User talk:Piotrus/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Piotrus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

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://wiki.riteme.site/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://wiki.riteme.site/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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs)

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://wiki.riteme.site/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.


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

Please note that Indian History is not found in the net in the same magnitude as European or American History.
Also most of the Indian magazines (dailies, weeklies) do not have a online version.
Another factor is that the vernacular (Hindi, Tamil etc) magazines use different fonts and is not searchable by Google
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

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)

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. //Halibu tt 00:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

More DYKs

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. --Lysy^talk 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

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://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Indian_Wikipedians and http://wiki.riteme.site/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
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.
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://wiki.riteme.site/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

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.


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)