites. Many government departments don't have web sites. It does not mean that they don't exist. My argument is that you should not tell that some thing does not exist in India just because it is not found in Google. Please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Complete_list_of_language_Wikipedias_available Polish Wikipedia has 307391 articles. Hindi Wikipedia has 3039 articles. I am sure that you understand that your logic is not valid. Only when something is on net, it can be found by Google. 99% of Indian history is not online. It is also not searchable in Google Scholar. If you need to verify, you have to go to a library and then only verify. Also History books will not be there in all libraries. The nearest library I can think of finding such books in Connemera. You need to allot one full day to do that. That cannot be done immediately.
  3. Verifiability would require that the anons present at least ISBNs for the books This is another example of systemic Bias You will find it hard to believe that 95 % of Indian Books don't have ISBN. Indian Books have ISBN, but 95 % of English Books published in India and 99% of Non-English Books published in India do not have ISBN. Please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mariano_Anto_Bruno_Mascarenhas#ISBN for comments from other users as well. That was an old discussion I have brought to the talk page for you to see

I have told that I am in no way related to those Rajputs. My concern is that Indian (as well as other regions where internet is not so popular) articles are immediately deleted when that does not turn up in Google. In many cases the editors search with the wrong spelling. In many cases the sources are not online. I am only opposing the stand "Few hits in Google, hence not notable, delete" taken by most American and European Editors who never VERIFY things.  Doctor Bruno  02:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should have an Indian Editor to verify. But that can't be done in five day. Any way, I am sure that this is not a hoax. We can ask those "hyper enthusiastic" guys to send atleast some Xerox Copies / Scanned Images Doctor Bruno  02:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I have moved the contents to the User's Page. Let him work at that and give us sources. After that we will decide. If you have understood few facts about India from this discussion, that serves the purpose. Cheers. Once Again, if my tone had been rude, I tender my apologies  Doctor Bruno  07:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Autumn

I was trying to remember (from 10 years ago) that phrase Poles have for this time of year — Is it złota jesienny? Thanks. Sca 16:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: You might be interested in a comment of mine at Talk:Kaliningrad. Sca
Thanks for the reply — I hope you are enjoying złota jesień. Perhaps it's also the Polish equivalent of the American phrase "Indian summer"? Sca 17:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
That Indian summer article certainly has an appropriate photo with it. I do remember złota jesień in Warsaw, particularly walks in beautiful Park Łazienkowski, and I've always thought "golden autumn" is an appropriate phrase for what is my favorite time of year. Sca 19:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I think "babie lato" is the Polish phrase most commonly translated as "Indian summer" - believe the name has something to do with spiders, oddly enough.
Apologies, that last comment was mine - noticed the bit about the sandbox and the four tildes just as I hit the button. Nejcik 22:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact

Hi Piotr, I was surprised that there is no pl interwiki for German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact. I was looking for the link on pl Józef Piłsudski page but did not fin it. BTW: Is there any en/pl page about Józef Lipski, who signed the pact? Regards from Prague JanSuchy 18:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It would not be the first time we wrote an article about a Poland-related subject here first. JL doesn't appear to have a page, either.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Clubs and stuff

As to your remark [1], I'd like to inform you that only club I'm in is "No bullshit" club. First of all there is no Polish-Lithuanian conflict in Wiki now - because there are quite few editors and even less articles involved. But recently Halibutt has made an atempt to drag in whole Polish and Lithuanian Wiki communities with his "jokes" on national notice boards. Despite that you've proved to be failed mediator in this conflict before, your reaction to these "jokes" simply astonished me. Or maybe you simply do not understand that Halibutt's "jokes" on Polish and Lithuanian notice board could have easily turned into total war if enough editors from both sides would get involved? What pisses me off about Halibutt most is a lack of self-discipline. If you so want to keep a "good name", please be disciplined enough and avoid remarks like Tiskeviciusasas. But if you lack discipline and allow yourself to make such "jokes" here and there, then don't come whining about your "good name" across Wiki making of yourself a drama queen. Because it's imposible to keep good face to the bad game. And so far the game was quite lame (from both sides off cause). But now I think we can decide, where do we go from here. If for some unknown reasons "No Bullshit" (no praising, no blaming, no posing, no circle discussions, no "their level" etc) aproach is to hard to adopt, when the only reasonable option left is damage limitation (not involving new users and articles). Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Herbata Kto Ty Tak Kroliczek!

...my re-translation of your suggested salutation to Polish editors.

I'm completely new at Wikipedia (set up an account a couple months ago, haven't logged in since), sort of want to get involved, but I'm not sure how much time I can devote to it. I'm a native speaker of English, working in Warsaw as a journalist; I've lived here for a total of eight years, and I've worked before as a (freelance) translator of texts (mostly legal stuff) from Polish into English.

Wiec pomyslalem sobie, ze jakby na poczatku, moglbym zaoferowac tlumaczenie hasel z polskiego na angielski. (I nie tylko hasel; np. na "Poland-related Wikipedia notice board" ktos prosil (pare miesiecy temu) o pomoc w tlumaczeniu innych zrodel na angielski.) Wiec bylbym bardzo wdzieczny, gdybys mogl* mi podsugerowac, jak najlepiej to zrobic. Czy powiennienem (arrrgh, I can never figure out how to write that word, I know it's a lot longer in print than it sounds when spoken, but I can never decide HOW MUCH longer) po prostu brac jakies stuby w jezyku polskim, i zaczynac tlumaczyc? Czy moze istnieje jakas lista "priorytetowych" stubow, dla ktorych tlumaczenia na angielski jest pilnie potrzebne? Czy artykuly np. o Kuklinskim czy Gazecie Wyborczej sa duzo krotsze po polsku niz po angielsku dlatego, ze angielskojezyczni nie potrzebuja tyle szczegolow, czy dlatego, ze po prostu nikt nie mial sily tlumaczyc calosci?

Any suggestions (or just directions to an FAQ that answers all of this stuff - sorry, I haven't found one) greatly appreciated. I thought about starting in by joining some of the discussions about historical/linguistic controversies between Poles and the neighbors, but I realized that would quickly become (paradoxically) both addictive and boring, and I also remember that when I lived in Kiev my only contribution to the historical debate was to quote a line from Trainspotting ("I don't mind the English, they're just wankers; we were colonized by wankers!"), which - as you might imagine - didn't help much.

Pozdrawiam,

Nate

  • I assume that we're all na Ty here? Here's an interesting question - do all Wikipedia editors in non-English languages automatically use the familiar form of address? In which languages do they use the formal, and how - and how quickly - do they switch over? (A virtual bruderszaft?) No, i dodam tu cztery tilde, oby zadzialalo

Nejcik 22:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On October 24, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robotnik (1894-1939), 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 | BLabberiNg 01:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

W. S. Gilbert

Added a few more references. The bit about Who's Who in "Later Years" might benefit from a cite - I think it's in Stedman, but won't have access to that again for a couple days. Anything else that needs a cite? Adam Cuerden talk 03:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

academic conferences

A year of two ago you expressed a desire for a list of academic conferences., It would be a good project . Not right now, but in a month or two, perhaps we could work out an inforbox template, which is what it needs. (Can an article simply be a long infobox?)DGG 05:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 43 23 October 2006 About the Signpost

Report from the Finnish Wikipedia News and notes: Donation currencies added, milestones
Wikipedia in the news Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line 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 06:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Adminowie

Już mam polski noticeboard w swoim watchliście. Z tymi adminami to ciekawa sprawa. Wymień proszę, którzy adminowie są z Polski (oprócz ciebie). Ilu adminów jest Polaków, ale nie z Polski, to inna sprawa. Jak wiesz, ja jestem Polakem, ale z Zaolzia, więc odpadam z kategorii polscy adminowie z Polski. Nie jestem tego pewien, ale myślę, że jestem tutaj na en wiki pierwszym adminem z Rep. Cz.. To byłoby fantastyczne, Czesi nic o nas nie wiedzą, ale pierwszy admin z RC byłby Polakiem :)). A co du ruskich, jestem przekonany, że nawet artykuł o kuchni polskiej nie przeszedłby. Trzymaj się. - Darwinek 16:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate a translation of this communication. Thanks, Ghirla -трёп- 17:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Full translation requested for ArbCom case. --Irpen 06:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I am sure Darwinek will translate it for you if you ask him.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, even though Piotrus does not want to translate, I understood it. Leaving the issue of adminship aside, I find the statement that those Russians would commit themselves to derailment of the articles even about the Polish kitchen rather inapropriate. The problem with articles Piotrus tries to get a FA label is that they are overloaded with Politics and he manages to do that even to the articles about the Polish arts, such as Renaissance in Poland claiming Russia's owing its cultural development to the the culture transmitted to it from Poland. --Irpen 21:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
For which we have references. But of course anybody who claims that Poland might have done something good and Russia not so good instantly becomes a Polish pov pusher, even if his book is published by Cambridge or Oxford... I am sorry Irpen, but I used to think you were a reasonable contributor. Unfortunatly it seems increasingly you see everything in white and black colors; it's hard to discuss anything anymore with you.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem are not the facts themselves, but the way you present them. No, nothing is black or white, it's just that sometimes, you (or other people) present them as being so, such as depicting, quite Reagan-ishly, as "bad" (e.g. the USSR) and "good" (e.g. Poland) And the other problem is the style you sometimes use, "nicyfying" one camp and "demonizing" the other. One very nice example would be the way you depict the PRP. Sure, that wasn't the best place in this crappy world, but depicting it as something that did only bad things is (a lot of) POV.
I'm not going to discuss the Renaissance in Poland because I don't know the article, but if you take, on Russian Enlightenment, the famous paragraph that you inserted and the one I finally came up with... You recognized yourself that all important information was kept, your version however, was plagued with stuff such as "ironically", "magnificent", "pearl" and so on. Maybe balancing your style could help to alleviate the problem? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Grafikm, I have stated in many places that just like anybody, I am not neutral. It is impossible for anyone to be truly neutral, and WP:NPOV states that very thing. Yes, my Polish POV can be certainly seen in some of my edits, I am well aware of that and I don't object to people pointing that out and correcting it; on the contrary, I invite this, as I did in this FAC, where I replied to your comments, addressing most (I hope), and when I invited you to provide further ones. What I have the problem is are some users who instead of offering constructive criticism like you tend to, accuse me of spreading propaganda, are immune to any possiblity they are not neutral, while spreading their POV, for which they fail to provide any references... This kind of behaviour is not only annoying, it damages our articles, and this is not good. And note also that Irpen's objection (let's not talk about Ghirla's, it's rather pathetic) does not criticize specific facts or style; he deems the entire topic unencyclopedic, a 'fork', a 'propaganda', and lo and behold, his two main content objectiosn are 1) unrelated to the article (he criticizes Świerczewski's article) and 2) that I dare to claim Solidarity contributed to the fall of communism (and of course, I have refs, he doesn't, but that doesn't bend his belief in his infallibility...). Last but not least, consider that I have written several FAs about Polish-Russian controversial topics. Could I really 'sneak' a propaganda piece several times? Through FA process? Sorry, but such accusations are either stemming from bad faith or a sudden laps of intelligence.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, first, a majority of your FAs are indeed devoid of criticism, even those about non-controversial events (I'm thinking of Warsaw Uprising, for one thing). And by the way, I did not opposed the FA (just commented its flaws). So don't jump the gun too quickly...
However, some things are by definition beyond referencing, and some things in politics are among them. If we take the partitions of Poland, for instance, you can reference every fact 5 times from different academic sources that will agree with each other - no problem with POV or something. What happens next, though, is an opinion about the event. But there is no such thing as "bad" and "good" in politics (especially if you consider the times we're talking about). Countries played games, attacked each other, made allies, made ennemies, then became allies again and so on. There is no "good" and "bad" there.
With History of Solidarity, the problem is quite similar. No one (or at least not me) questions your references. However, your text is altered by the fact that you look at these events from the point of view of an Occidental educated person. And the picture you get from reading the article is that the Polish communist governement was inherently evil and (by definition) those who fought it as inherently good. And that's a lot more difficult. Your former FAs were on controversial subjects, that's true, but these were military subjects. POV or not, you cannot push issues too much (one way or another). When talking about internal fights, things are quite different... I don't know all of your FAs by heart (there's too many of them), but it seems to me you're dealing with such a delicate subject for the first time, so there might be some adjustments to do... I'll recheck the HoS article for sure... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
And certainly any article written mostly by one person will have style and opinion problems. I tried to avoid putting my personal slant on the article, but as I wrote above, I realize it is impossible. What is needed to truly address this problem - and I say this a based on my past experiences in editing FAs to neutrality - is for editors like you, to go through the article and comment on POV issues (or, what is nice, edit it yourself). That said, I don't think there is much difference between military articles and internal strife or biographies or whatever. They all suffer from the same POV problems and all can be improved in the same way. Last but not least, please note one other issue: in the FAC the only people who commented on the POV were users of Russian POV. Which is good: to achieve NPOV we must address concerns of all involved parties. But again, there is a difference between constructive criticism you are providing (in other words, pointing specific problems that can be fixed), and objecting on some abstract terms of 'propaganda' or 'unencyclopedic topic'. I know you did not object. I wouldn't mind if you did, you have specific, actionable comments. Irpen and Ghirla did not - they just acted like 'naysayers'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now I am called 'a naysayer'. I wonder what offense will come next but back to the issue. "Unencyclopedic" is a valid objection. Article's being filled with propaganda (I did not say it about this article btw) would also be a valid objection. I did not follow all your FAC nominations. I can only comment on those I was involved with to some extent. Pilsudski indeed suffered from terrible POV problems and I was not alone at pointed that out. PSW and PMW were FA voted without a single Russian/Ukrainian editor taking part. I bet the nomination would have been more difficult for those articles that to this day suffer from excessive polonophile POV. You say that ridding articles from POV can be achieved by editors going through them and correcting them towards NPOV. Note that this is exactly what I've done many times with PSW and how I was howled by your friends for that. This is exactly why I gave up on Polish topics except for the articles that touch on the topics that are of my consern. This is exactly why I did not even try to NPOV Pilsudski after I commented on its deficiences during an attempt to FA it. I simply do not have time for endless arguing and edit warring with your friends. But when such articles are attempted to be FAed I must take into account the possibility of 24-hour exposure on the mainpage. I object to POVed articles being there, that's all. Write an article about Polish kitchen, as Darwinek suggested. You will see absolutely no POV-based objections there, unless of course, it will say something like Ukrainians being tought to cook exquisite dishes by Poles. --Irpen 01:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It was Ghirla who called it propaganda. You just called it a 'unnecessary POV fork'. PSW was coauthored by a major Russian article's contributors AND an academic at one of the western universities, User:172 - sadly not very active in the recent months. Thank you for clarifying that you intend not to help NPOV the article, simply object to it and similar ones being FAed. It's always good to know who is willing to help and who is not.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Russian and Ukrainian editors started to work on PSW way too late. It was already an FA and I am de-POVing it for months already despite the enormous resistance. 172 did try to take a go through this article, but unfortunately he did not have enough time. The article has indeed gone through partial NPOVing lately (Polish war crimes in Ukraine well documented by the witness memoirs are still not covered) and it is very dificult to work on this article due to an enormous resistance. As for my "not willing" to help with Pilsudski and Solidarity, you are wrong again. I am willing but unable to because adding each peace of info to those articles takes so much effort that I feel helpless and persistence would require all the time I have here. Only if the article touches the topics of my primary concern (PSW, KO), I am willing to go through this. Pilsudski and Solidarity are not among such topics. I let them stay as POVed as they are except when they are attempted to get FAed because I care about Wikipedia's reputation and nothing can hurt it more in the eyes of a stranger who sees a POV article being called "one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community." --Irpen 01:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The article was given a throughout edit by User:172 before it even became an FA. I see no reason to repeat myself and comment on your giant POV about 'good Russia helps Ukraine, bad Poland hurts Ukraine' which you attempt to insert into every article under the guise of NPOVing; the fact that I use English academic sources and you rely on Ukrainian popular press (Zerkado...) is a testament enough to how POVed each of us really are.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
It is forgivable to forget things from such a long ago history but after 172 made his last edit, the article underwent a very extensive editing by yourself and Halibutt. You may remember that it even included the incredible "It was a sad day for Ukrainians..." paragraph about the Poles having to leave Kiev (very NPOV, also a copyvio, btw). As for Zerkalo article (and I said that to you before) the article is simply a reprint from the Pilsudski chapter of the academic book written by the professor of History in Kiev University. Zerkalo's role in it is simply the source being available online. The original book (The Figures of the XX century, LCCN 2004-440333, ISBN 9668290011) would otherwise have to be obtained from the libraries.
I will not even comment on the words you put in my mouth ('good Russia helps Ukraine, bad Poland hurts Ukraine'). I will just note that many times I disagreed and argued with Ghirla, Kuban kazak, Grafik and others. The difference, though, is that it is usually easier to convince the Russian editors than your compatriots. Perhaps, the Poland's school history course, of which I read in several articles, brainwashes your friends. Dunno. If so, things will be only getting worse as last time I checked, the Ministry of Education in Poland was given to a renowned Polish ultra-nationalist and a xenophobe.
However, this is all the deflection of the main point here. I called you repeatedly to deal with excesses from your friends while you continue to provide them your unqualified support. The Russian variant of Molobo (user:Nixer) is kept at bay, to the contrary, by his compatriots as you can easily see from his block log. --Irpen 03:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Instead of trying to argue semantics over past edits, I'll commend you on policing Nixer. Is there some specific Polish editor whose recent edits have been harmful to the the well being of our fellow editors? Please point out specific edits and I'll look into them. PS. Indeed, the recent Polish governement is nothing to be proud of. On the other hand, Russia faires little better, and Ukrainie is a mess too. And so is Hungary and most of other EE countries... not a good decade for that part of the world in term of governance, but at least they haven't messed up anything serious... yet.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Move request

Could you move ORP Ouragan to Ouragan? The second is at present a useless redirect, and this ship was never called ORP anyway (check pl:OF Ouragan).Balcer 19:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it should not be under ORP Ouragan, as that prefix was never used. We could move it to OF Ouragan, but why should we use a Polish prefix (okret francuski) for a French destroyer on English Wikipedia? Maybe French destroyer Ouragan is the solution. I moved it there for now. Balcer 15:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Kazimieras Garšva

I've tried to find some more information on dr. Kazimieras Garšva with google and found this. I think his word there explain well what kind of "historian" he is. --Lysytalk 19:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

And what of it, Lysy? Dr. Dan 01:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
That KG is the leader of Vilnija - an organisation described by western academic sources as 'extremist and nationalistic'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Lysy. Dr. Dan 03:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Respect Other Countries and Cultures

Please note that most of the Indian books will be in Non-English and most of that will be offline. You should note that we cannot just like that go to a library and verify the books. We have our own jobs and family. Just because no Indian user could go to a library, a source cannot be ignored. Not every one is a sock puppet. Online Access is not common in India (unlike your country) and pretty costly. We pay around Rs 20 (that is the cost of 10 cups of coffee) per hour of Internet Usage. (Work out in your currency) Maintaining one account is pretty difficult. How can most people think of socks !!! (except for few teenage fanatics in cities who are rich enough to have computers and broadband access at their home). Your words few offline non-English books whose existence cannot be verified and and the poor quality of the article is just a final nail to the coffin give me an impression that your intention was not a healthy discussion, but getting the article deleted. If you really want to improve Wikipedia, give some time and hear the opinion of those who are new to wikipedia. On the other hand, if you are hell bent on removing articles regarding which you have no idea and you want to satisfy your ego that your AFD has succeeded, carry on... But remember that you are acting against the spirit of Wikipedia.  Doctor Bruno  14:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC) Lastly remember that I am in no way related to those Vishen Rajputs of Majhauli who got the area of Madhuban following administrative division of the Majhauli kingdom. If that had been the case, I would have given sources. I am an user from India who is fed up with SYSTEMIC BIAS in Wikipedia.  Doctor Bruno  14:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

First I would like to thank you for your sincere reply to my (?? arrogant) message. I am sorry if that had hurt. I would like to point out a lot of your assumptions are wrong
  1. Thus India has more Internet users than Poland. May be. thus it should have more Wikipedians, too Need not be. Most of the Indian Wikipedians live out side India. Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indian_Wikipedians and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Resident_Indian_Wikipedians and you will know the difference. Most of the internet connection that were counted are the ones given to Call Centres and Software industries. Net penetration in India is pretty poor. Please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Complete_list_of_language_Wikipedias_available Polish Wikipedia has 307391 articles. Hindi Wikipedia has 3039 articles. I am sure that you understand that your logic is not valid
  2. Indian language can be further discounted as a factor affecting this analysis, as no Indian-language website has been presented to support it (and don't tell me Indian wikipedians are to busy to use google...). You are again missing the boat. Indian Wikipedians can point out a site only when that exists. Unfortunately web sites for organisation etc are not common (as of today) in India. Do you know that of the 100+ medical colleges only 10 have websites. Many government departments don't have web sites. It does not mean that they don't exist. My argument is that you should not tell that some thing does not exist in India just because it is not found in Google. Please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Complete_list_of_language_Wikipedias_available Polish Wikipedia has 307391 articles. Hindi Wikipedia has 3039 articles. I am sure that you understand that your logic is not valid. Only when something is on net, it can be found by Google. 99% of Indian history is not online. It is also not searchable in Google Scholar. If you need to verify, you have to go to a library and then only verify. Also History books will not be there in all libraries. The nearest library I can think of finding such books in Connemera. You need to allot one full day to do that. That cannot be done immediately.
  3. Verifiability would require that the anons present at least ISBNs for the books This is another example of systemic Bias You will find it hard to believe that 95 % of Indian Books don't have ISBN. Indian Books have ISBN, but 95 % of English Books published in India and 99% of Non-English Books published in India do not have ISBN. Please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mariano_Anto_Bruno_Mascarenhas#ISBN for comments from other users as well. That was an old discussion I have brought to the talk page for you to see

I have told that I am in no way related to those Rajputs. My concern is that Indian (as well as other regions where internet is not so popular) articles are immediately deleted when that does not turn up in Google. In many cases the editors search with the wrong spelling. In many cases the sources are not online. I am only opposing the stand "Few hits in Google, hence not notable, delete" taken by most American and European Editors who never VERIFY things.  Doctor Bruno  02:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should have an Indian Editor to verify. But that can't be done in five day. Any way, I am sure that this is not a hoax. We can ask those "hyper enthusiastic" guys to send atleast some Xerox Copies / Scanned Images Doctor Bruno  02:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I have moved the contents to the User's Page. Let him work at that and give us sources. After that we will decide. If you have understood few facts about India from this discussion, that serves the purpose. Cheers. Once Again, if my tone had been rude, I tender my apologies  Doctor Bruno  07:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Autumn

I was trying to remember (from 10 years ago) that phrase Poles have for this time of year — Is it złota jesienny? Thanks. Sca 16:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: You might be interested in a comment of mine at Talk:Kaliningrad. Sca
Thanks for the reply — I hope you are enjoying złota jesień. Perhaps it's also the Polish equivalent of the American phrase "Indian summer"? Sca 17:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
That Indian summer article certainly has an appropriate photo with it. I do remember złota jesień in Warsaw, particularly walks in beautiful Park Łazienkowski, and I've always thought "golden autumn" is an appropriate phrase for what is my favorite time of year. Sca 19:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I think "babie lato" is the Polish phrase most commonly translated as "Indian summer" - believe the name has something to do with spiders, oddly enough.
Apologies, that last comment was mine - noticed the bit about the sandbox and the four tildes just as I hit the button. Nejcik 22:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact

Hi Piotr, I was surprised that there is no pl interwiki for German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact. I was looking for the link on pl Józef Piłsudski page but did not fin it. BTW: Is there any en/pl page about Józef Lipski, who signed the pact? Regards from Prague JanSuchy 18:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It would not be the first time we wrote an article about a Poland-related subject here first. JL doesn't appear to have a page, either.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Clubs and stuff

As to your remark [2], I'd like to inform you that only club I'm in is "No bullshit" club. First of all there is no Polish-Lithuanian conflict in Wiki now - because there are quite few editors and even less articles involved. But recently Halibutt has made an atempt to drag in whole Polish and Lithuanian Wiki communities with his "jokes" on national notice boards. Despite that you've proved to be failed mediator in this conflict before, your reaction to these "jokes" simply astonished me. Or maybe you simply do not understand that Halibutt's "jokes" on Polish and Lithuanian notice board could have easily turned into total war if enough editors from both sides would get involved? What pisses me off about Halibutt most is a lack of self-discipline. If you so want to keep a "good name", please be disciplined enough and avoid remarks like Tiskeviciusasas. But if you lack discipline and allow yourself to make such "jokes" here and there, then don't come whining about your "good name" across Wiki making of yourself a drama queen. Because it's imposible to keep good face to the bad game. And so far the game was quite lame (from both sides off cause). But now I think we can decide, where do we go from here. If for some unknown reasons "No Bullshit" (no praising, no blaming, no posing, no circle discussions, no "their level" etc) aproach is to hard to adopt, when the only reasonable option left is damage limitation (not involving new users and articles). Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Herbata Kto Ty Tak Kroliczek!

...my re-translation of your suggested salutation to Polish editors.

I'm completely new at Wikipedia (set up an account a couple months ago, haven't logged in since), sort of want to get involved, but I'm not sure how much time I can devote to it. I'm a native speaker of English, working in Warsaw as a journalist; I've lived here for a total of eight years, and I've worked before as a (freelance) translator of texts (mostly legal stuff) from Polish into English.

Wiec pomyslalem sobie, ze jakby na poczatku, moglbym zaoferowac tlumaczenie hasel z polskiego na angielski. (I nie tylko hasel; np. na "Poland-related Wikipedia notice board" ktos prosil (pare miesiecy temu) o pomoc w tlumaczeniu innych zrodel na angielski.) Wiec bylbym bardzo wdzieczny, gdybys mogl* mi podsugerowac, jak najlepiej to zrobic. Czy powiennienem (arrrgh, I can never figure out how to write that word, I know it's a lot longer in print than it sounds when spoken, but I can never decide HOW MUCH longer) po prostu brac jakies stuby w jezyku polskim, i zaczynac tlumaczyc? Czy moze istnieje jakas lista "priorytetowych" stubow, dla ktorych tlumaczenia na angielski jest pilnie potrzebne? Czy artykuly np. o Kuklinskim czy Gazecie Wyborczej sa duzo krotsze po polsku niz po angielsku dlatego, ze angielskojezyczni nie potrzebuja tyle szczegolow, czy dlatego, ze po prostu nikt nie mial sily tlumaczyc calosci?

Any suggestions (or just directions to an FAQ that answers all of this stuff - sorry, I haven't found one) greatly appreciated. I thought about starting in by joining some of the discussions about historical/linguistic controversies between Poles and the neighbors, but I realized that would quickly become (paradoxically) both addictive and boring, and I also remember that when I lived in Kiev my only contribution to the historical debate was to quote a line from Trainspotting ("I don't mind the English, they're just wankers; we were colonized by wankers!"), which - as you might imagine - didn't help much.

Pozdrawiam,

Nate

  • I assume that we're all na Ty here? Here's an interesting question - do all Wikipedia editors in non-English languages automatically use the familiar form of address? In which languages do they use the formal, and how - and how quickly - do they switch over? (A virtual bruderszaft?) No, i dodam tu cztery tilde, oby zadzialalo

Nejcik 22:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On October 24, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robotnik (1894-1939), 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 | BLabberiNg 01:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

W. S. Gilbert

Added a few more references. The bit about Who's Who in "Later Years" might benefit from a cite - I think it's in Stedman, but won't have access to that again for a couple days. Anything else that needs a cite? Adam Cuerden talk 03:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

academic conferences

A year of two ago you expressed a desire for a list of academic conferences., It would be a good project . Not right now, but in a month or two, perhaps we could work out an inforbox template, which is what it needs. (Can an article simply be a long infobox?)DGG 05:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 43 23 October 2006 About the Signpost

Report from the Finnish Wikipedia News and notes: Donation currencies added, milestones
Wikipedia in the news Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line 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 06:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you for expressing an interest in my recent RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate that you took the time to monitor the discussion, and at least indicate neutrality. If there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 09:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Russia/New_article_announcements#URGENT_ANNOUNCEMENT

Portal Russia still takes use of Urgent messages section for blacklisting, collecting votes, personal vendettas (yesterday I got to know, what kind of consensuses are established by the users there!) etc. Long time ago I was disturbed by Ghirla's style of possibly insulting 'summarising' (I reverted an article once - and became a member of 'a bunch of Baltic nationalists' immediately).

Now again, he gives childish summaries of disputes over 2006 Georgian-Russian espionage controversy [3]. I think admin intervention would be necessary, if this use of portal qualifies as unwikipedian.Constanz - Talk 14:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Constanz, I'm afraid you are barking up the wrong tree. The section which you keep removing was modeled on the section "Articles vandalized or needing attention", which was introduced by Piotrus on Portal_talk:Poland/Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board in order to list articles which were being purged from Polish POV. Hey, physician, why don't you heal yourself? --Ghirla -трёп- 14:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

History of Solidarity

Hej, co autor miał na myśli?

Name was proposed by Karol Modzelewski, and the famous logo with the (?) was designed by Jerzy Janiszewski, designer of many Solidarity-related posters. --SylwiaS | talk 17:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Cause justifies means????

So we have another campaing all over Wiki. What should the other side do in that case, jump in on the band wagon with campaign on their own? Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 11:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

So P.P. What this time will be an excuse of these: [4] [5] [6] "acidently" pressed "save page" or similar ? M.K. 12:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with advertising this vote, although I can understand how you'd prefer not to shine light on the way that RfM was hijacked.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
And I assume that the “advertising” was done by "good faith" too M.K. 21:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not advertising the vote. Proposal to move Edward, George and Catherine is a plain WP:POINT. Of course it is difficult to criticize the WP:POINT if it is towards the "right" POV, isn't it? --Irpen 19:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Could you please clarify "you'd prefer not to shine light on the way that RfM was hijacked". What do you mean by hijacked, hijacked by whom, and why I'd preffer not shine the light on it. Thanks. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 19:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
16:16 vote is not enough to move the article, yet it was moved. End of story.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You switched the topic again. The question you were asked is your opinion and, perhaps, an action on a bunch of frivolous move proposals made by your friend. I guess, people should seize appealing to you on Halibutt's questionable action. Despite all agree that editors are best moderated by their compatriots, it is easier said than done. --Irpen 21:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, the issue here is not the move of the page (in which I didn't take part and don't even know what the fuss is about) but Halibutt's behaviour. His "move proposals" are absolutely ridiculous and were made just to throw gasoline on fire. That is the point. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
If you want to moderate somebody, please start with Ghirla who is using Russian noticeboard as his own Black Book (see below). I don't see anything wrong with Halibutt recent posts, Jogaila certainly stands out among the monarchs as a bizarre name not following any naming convention; he is right to point out it is a strange precedent.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, like I already said to Balcer, if you want to get rid of a bad habit at Wikipedia, start with your own rather than pointing other people and saying "they did it too". Besides, I never said the word "moderate", although it is obviously up to you as an admin to do the job of explaining stuff to Hali. Besides, I don't find the Russian noticeboard to be a black book, rather a list of points deserving to get attention, exactly the way all noticeboards work. And for god's sake, I'm not talking about that Jogaila thing, but of recent and inflammatory Halibutt posts (see diffs provided above). If you want to revert a move, file a WP:RM, that's all, don't spam three talk pages of totally unrelated articles with such kind of messages. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I and others warned Halibutt when he stept too far with POINTless Lithuanian redirects. In this case, I don't think he did something wrong; while I would not post on those pages, he is right Jogaila is a strange exception to the naming guidelines and may be used by others to try to rename those other articles.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
How convenient answer of yours! Something similar – I started the war, because Bush did it too! Now about urgent announcements, AFAIK Poles do it too and you personally: [7] it was done with Jogaila, it was done with Gucevičius etc. And probably same thing is done on other notice boards as well. But only now Polish contributor removes it after so long time, due to “generates controversy” just wondering why it was not removed earlier, because it is evil and “generates controversy”. But hey, maybe it is new type “advertising this vote”? M.K. 07:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Brandt's Tool

As you requested, here is the URL for Daniel Brandt's Plagiarism Detector: www.wikipedia-watch.org/psamples.html

Note that Brandt has effectively declared himself an opponent of Wikipedia for various reasons, and that direct links to his sites have been blocked by the Wikimedia software. DS 02:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Rtm witold pilecki-aus.jpg

Can you upload this picture in Wikipedia Commons, so user from other languages will be able to use this image? I mean, you already ask permission for the picture... Dove from the Spanish Wikipedia. 28-oct-2006 18:15 GMT

Feel free to upload it yourself if you think it's needed on others, but I am not sure if permission based images are acceptable on Commons.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility

I appreciate your comments about civility, though since you feel civility is the order of the day you can deal with the guy on FAR who isn't listening at the FAR talk page - I explained a few times but he's still deaf as a post. LuciferMorgan 02:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah you raise a valid point, I don't wish to look like the guilty party. LuciferMorgan 02:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: request on my talk page

Sorry it took so long to get around to looking at this.. "real life" blah blah. As far as the edit goes, I know next to nothing about Lithuanian and honestly don't understand the root of the accusations. If Halibutt made a reference to an ethnic slur, it appears he's apologized for it, though I can't say I completely follow. Remind me never to get involved in ethnic disputes on Wikipedia... heh... Sorry I can't be of much help! --Keitei (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

statistics

I'm doing a research project, and i came across an ANOVA chart, and i have absolutely no idea how to read it. I spent half an hour reading wiki and other websites, but nothing explains basic symbolism. I found that you recently edited the ANOVA wiki page, so i assume you know something about this, here are the questions I have:

In my article, it says:

"One-way ANOVA showed significant effect of prime, F(1,64) = 5.59, p <.05, effect size d = .60. The mean for prime was 13.70 (s.e.=.884)..."

please tell me what the following symbolism means:

F in general specifically F(1,64) = 5.59 p d s.e.

this would help so much! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.249.88.89 (talkcontribs).

Dear 69... I am sorry to disappoint you, but I am just a grad student taking a course in stats; I know a little about anova but not enough to consider my knowledge enough to confidently answer your question. I'd suggest you read up on F statistic and Statistical significance, as this is likely what the 'F' symbol refers to.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Stub question

Hiya, I need your opinion on something. Do you think this stub is worth keeping? Or should I send it to AfD? Antoni Szymański. --Elonka 02:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 44 30 October 2006 About the Signpost

Wales resigns chair position as reorganization underway Hypothetical valuation of Wikipedia scrutinized
Work underway to purge plagiarized text from articles Librarian creates video course about Wikipedia
Report from the Japanese Wikipedia News and notes: Commemorative mosaic started, milestones
Features and admins 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 06:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Influenza

Thank you for your suggestion on the FAC page. We have added the section on Economic impact you requested. Did you have any further comments or was this sufficient for you to support the nomination? Thank you. TimVickers 19:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I searched for some data in Google Scholar and ISI Web of Knowledge on the economic impact of the 1918 influenza, but there was astoundingly little available. This might be due to difficulties in separating the effects of the war from the effects of the pandemic? However, there was one paper published and I've added this to the economic impact section. I hope you will now be able to support this nomination. TimVickers 18:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Education boilerplate

Someone (JWSchmidt) at the Wikiversity has just brought your Education Boilerplate project to my attention. Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Piotrus_educational_boilerplate. I'm very interested in working with you (and others) on developing this. Please get in touch. (Over on the Wikiversity I'm "morley") Morley Chalmers 15:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently committed to helping with the Wikiversity Newcomers page http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Welcome%2C_newcomers. Which in practice is turning into discovering the policies and then to articulate them in new user friendly language. Once this is complete I'd like to turn my attention over to helping to do the same with online learning. I'll get back to you. Or you can get back to me. ;-) Morley Chalmers 16:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

History of Poland

Hi. The new language isn't much better than the old (although it does remove the suggestion that perestroika and glasnost were Reagan policies as well as Gorbachev policies). Using the word "stance", as opposed to "policies", doesn't tell us anything about how Reagan influenced the situation, and the whole phrase seems oddly placed as a result. Perhaps the solution, if you agree, is to remove the current Reagan reference, but to add later in the paragraph: "This change in Soviet policy, in addition to U.S. President Ronald Reagan's hard stance against Soviet military incursions, removed the specter of a possible Soviet invasion in response to any wide-ranging reforms, and hence eliminated the key argument employed by the Communists as a justification for maintaining Communism in Poland." (new text in italics). That might make Reagan's involvement clearer. Otherwise, the Reagan reference has no context or explanation. Skeezix1000 19:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

From - Category:Polish coat of arms images - to - Category:Polish nobility coats of arms images –

My dear Piotr:

In the spirit of the WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, I already edited the - Category:Polish nobility coats of arms images –. So “Hell is full of well intentions”, I did a mistake in the name, editing - Category:Polish nobility coat of arms images – , note, coat without “s”. This page remains empty, ready to be to be deleted. I am asking your help to do so.


Since I did not succeeded to redirect the old - Category:Polish coat of arms images - I just edited the new one, copying all the CoA which are there to - Category:Polish nobility coats of arms images – and I added even someone more. I presume the old - Category:Polish coat of arms images – must be deleted also. Nevertheless this is a special edited page. So I submit this issue to your good criteria.

Best Regerds

Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 01:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Now you will find them both in - Category:Polish coats of arms -

Did you know

Updated DYK query On 3 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michał Dymitr Krajewski, 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.

--GeeJo (t)(c) • 08:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Poland-related contributions

Thank you for your invitation, I'll try to keep track of these pages. · Naive cynic · 14:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Piotr

Thank you very much by your help. I use this mail to congratulate you by your excelent work about the Katyn Carnage. Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 21:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Crud3w4re

Hi, I believe you have previously blocked Crud3w4re and thought you might like to know that s/he has been blanking their own talk page thereby removing various warnings, etc., and providing Allowed to blank outdated news as an edit summary. I don't recall anyone being allowed to blank warnings from their talk page, especially warnings that date back just over a month. I received this message on my own talk page when I reverted one of these blanking incidents. If I'm in error, please let me know. Thanks. Pinkville 12:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Monopoly-related images

Regarding the comments you left on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the board game Monopoly: I _did_ take the opportunity to take ten editions of the game, photograph them as a set, and add the photograph to the article. --JohnDBuell 19:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC Halibutt

Probably you will be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Halibutt M.K. 23:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


DYK

Updated DYK query On 5 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article August Zaleski, 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 00:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A spot of Polish

Piotrus, I'm sorry that nobody took this bait. You seem stunningly busy, but/so just the kind of person I might usefully give a second nudge toward answering my little Polish-language question. If I can persuade you, do please answer me in a few words there or here, or on my talk page if you prefer; or directly edit the article in question; or of course tell me to piss off because you saw and fully understood my request the first time. Thank you! -- Hoary 04:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Did You Know?

Updated DYK query On 5 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Operation Wilno, 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.

--GeeJo (t)(c) • 17:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Meeting on Wikipedia at Wooddale, IL

In two weeks I will have a lecture on Wiki for Polish audience at Art Gallery Kafe in Wooddale, IL (Chicago suburb), and I will need some help (printed materials, information, personal support over the Net). If you can help... Belissarius 06:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Shadowrun wiki

Hmmm, pierwsza sugestia jaką bym miał to jakiś dobry sposób do linkowania artykułow w roznych wersjach jezykowych - np. Matryca i Matrix z Sixth World Wiki. Sugerowałym cos co na Wikipedi nazywamy External link templates. Zerknij na to - jest to dosc latwe do zrobienia, a znacznie ulatwi przerzucanie informacji miedzy pl i en shadorun wiki. Pozdr, Piotr --71.206.215.104 05:45, 13 lis 2006 (CET)
Zrobione. Kolejne sugestie? :)


mattness

Signpost updated for November 6th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 2, Issue 45 6 November 2006 About the Signpost

Arbitration election campaigns begin Blogger studies Wikipedia appearance in search results
Intelligence wiki receives media attention Report from the German Wikipedia
News and notes: Foundation donation, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins 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 05:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


Marcus Atkinson

His bio says that he was born in Warsaw... Do you know of any references, or is there a Polish wiki page for him? --Elonka 08:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

papillon

Thanks, that's nice. Especially during an "edit war" with you ;) Unfortunately, I feel I'll have to slow down (and you, most probably, you cheat on your photograph ;) - how can a single person contribute day and night? you are two or more...) --Beaumont (@) 08:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wisla vodka

I just un-prodded Wisla vodka, which you prodded. If you still think it should be deleted, feel free to use {{afd}}. Eli Falk 09:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar help...

Could you make a rainbow coloured barnstar for Wikiproject LGBT Studies, or tell me how to do it? Thankyou, Dev920 (check out this proposal) 19:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your rpely. Do you know anyone who would be willing to help? Dev920 (Please vote here) 11:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ojciec

Ciągle wandalizuje - zobacz wkład i stronę usera :) Przykuta 19:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

user:Ojciec

Zobaczylbys go? Ma na stronie userbox admina, a konto uzywa tylko do wandalizmow. Pzdr, Necrokris 19:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC) (Herr Kriss z pl.wiki)

Re: FA:Solidarity

Hello, thank you for the spam. I will most definitely take an in-depth look at the article in a day or two. I was also looking at the pages of the polish portal - however, the lack of free time did not up to date allow me to do any major work. --Ouro 07:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Ribbon.png

You surely deserve this one. //Halibutt 15:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Halibutt. The article is in way better shape now, have added my support on the FA candidate page. --Ouro 07:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

You may be interested in this discussion Talk:Barnstar#Straw_poll. --evrik (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro materials for student wiki project

Hello Piotrus:

Inspired by Milton Beychok's wonderful contributions, I am organizing an end of term project for ten engineering seniors in a course on downstream processing - at the last moment, to replace another end of term project concept which had to be set aside.

The basic idea is for the ten students to create articles, or update existing stubs, on unit operations associated with purification of biosynthetic pharmaceuticals, for example:

  • immobilized metal affinity chromatography - expand and clean up
  • expanded bed adsorption (new article)
  • blood fractionation - Cohn process (requested article)
  • blood fractionation - contemporary methods (new article)
  • pulsed field separation of large DNA fragments (expansion)
  • solid phase extraction (new article)
  • multiple effect evaporator (expansion)
  • hydrophobic interaction chromatography (new article)
  • liquid liquid extraction (current article specialized in metal extractions; would include material on antibiotic extraction)
  • aqueous two phase liquid extraction (new article)
  • filtration (expansion)
  • depyrogenation (new article)
  • removal and deactivation of viruses in blood and tissue culture products (needs a better title, but fascinating material)
  • Podbielnak extractor (new article)
  • commercial centrifuge types (new article or major expansion of centrifuge article)

The students will be reviewing each others' materials. In addition, I intend to expand the downstream processing article with more descriptive material and with links to other wikipedia pages and external sources; the students will review my contributions as well.  :)

I would like to copy the excellent intro materials that you and Ellen Cohn created for the Craniofacial Disorders wikipedia project, for use by my class. Please let me know if I may do so and if I should contact Dr. Cohn directly. (OK, under the GFDL it seems that I can proceed without permission - but all the same, I'd like to have it)

Also, I would very much appreciate your advice on other wikipedians to contact, or projects and other groups inside wikipedia which could provide feedback and other assistance.

Many thanks, Jean susato 18:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Stuff

Hi, when you get some time, could you please list your {{POV}} concerns about this article Occupation of Bessarabia by the Soviet Union in its talk page. Thank you.:Dc76 06:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Plakat "W samo południe" Sarneckiego

Nie widzę szans na zdobycie "twardych" dowodów. Dyskusję Commons:Deletion requests/Image:W samo poludnie 4 6 89-Tomasz Sarnecki.jpg widziałeś, sam w niej uczestniczyłeś. To były całkiem inne czasy, ludzie chętnie oddawali co mieli - w tym prawa autorskie - "w imię sprawy". Tak było i tu, ale całkowicie niemożliwe mi się wydaje wydobycie pisemnego dowodu na to tak samo, jak niemożliwym by było choćby wykazanie przeze mnie komukolwiek, że ja sam oddałem do dyspozycji Komitetów Obywatelskich program komputerowy do liczenia głosów w okręgach wrocławskich, używany zresztą zarówno w Komitetach Obywatelskich, jak i Okręgowych Komisjach Wyborczych. Na takie rzeczy są tylko zeznania świadków wydarzeń.
PS. Nie piszę tego na stronie dyskusji grafiki, bo nie czuję się dość biegły w angielskim. Julo 17:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

PS. W dyskusji na temat odznaczenia hasła o "Solidarności" - ta Litwinka Renata co jest przeciw nie ma racji conajmniej w sprawach licencji grafik - wszystkie są legalne. Końcowy jej komentarz jest sprzeczny z zasadą NPOV, nie chcę więc zabierać w tej dyskusji głosu. Julo 18:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Po Twoich komentarzach głosu Renaty - wstawiłem support. To hasło rzeczywiście mi się podoba... Julo 18:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Malware image

Regarding this, there were multiple comments on the talk page of original uncropped version of the image in question, suggesting that it be cropped.[8] It made sense to me, so, I did it. I've been working extensively on Microsoft Windows articles for the last year, probably more than anyone else on the project, so I'm quite familiar with our needs and requirements as they relate to screenshots of Windows, and I'm always trying to improve what we've got. One thing I'm rather insistent on is good names for the images themselves. "Image:Benedelman-spyware-cropped.png", for example, is completely undescriptive of what the contents actually are; the name I gave it was perfectly descriptive and accurate. Why you chose to delete a well-named image ("Image:Windows ActiveX security warning (malware).png") in favour of a poorly-named one is something I'd love to hear a justification for... -/- Warren 04:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Image:Benedelman-spyware-cropped.png" was "poorly-named" because it was originally intended as only a temporary crop of Image:Benedelman-spyware-blogspot-2a.png so it would appear more clearly as a thumbnail on the main page, and therefore would have been immediately deleted afterwards. Such images are protected and tagged with Template:M-cropped. However, because you posted Image:Windows ActiveX security warning (malware).png permanently on the Spyware article, I have put that image on the main page instead and deleted the other one. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"W samo południe" Sarneckiego

Też miałem takie wątpliwości, ale mnie zakrzyczeli :) [9] A.J. 08:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

peer review

i've responded to your allocution over at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development. :) JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 18:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem z IP-kiem

Cześć. Jest jeden problem z User:194.144.111.210. Użytkownik ten revertuje, wandalizuje (wojna edycyjna, 3RR) i trolluje. Zdecydowana większość jego edycji to złe edycje (jest kilka, dosłownie kilka wyjątków) . Sam zobacz. Inni wikipedyści muszą po nim revertować, zobacz sobie historię zmian artykułu Limp Bizkit. Dyskusja tego IP-ka pełna próśb i ostrzeżeń nie skutkuje. Można wywnioskować po adresie, że to stały IP więc proszę o zablokowanie tego użytkownika na 24 godziny (aby zauważył, że został zablokowany). Jeśli będzie dalej to robił to potrzebne będą blocki na dłużej. LUCPOL 21:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Updated DYK query 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)

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

Updated DYK query 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

Updated DYK query 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.

  1. Do we need a coordinator (or more than one) to coordinate our efforts and act as an arbiter? Please place your thoughts here.
  2. Could someone work on archiving the talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Awards?
  3. Do we need to develop better guidelines for the Wikipedia:WikiProject awards?
  4. Finally, could you please weigh in on the following discussions so we can move them to conclusion:
    1. LGBT Barnstar
    2. Islamic Award
    3. 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 (talkcontribs) 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 · edit 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)

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

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 (talkcontribs).

Spróbujmy zredagować wspólny list

Panie Piotrze. Proszę zajrzeć na moją stronę User_talk:Poeticbent. Znajduje się tam szkic listu e-mail, który możemy wysłać za Pana pośrednictwem do Akademii Sztuk Pięknych w Krakowie. Proszę wypowiedzieć się w sprawie mojego pomysłu wysłania go bezpośrednio do uczelni. Proszę także zweryfikować i uzupełnić jego treść. Pozdrawiam Poeticbent 15:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Dziękuję za poparcie mojej propozycji. Jednak preferuję aby Pan wysłał ten list do Akademii, gdyż pragnę pozostać w tym wypadku osobą anonimową. Poeticbent 17:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeszcze jedno małe słówko w tej samej sprawie. Proszę mnie łaskawie poinformować, jak otrzyma Pan wiadomość z Akademii Sztuk Pięknych w sprawie tytułu strony. Pozdrawiam Poeticbent 04:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A npov comparison issue

As I have been accused of "anti-Russianism", and I saw that you are somehow interested in this specific Tatiana question, could you kindly check the diff [10], compare those two versions and check if you see any NPOV issuen in their differences. And comment to its talkpage about such and the differences - In each of those details, how would you write a NPOV version? Shilkanni 18:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I am not the person accused above in the "anti-Russianism" issue, I see that my edits on Princess Tatiana of Russia have been misrepresented to you nonetheless. I do not believe that the Mukhraneli were dynastically unequal to the Romanovs, during or after the Russian Empire. I do believe that they were treated as legally unequal by Nicholas II in 1911. But that decision was reversed by Vladimir Kirilovich Romanov in 1948. Nicholas II made one decision, and Vladmir, in the claimed capacity as emperor de jure, made another -- and cited specific research as the basis for that reversal. There are simply no contemporaneous sources that defined the 1911 marriage as legally equal, and there is enormous evidence that it was not considered equal. This issue has been extensively discussed, but after the Frederiks Memo was published in the West in the late 1990s (it was an intra-dynastic communication, not published during the Empire), no serious historian any longer disputes that the Bagration-Mukhranskys were only allowed to inter-marry with Romanovs on a non-dynastic basis at that time. I personally believe that they were unfairly treated by Russia in defiance of the Treaty of Georgievsk, but Wikipedia should state how the family was viewed then -- and now, rather than project current views backward. As for "anti-Georgian", a quick glance at the argument that raised this issue will show you immediately who has really been making up all kinds of reasons to invalidate the dynastic claim of the Vladimirovichi pretender Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia, whose rival bases his opposition on the argument that the family of Maria's Georgian mother, Princess Leonida Georgievna Bagration-Moukhransky, was not dynastically equal to the Romanovs when the couple married in 1948. Lethiere 01:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Photographs of copyrighted works

There is already clear and established policy regarding this on Commons; see Commons:Derivative works. It just isn't enforced very well yet, because most people don't seem to know about this wrinkle of copyright law. Yes, the images in Modern art of the Picasso sculpture and the array of Warhol Campbell's Soup prints should never have been uploaded to Commons, because the works they depict are copyrighted. At a minimum, source information needs to be provided for both the photograph and the subject in the photograph, to assess whether that subject is copyrighted. It may be possible to justify the fair use of those images on Wikipedia, however, so consider that many images that should be removed from Commons may be permissibly uploaded here. Postdlf 22:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the editor above is correct, for this reason. Badagnani 11:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

could someone translate -> article here too

Hi. sorry, if it feels that I am stalking you, but I observed an interesting-looking link in your talkpage here above: pl:Polscy samozwańcy. I do not understand Polish properly, so I can only say that the article there seems interesting and presumably contains MUCH material about royal pretensions of some families. Could someone (=you?) translate that article to more or less fluent English and make it an article here in English Wikipedia? Because at least I would like to see precisely what it says. Shilkanni 12:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Filharmonie i opery

Kiedy będziesz miał czas to trzeba uzupełnić artykuł http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concert_halls o filharmonie w Polsce: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filharmonia. Chyba wszystkie inne kraje europejskie mają wypisane, tylko Polska nie. To samo z operami: trzeba je wpisać w http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_opera_houses ze spisu: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polskie_teatry_operowe. Pozdrawiam. LUCPOL 15:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Poyeb Picus viridis 18:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:SUP

Thanks for your advice on the downstream processing student project. I have updated the WP:SUP page as you requested, and my students have mostly completed their training assignments: 1) establishing a user account and page 2) adding a small useful edit to an article 3) adding references to an article. Their deadline for constructing their own articles is Dec. 3 at midnight EST (UTC - 5). During the following week their classmates will review the article on the discussion page and suggest changes. Yes, I know this differs from the usual Wikipedia process of bold edits, but IMHO it better promotes critical thinking by the original writer, helps me evaluate the original writer's contribution more easily, and will produce similar short-term improvements to the articles.

I would like your help in finding someone to demonstrate a thorough critical review of an article, ideally the article on Downstream_processing that I have begun to edit as my own contribution to the project. I thought immediately of Milton Beychok but he seems so busy that I hesitate to bother him. Can you suggest someone else, ideally among the Wikipedian chemical engineers or Wikipedian chemists ? (sorry, could not figure out how to make internal link to these category pages)

As a relative newcomer to Wikipedian customs I am unsure if this request is out of line; if it is please forgive - Thank you! susato 19:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Update - the project is underway and the students are beginning to publish rough drafts of their articles and initial versions of their edits. I found a couple of good references on reviewing. The Peer Review page was indeed helpful, thanks. I'll post again if I need urgent help - but so far, so good.susato 17:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You wrote "Perhaps in the near future you'd like to update the status of WP:SUP listing of your course, and add info on articles created/edit, and yours and your students experiences?" I have moved the project from the "planned" to the "current" area of WP:SUP and linked to the list of articles on my userpage. The articles have already begun to show signs of feedback by many bots (reference, formatting, image copyright, categorization) and occasional human beings.susato 20:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply on my talk page. I have submitted our articles at WP:RFF as all but one is IMHO too raw for WP:PR. If none of the WP:RFF regulars applies AndyZ's reviewing script within the next day or two, I'll give it a try myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Susato (talkcontribs) 22:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Signpost updated for November 27th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 2, Issue 48 27 November 2006 About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles Steward elections begin
Group apologizes for using Wikipedia name in online arts fundraiser News and notes: 1.5 million articles, 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 01:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanx for the star.

Thank you for the Star; if I find time, I'll continue contributing to similar articles - incl. 'Red Army “Liberation Campaign” of 1939'.Constanz - Talk 10:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe we should discourage tendentious editors from participating in Wikipedia. Piotr's ongoing attempts to encourage them in spreading their POV around should be reprimanded in the strongest terms possible. This is the very opposite of Wikipedia's ideals of neutrality and accuracy. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
But Ghirla, I am sure I never encouraged you, did I? ;p -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, encouraged to what? --Ghirla -трёп- 18:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Did You Know?

Updated DYK query On 29 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Political Instability Task Force, 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.

--GeeJo (t)(c) • 17:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On December 5, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Poniatowski Bridge, 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 many contributions! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Poland_Map_Time_19390925.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Poland_Map_Time_19390925.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 its not being deleted. Thank you. —`'mikkanarxi 07:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked over all related Wikipedia articles hoping to be able to give you my support in this matter, but came to the conclusion that the case is practically indefensible. I trust you'll be able to approach User:Halibutt to produce a map just like that, since it makes such a good impression. Greetings Poeticbent 19:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Under-the-carpet maneuvers

Piotr, don't expect I have not seen your disgraceful maneuvres here. If you think WP:PAIN is a place for denouncing your opponents, where your content disputes will be solved by blocking your opponent behind his back, you are greatly mistaken. I hope that Wikipedia has grown up from the period when such things were possible (my block log is the best evidence that they used to be connived some time ago). Your deliberate choice of offensive language ("for a few months Ghirla has 'lied low'" - what is this??) has been pretty disgraceful. I hope you are a little shame-faced over the whole issue. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Ghirla, Wikipedia is now hopefully entering a mature phase where violations of WP:CIV will be treated as seriously as violations of WP:3RR. If you don't learn how to behave in a civil manner - and thus stop accusing me (and others) of trolling, vandalism, nationalism and such - you may find yourself blocked. I do hope that you will go back to writing great articles on Russian culture and stop your disruptive edits on Polish-Russian relations, where you clearly support controversial revisionist views (Katyn faked by CIA, etc.) with very offensive edit summaries and discussion posts. I don't want to get you blocked if you reform and behave, Ghirla - but I cannot allow anybody, friend or foe, to ignore basic rules of civility on this project.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It is your arrogant, uncooperative attitude and proclivity for incivil threats (as evidenced above) that may get you blocked. After several months when you "lied low" (to borrow your phrase), I see you continue to champion revisionist views of European history, and quite frantically at that. Your whole manner of behaviour - denouncing an opponent behind his back, so that he may be purged - reminds me of recent Soviet history. If you still fail to see that you have earned the reputation of the champion of Molobos and Jaakkos throughout Wikipedia, I feel genuinely sorry for you. Best, Ghirla -трёп- 17:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, how this situation reminds me then "well known" contributor user:Halibutt (probably friend of P.P.) tried to stage case against me in PAIN, thanks God there are admins, who can clearly separate provocations. I believe under-the-carpet maneuvers is quite a live here too. M.K. 17:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record: I don't have a habit of removing personal attacks and slurs from my talk page, unless they are very offensive. I will not reply to the baseless accusations above, but I will keep them as a proof for possible dispute resolution in the future. Ghirla, M.K - if you want to contribute more evidence, by all means, please continue your offensive comments.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There is only one thing worse than politics: Metapolitics. When people use political maneuvers to discuss politics. This is absolutely scary. When did revisionist become pejorative?--SidiLemine 18:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Guys, Piotrus fled this discussion to post yet another slur against me here. The case is hopeless. Sigh... --Ghirla -трёп- 18:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you meant by your comment on my talk page - could you clarify it?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not much, actually. I just tumbled across this discussion and saw that in two sentences, you guys managed to accuse each other of having god-knows-what POV, relating to a (presumeably) long dead political situation. That doing, you threatened each other of taking formal action. I'm not saying any of you is wrong. Only that this kind of situation is the reason why I took the (controversial, I know) vow of staying out of politicsof any kind when I'm not forced into it. I can only guess I made myself (at least) two ennemies by putting my finger into this conversation; but if it keeps you from tearing each other apart, well, what the heck.--SidiLemine 20:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Piotrus, if you think you have a valid grievance against Ghirla please take it to dispute resolution, but be aware that as far as I can tell you will probably be wasting your time - I suspect that any further agitation on your part will backfire. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

From talk page of SidiLemine: I certainly don't mind any mediation, in fact, I welcome help and comments from other editors - which is why I started a discussion at ANI seeking input - and there Ghirlandajo mentioned the discussion on my talk page you commented at and called your edit (presumably, see below) a 'reprimand of my behaviour'. Thus I wanted to clarify if you indeed support him and reprimand me, or did he misintepret your post; you may want to clarify that at ANI (to be more specific, Ghirla wrote: Within last hour or so, your behaviour was reprimanded by several wikipedians on your talk page. Several equals to him, M.K. and presumably you... :/ -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would gladly help with mediation if I saw an issue, and not a fight. Please point an issue related to an article. For my previous comment, I was in fact reprimanding both of you. I think that, regardless of policies et al., you weren't being nice to each other, period. I was raised in the idea theat if you are going to hit someone, insults and threats not only will harm your image and give your opponent a headstart in the coming fight, but will actually minimize the effect of your blows. This is why I despise threats and insults thoroughly, and think that there is always a way to get out of an argument politely, while smiling and without loosing face. Many people today think of diplomacy in the UN way, a tomfoolery for powerless emissaries in frocks and powdered wigs. I think about it in the east asian/west african way, as a tool to bewilder and impress declared ennemies. anyway, whatever.--SidiLemine 12:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Boys, this is getting way too hostile, and spiraling out of control. Sure a little sarcastic contention now and then can be cathartic and beneficial. It even lets one let off some steam. It can even be a little entertaining to those of us "involved". But once in a while it gets way, way, overboard. IMHO, that's where this is at the moment. It would be a good idea to back off and chill. It really would be! Dr. Dan 16:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Sida, Dan: I have thousands of article to write and edit :) If there are no further insults against me and other editors on the pages like Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) I see no need to continue this thread here, at ANI or to take the matter to ArbCom. I do sincerly believe that most people can resolve disputes in a civil way, or at least politely agree to disagree and try not to antagonize each other.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Good, now walk the walk, don't just talk the talk. Dr. Dan 20:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
That's my plan - as long as others don't hinder me by, for example, accusing me of vandalism and trolling again. Such accusations make it somewhat more difficult to concentrate on peaceful editing... oh, Dr. Dan, while I appreciate your comments here, I wonder if you had offered any advice to Ghirladnajo and M.K, too?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Now, now, Piotrus don't start up again. "Boys" was an affectionate plural salutation to all parties, not just to you. My admonition was to everyone and not one sided. As often pointed out, however, you tended to be less neutral in the past, and would close your eyes to the very uncivil contributions by many who should have been at the very least scolded by you, if not given a "vacation". Dr. Dan 21:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Dan. Many things has been 'pointed out in the past' without diffs. So, evidence, please. And if you mean User:Molobo - which seems to have became somewhat of a strawman recently - his controversial edits where not reported to my userpage, I don't deal with 3RR reports often and I don't edit have most of the pages he frequented most often on my watchlist.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like saga continues [11][12][13]. Piotrus, is it not a vendetta against Ghirlandajo? When several uninvolved contributors suggest dropping the case, it is vise to rethink this suggestion. And I am afraid that thermometer adjustments (see above) would not help here, begin rethinking your own behavior of the past. M.K. 22:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Vendetta? A nice word, but I am afraid you may need to read up on it. And the answer is no, it's not vendetta. It's my attempt to see if WP:CIV/WP:NPA are as respected as WP:3RR. You see, if there was a user that in his edit summaries or on article's talk pages would write 'User:X is a troll/vandal/nationalist deletionist/member of a cabal that tries to x-anize Wikipedia/etc.' (providing, of course, that User:X is not a WP:TROLL/WP:VANDAL/WP:CABAL member and such) I'd think that after being warned once or twice to stop such attacks, that user would be increasingly blocked from editing until he'd learn that such behaviour is not welcomed on this project. Thus after I was recently accused of being a nationalist troll/vandal and such, I am checking to see if the community will agree that it is a blockable (or at least, warnable) offence or not. And if not, well, I am sure we all look forward to learning we can now call each other with such beautiful names and incurr no penalty, right?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You mean these [14], [15], [16]? M.K. 22:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
And your change of topic bringing those links where, among other thing, I say 'Polish point of view is no better than any other point of view' is your proof of... what?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Probably you should read these a bit more closely. M.K. 22:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Your suggestion was considered, and rejected. I have articles to write, and I see no need to waste time on game words with you, I am afraid. So unless you can state clearly what you want, this is EOT.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
What Your suggestion was considered, and rejected.?? M.K. 23:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Komentarz

Dzięki za powiadomienie. Nie będę tego komentował, nie mam zamiaru się denerwować. Myślę, że dobrze mu odpowiedziałeś. Myślę, że problemy rusko-polskie uda się załatwić tylko wtedy, kiedy ten użytkownik przestanie edytować. Może by mu tak odetnąć łącza. :) Btw. do pół roku mam zamiar stworzyć serie artykułów dotyczących polskiej mniejszości narodowej na Zaolziu (której sam jestem członkiem), to dla mnie sprawa "sercowa". Potrzebowałbym wtedy pomocy przy pewnych sprawach gramatycznych, stylistycznych oraz technicznych. Mam nadzieję, że mogę na was (polskich edytorów) liczyć! - Darwinek 23:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please translate in full for an ArbCom case. --Irpen 06:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this needs translated because:
Myślę, że problemy rusko-polskie uda się załatwić tylko wtedy, kiedy ten użytkownik przestanie edytować. (I think that Russian-Polish problems would be solved only, when one certain user would stop editing.)
does not look good. I will leave it to Piotrus to translate the post above and once more call everyone to use English in public space and use email, rather than Polish if you have anything to say in private. All RU/UA editors use English exclusively in Wikispace to show an example. --Irpen 00:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
And for the same reason, Piotrus, please translate this too. You know, for ethics reasons. --Irpen 00:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Z tym przymiotnikiem, w naszej gwarze używamy tego słowa normalnie, ale rozumiem, że w poprawnej polszczyźnie ma on znaczenie raczej negatywne. Co do Zaolzia, narazie staram się załatwić artykuły dotyczące miast i wiosek. Kiedy w uniwerku dają mi więcej czasu to popracuję nad "ludzkim rozmiarem" regionu. :) - Darwinek 00:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please translate for an ArbCom case and note the continued usage of Polish after an explicit request not to. --Irpen 06:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Move request

Could you move Konin, Poland to just Konin? Thanks. Balcer 02:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Balcer 02:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


Calling Stalin dictator dispute

I would say that this discussion about POV-ness of calling Stalin dictator has reached to stalemate(both sides have stated their arguments and discussion is not going anywhere). I think that some kind of poll could be good idea but im completely inexperienced in such things so I thought to ask advise of more experienced editor.--Staberinde 21:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There has been RFC for it since 13 november [17],--Staberinde 21:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
So, what do you think?--Staberinde 14:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Academy of Fine Arts in Kraków

Hi Piotr, a week has gone by since we’ve talked about merging Academy of Fine Arts in Krakow with Kraków Academy of Fine Arts. I think it is safe now to proceed with the merger since – to my understanding – the Academy expressed no opinion with regards to our article. I propose new title to be Academy of Fine Arts in Kraków along the line of other renown European Academies listed in Wikipedia. Here are but two most notable examples of articles relating to academic institutions with almost identical profile:

Academy of Fine Arts, Munich

Academy of Fine Arts Vienna

What do you say?

Poeticbent 16:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Go check it out at: Academy of Fine Arts in Kraków
Poeticbent 23:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 2, Issue 49 4 December 2006 About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections open The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
Wikimedia celebrates Commons milestone, plans fundraiser Wikipedia wins award in one country, reported blocked in another
News and notes: Steward elections continue, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins 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 05:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hello Piotruś. I will write in English so everyone can check this clearly. :) Regarding my future expansion on Zaolzie-related articles, do you think men like this: http://www.kc-cieszyn.pl/legiony/legionisci/halama2.htm are worth own Wikipedia article? I think personally they are notable. - Darwinek 09:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Finding new Poland-related articles

Besides your Whatlinkshere method and the bot you proposed, did you try searching Special:Newpages for "Poland" or "Polish"? Since the introduction of WP:AES, most newly created stubs have nice edit summaries that contain the nationality for bio stubs :-) I just did that for Germany and got 15 new pages from the most recent 2000 in less than 30 minutes including announcing the articles, welcoming the creators and inviting them with a handwritten note. Of course the bot would help, but WP:AES is amazing for this already. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 15:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you + question

Hi. Thanks for welcoming me to the English Wikipedia, and for bringing the Poland-related notice board to my attention;) It seems I will be spending much more time doing all sort of Wikipedia-things than I anticipated:))

You offered your help, and there is actually one thing I i'd like to do and don't know how. Namely, I would like to produce a new entry, that would refer to an existing article: like when you type "TV" and you're redirected to "Television". How do I do that? Cheers.

-- Boyau 23:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Projekt socjologia

jeżeli możesz pomóc organizacyjnie i nie tylko ;) - zerknij: pl:Dyskusja Wikipedii:WikiProjekt Socjologia - ważne artykuły Przykuta 09:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Your behavior will be under scrutiny here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus. Best, Ghirla -трёп- 14:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that you not let Ghirla lure you into an edit war. The comment is still visible in the history, and his actions have been recorded for others to observe. --Ideogram 19:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

POV-titles, vol. 2

Some Russian comrades have also found out, that Baltic states were never occupied by the USSR. (Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945) Given that the comrades, who persistently add POV tags, have absolute lack of third party argumentation, except for typical Soviet propaganda ideas, that I've given sources which clearly prove which is the majority POV, I think that - in case their campaign continues - this time the soliciting of pro-Soviet POV falls into Wikipedia category of trolling or disruption due to tendentious editing. I really think that adminitrative measures can be taken, if the disruption continues.Constanz - Talk 15:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

RFAR

If you ever feel like filing an RFAR against Ghirla, I will be happy to assist. (watchlisted you) --Ideogram 19:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt. If I ever feel like filing an RFAR against you, Ideogram, plenty of people will be happy to assist as well. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Please be my guest. Unlike you, if I decide to leave Wikipedia, I will stay away. --Ideogram 19:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

GG

Niestety. :( Używam ICQ, więc jeśli będziesz go też używał to daj znać. - Darwinek 20:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

RE:

Hi Piotrus. I've said what I wanted to say - i.e. commented on the situation. What I said was not negative towards you. But if you want it moved, I'm not going to be about to stop you moving it. After today, I will have no uninterrupted period of wiki use until January 9th. If Ghirla does not agree with the move, he will revert you. Maybe it's best you just leave it where it is or at least discuss it with Ghirla. Anyways, it's not like it matters that much where it is. But if you wish to reply and would like me to respond, then I suggest you do it shortly before its too late - and that would be on the talk page ... so I've been told. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to response to response....

I have no stake in this matter, which is why I commented. I would prefer to post what I think on the RfC, and will do so presently, so that all can see it.

For what it's worth, I'd like to remind you that I am not attacking you. Or him. I think you two have let your personal frustrations affect your ability to interact with one another. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 21:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


Dear Piotrus, allow me to point out that Ghirla hasn't really been blocked for incivility, or any reason, since late July (ignoring the Carnildo fiasco which is an exceptional case and quite unrelated to your long-running complaints). If you are aiming to portray incivility as common, Ghirla's block log does not really support this. Five months ago is ancient wikihistory. Are you familiar with the concept of vexatious litigation and the remedies usually adopted by courts when faced with vexatious litigants ? All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, I am suggesting that Ghirla's past misdeeds should be forgotten, unless and until the Arbcom are involved. Start over; everybody forgets the past. I am also suggesting that taking trivial disputes to WP:RFC and WP:PAIN and WP:ANI (or was it WP:AN?) will eventually result in Bad Things happening to all concerned. There's nobody involved in this year-long dispute who can honestly say that their behaviour is beyond criticism.
I'm not someone who forgives and forgets easily, but forgiveness and forgetting are the only remedy here other than an RFAR, and nobody should want that. Fred Bauder appears to hold mere editors in contempt, based on the Giano case, so you can imagine what sort of remedies he'd propose for Ghirla and Halibutt if the arbitration went badly. If you have any ideas, beyond frequent use of {{rpa}}, I'd love to hear them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
If I may, I would like to mention that I can forgive very easily, provided that a person admits there is something to forgive. This is why I quickly recommended the last RFAR be dropped after seeing Ghirla apologize. It is very difficult for me to forgive someone who keeps insisting that it is my fault. --Ideogram 22:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, forgetting only works if everyone forgets. Just Piotrus being absent-minded wouldn't help. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Ideogram, trouble is, Piotrus keeps on thinking that his behaviour and especially his editing style are above criticism. Everyone who edited the same article as he did (I'm talking about sensitive ones, not an article about some writer of such) knows that it's not exactly the case. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Grafikm, do tell me what gave you the indication that I think 'I am above criticism'? Could you offer any diffs to back up such a view?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the RFC already references some of those, but what I find especially annoying is your way to present anything that Poland does as good, and any other event as bad. If the article is about an event when Poland (variant: the PLC) gets ownzored for some reason, it is necessarily an "invasion", a "massacre" or something in that tune, while any attempt to describe Poland's own black pages is labelled "propaganda" or something. You know perfectly well that PSW, for instance, was finally brought to an acceptable NPOV version only after a few months of tension and a few revert warrying. Something that could be avoided with a bit more patience and reflexion coming from you.
The other, quite annoying thing, was your behaviour on History of Solidarity. I'm not talking about the article, which was, after some corrections, just about OK, but about your tactic that could be summed up in "I got a good external peer review, so don't bother me".
These two examples might not be the most representative, but they're recent and that's what matters, since I'm not going to open old cans of worms. But that's the problem: you recognize you have a bias, but do nothing to improve your behaviour. I pointed out your biases on a few FACs several times, but unfortunately I don't see any evolution... :( -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me first point out certain contradiction in your posts: 'Piotrus keeps on thinking that his behaviour and especially his editing style are above criticism' vs. 'you recognize you have a bias'. So which one is true? Do note that most of the editors who commented on the FAC for History of Solidarity only Russian editors commented on NPOV; while I certainly agree you had some point, I'd also argue that you were also POVed. I certainly prefer to adhere to 'sofixit' policy - if you see POV, fix it. After some rounds of 'pushing back and forth' we arrive and an NPOVed article, and my experience with FAs assures me my analysis of this situation is correct. As for my 'external peer review' argument - well, when an academic praises me for the article, 10+ vote support on FAC and Ghirla accusses me of spreading propaganda... I am sorry, but I am not inclined to listen to such comments (as Ghirla's). As for my view 'Poland always good', if I really believed in white and black history, as I pointe d out on RfC, I'd not have contributed to Polonization or Stanisław Grabski...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I cannot comment on Piotr's behaviour, I have not examined it. I do know that Ghirla has decided I am his enemy, despite my efforts to make peace. Grafikm, I implored you before to say something to him, but it does not seem anything changes Ghirla's behaviour. I am at the end of my patience; something has got to give. --Ideogram 23:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Ideogram, I suggested to Piotrus months ago (don't remember where) that him and Ghirla simply avoid each other. If they can't get along, well that's about the best thing they can do. Trouble is, if Piotrus considers that his behaviour is "better" than Ghirla's (whatever criteria is used, objective or subjective), he should make the first step. There is a story (possibly a legend) that someone asked Churchill why there was no antisemitism in UK. Churchill reportedly answered: "Because we don't think Jews are smarter than we are". If you consider yourself to be "more something", you should have an adequate behaviour. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know anything about whether Piotr's behaviour is better than Ghirla's or not. It's just not important to me. I do know that I personally have tried to make peace with Ghirla to no avail, and I am frankly tired of trying. You are Ghirla's friend; it is not your place to put the burden of fixing the relationship on the other parties. You have the most leverage with Ghirla; if you can help anywhere, it is with him. --Ideogram 23:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I have asked Irpen and Grafikm and others many time to moderate Ghirla - but I have yet to see any serious effort on their part. The situation, from my perspective, always looks like that: Ghirla offends me (or sb else), I (or sb) else crticizes Ghirla's behaviour), Ghirla and Irpen (and often Grafikm) criticize the person criticizing Ghirla, neutral observers enter in the middle of dispute and have difficulty figuring what is going on :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Avoidance is not option. Eastern Europe may be large, but it isn't large enough that Piotrus and Ghirla won't want to edit the same articles from time to time. That's not a solution. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Avoidance would mean one of them leaving Wikipedia, and I am sure no one wants that. --Ideogram 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Who said anything about leaving? Articles with problems are actually pretty minor compared with the mass of articles written by both Piotrus and Ghirla. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I think I have no more to say. I am still of the opinion that if Piotr decides to file an RFAR against Ghirla, I will assist him. Other than that, I am just going to avoid Ghirla as much as possible. --Ideogram 00:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Lain FAC

Hi Piotrus. Just letting you know that your demands at the Lain FAC have been met. I included academic review in the "Reception" section of the Serial Experiments Lain article. Cheers!--SidiLemine 15:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

cite

Yet another citation. When someone just writes 'f**k, f**k, f**k', we just fix it, laugh and move on. But the difficult social issues are the borderline cases — people who do some good work, but who are also a pain in the neck. (guess the author). While certainly true, this does not seem to contain any answer. Is there any? For a moment, all we can do is to apply some pain-killers :-) --Beaumont (@) 07:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation? ME? We'd all get hardbanned.

cannot help but smile I'd be a poor choice for that, I think. I don't know how to resolve the issues between you and Ghirla. I can say that the best person I know for disputes is my friend, Doug Bell, who is both an admin and very neutral and unbiased. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 21:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA

No problem. I had no prior knowledge of the details of this particular Wikipedia dispute, but that piece of evidence stuck out like a sore thumb. The Katyn Forest Massacre is a matter of historical fact and it was carried out by the Soviets. Frankly, I'm disturbed any editor would argue otherwise in 2006. I also have a little knowledge of Polish and can tell there was nothing untoward in your Polish-language comments. I'm beginning to see there's more paranoia and "projection" than substance to Ghirla's claims. I'd also endorse the long comment you left on the project talk page. Wszystkiego najlepszego. --Folantin 22:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Western betrayal

Hi. The person who has added it does not know what (s)he's talking about. To say that Romania was betrayed by the West is equivalent to saying that Italy was conned by the West into allying itself with Germany or any such nonsense. Romanian had refused to commit itself to an alliance with the Allies directly, had attempted to rush into the arms of Hitler (th only thing preventing the alliance was Hitler's unwillingness to accept her), and had not declared war on Germany. Furthermore, there is no widespread myth about any such nonsense in Romania - there may be a more accurate one about Romania having betrayed the West out there, but I'm not sure. Simply remove the mention, and, in case (s)he re-adds it, ask for sources to be cited (and I mean quoted at length) or refer him/her to me for a chat. Dahn 00:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Society of Friends of Science

Updated DYK query On 10 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Society of Friends of Science, 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.
  • Many thanks for the article Piotrus. I enjoyed the read -- Samir धर्म 07:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Updated DYK query On November 11, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article History Line: 1914-1918, 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.

Your knowledge of military history extends to military computer games? Wow, that's dedication - Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Hi. I found Calgacus view convincing, as instead of getting bogged down in the details of who did what when and to whom, it asserts that both you and Ghirla are respected editors, but it would be useful to get a neutral party to intervene when there are disputes over European articles. I realise it is easier said than done. Catchpole 17:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Image:Poland Map Time 19390925.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Poland Map Time 19390925.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will 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. howcheng {chat} 00:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 11th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 2, Issue 50 11 December 2006 About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Board of Trustees expanded as three new members are appointed Wikimedia Foundation releases financial audit
Arbitration Committee elections continue, extra seat available Female-only wiki mailing list draws fire
Trolling organization's article deleted WikiWorld comic: "Redshirt"
News and notes: Fundraiser plans, 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 05:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia assignment

Piotrus, you might be interested in these: User:Ragesoss/HIST 236 and User:Ragesoss/Assignments, related to the Wikipedia classroom assignment project I just finished.--ragesoss 07:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Renaissance architecture

Hi piotrus! Don't worry about editting all that material on Poland at the Renaissance architecture page. The whole lot had been lifted straight from the Wiki article on the Polish Renaissance. All that was needed was a brief summary and a main article template.

Sometimes i feel as if I'm fighting a losing battle here! I had just finished moving Spain, France, Hungary etc etc etc to their own pages, having written summaries for each, and all of a sudden about 150 pages on Poland get dumped on the page. Well, I removed it, and wrote a summary. the main article could do with some t.l.c. to improve its expression.

Main article: Polish Renaissance

--Amandajm 09:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus!

I have been in communication with Radomil annd looked at the article in Polish, which, I cannot read, but looks as if it works well in the way that it directs to other articles. I wrote the summary, from the information in the longer article. I hope that I have left the most important points!

It is also very interesting to see things from a different persepective. We generally are priveledged only to study Art History from a Western European viewpoint. Luckily I have two books of Baroque architecture that show Eastern Europe, and one book on the Renaissance that is German.

There must be so many architectural treasures of which I am completely ignorant! It was a pleasure to see this article about Polish art and architecture. I think it should be expanded and divided into two seperate sections. If you do this, you must remember to go back to the Renaissance architecture page and correct the link from

Main article: Polish Renaissance

to

Bye for now --Amandajm 03:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Commons

May I ask you to upload the following image to Wikimedia Commons? I'd like to be able to use it in my new article on Polish national painter, Włodzimierz Tetmajer.

I found this image in the Polish Wikipedia: [[Grafika:Wesele.jpg]] featured in the Polish article on Włodzimierz Tetmajer.

I'm not sure how the foreign copy right laws would apply to it though. Poeticbent 17:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad Idea?

I could use an assist (maybe two). I have a pet peeve, and thought I'd come up with a good concept for making chides to editors who leave incomplete documentation trails by creating sort of a wet diaper award. It seems to be drawing some adverse reactions, and even before I'd spammed a request to some others like this for brainstorming on how to shorten same and evolve it, as I'm not happy with it either. Subsequently, it's already drawn fire (here) before I could ask in help and get suggestions. Can you take a look and comment here. There has to be some way to let people know 'shallow edit actions' that reflect poorly on our pages need a talk note justification, no exceptions, thankyou. Much appreciated // FrankB 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Extra Edit Buttons

I have released the updated version of extra edit buttons today. The main differences are:

  • The ability to remove the standard buttons. You can either remove individual buttons or all the the standard buttons.
  • You can now include the standard buttons in XEBOrder so you can place the standard buttons anywhere on the toolbar.
  • Users can defined their own buttons using myButtons which can then be placed on the toolbar using XEBOrer. This would allow you to create the button you wanted to insert the welcome template.
  • I have added four buttons to do with tables. This includes the | symbol you wanted.

The documentation will be updated in the next day or two. In the meantime you might want to look at my monobook.js which has some examples of how to setup XEB. --MarkS (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Poland politics

Please check this page: Poland#Politics --Umedard Talk 00:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Khotyn re

Hi. I cannot possibly tell what happened there, but I can tell that, from the diff you have shown me, the text replaced was of more than questionable quality. I suppose the truth is somewhere in the middle, but that article has become too complicated for me to look into it (I'm trying to finish some other stuff). Perhaps in the future. Dahn 00:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

dzien dobry

dziekuje for your message, Piotrus. I'm beginning to think I shouldn't have said anything, since I really didn't want to get caught in the crossfire of the second Russo-Polish War...I'm a damn Hungarian, I have enough to deal with... :) But I'm glad my comment was appreciated and I hope to continue working with you in war and peace. :) K. Lástocska 19:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I might have been unclear. I assure you I will help however I can, I just don't want to get involved in any more of the petty back-and-forth name-calling than is absolutely necessary. :) K. Lástocska 21:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Piotr, I just noticed your Rouge Cabal userboxes. Made me laugh! Nicely done! :) I'd probably be Rouge too if I were an admin...

In all seriousness now, is there any way we (or anyone) can convince certain people that there actually IS no Cabal? The RfC is getting totally ridiculous. I do wish I could help somehow, be the neutral diplomat or something, but I tried and it didn't work. :) K. Lástocska 02:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I'll just lay low for a while, don't want to get too involved in all the back-and-forth. If you need my help again, let me know on my talk page. Allez Allez la Résistance Rouge! :) (and pardon my French, I couldn't resist.) K. Lástocska 16:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus, Diplomacy appears to demand that you very clearly and obviously state that you agree Ghirla has a point. Even if you don't think he has much of a case at all (open for debate), you need to say he does and perhaps apologize profusely. I know it stinks, but sometimes we just have to grit our teeth and make some concessions to our opponents in order to get anywhere at all. K. Lástocska 23:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

About the See Also rule of thumb

According to you, 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in see also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections.

I've been asked by several people why it's a rule of thumb for good articles. What would your answer be? --Loremaster 15:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Some questions for you

Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Piotrus#Questions. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 21:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

re: why

ghirla nie jest moim kumplem (musisz juz widziec to z FAC dyskusji) a nie bronilem go. W oboich przypadkach chcialem zeby dyskusja toczyla w poprawnym kierunku. Czesc, `'mikkanarxi 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you translate this, please? --Ghirla -трёп- 07:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT

I see that, emboldened by support of habitual meatpuppets recruited on Poland-related noticeboard, you continue to attack my edits on totally Poland-unrelated topics, such as Rus' Khaganate. I care little about it, but what I care about is that you continue to slander my name by harrassing uninvolved admins. Please stop forum shopping. That's what your RfC is about. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point - with your habitual baseless yet offensive acusation - better than I ever could.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  08:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for demonstrating that you use Wikipedia for "proving your point". I advise you to consult WP:POINT and to stop treating it as a battleground in the future. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 16 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Voisin III, 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.

--Yomanganitalk 01:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Aleksander Kwaśniewski

Piotrus,

I wanted to get some help regarding the above article. An anon editor is inserting a controversies section about Aleksander Kwaśniewski that I had removed for being unsourced per BLP. They have reinserted it with sources, some in Polish and some in English...but I am having a hard time determining whether these are well-regarded publications or are something one step above a blog.

If you have the time, can you take a look? If you don't, just let me know and I'll pop a note on ANI and see if I can get a wider audience. I'm going to revert the section for now until I can get a better grip on the situation. Syrthiss 14:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks! Syrthiss 21:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Schwann

Hi, Piotrus,and sorry for my many delays. I was sourcing the article Romanian Communist Party, and, meaning to be as specific about details as I could, made a reference to Stanisław Schwann, a Polish historian who, if I read it right, uncovered some texts by Marx (they detail was relevant on that particular page because the Romanians quoted them as evidence that Marx opposed Russian expansion southwards, Bessarabia included, etc.). Is he actually notable enough for an article? Dahn 14:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Noblesse oblige..."

Dear Piotr:

I just edited a useful combination of two different works: Infobox PolishCoA and Template:PolishCoA structure. Nevertheless, I think it is not my contribution at all, there are mainly of Halibutt, Emax and I presume yours also.

So I edited at the talk page the just truth. I wrote already to Halibutt, I tried to do the same thing to Emax (but he seems to be "out of orther") and I am writing you now.

It seems an OK edition, since Roger decided to rename it from the original " Template and Infobox PolishCoA FULL structure" to a much more wiki Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/PolishCoA.

Best regards, my friend. --Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 22:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Polish areas annexed by the Soviet Union

Dobrze, strona Polish areas annexed by the Soviet Union wygląda duzo lepszy--Woogie10w 00:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes,I have seen the page on the Treatment of Polish citizens by occupiers , in fact I inserted a link to this page in the footnote for Poland's WW2 csaualties. It provides the reader with a good general description of the conditions in Poland during the war. --Woogie10w 02:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Have you heard any further details about this commission to investigate Poland's war losses? --Woogie10w 02:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 2, Issue 51 18 December 2006 About the Signpost

From the editor: Holiday publication
Elections conclude, arbitrators to be chosen Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser opens
WikiWorld comic: "Dr. Seuss" News and notes: Fundraiser plans, 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 06:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)