User talk:Piotrus/Archive 4

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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

I've been working steadily on the Blade Runner article and I think its close to FAC status. Is there anything further I should do? Also, I wanted to add 2 or 3 more images (Roy Batty holding a dove; Tyrell dimming the sun; and a Bootleg CD cover). Or is that too many images/inappropriate to display a bootleg CD cover? I also intend to shrink and move the large image near the bottom into the issues section if allowed to insert the bootleg cover. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need to eliminate the trivia section? I've gotten rid of the bullets and a few of smaller and/or repeated stuff. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide source for the edit on Marshall Plan? (the one about threat of Red Army). AFAIK Czechoslovakia and Poland initially started negotiation. Prime minister and foreign affairs minister of Czechoslovakia were asked to come to Moscow and Stalin personally forbade futher negotiations (instead he promised aid - 400,000, later 600,000 tons of grain, paid by uranium ore). I never read about threat of intervention - politicians of Czechoslovakia was already servile enough to USSR. Pavel Vozenilek 10:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least for Czechoslovakia there was no need to threaten, they were just ordered and they did what they were said. So the word "all" in article doesn't fit well. I would even guess that no ability to make independent decisions applied to other countries of former Eastern Bloc - so explicit threatening with arms was not needed. Pavel Vozenilek 11:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Prośba techniczna: czy mógłbyś Szczercow przenieść do Szczerców (ponad redirem)? Byłbym wdzięczny. Halibutt 20:54, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

I invite your vote and comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Occupied territories of Baltic States. Balcer 17:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Moglbys jako operator cos powiedziec dla User:Chris 73 by nie wstawial wszedzie niemieckich nazw miast? Nadinterpretuje wynik glosowania i wszedzie je wciska, nie chce mi sie z nim szaprac, Dzieki.--Witkacy 19:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

A tak na marginesie, glosowanie nad uzywaniem nazwy, nie przebieglo zgodnie z regulami wikipedii. Chris byl organizatorem, sedzia i teraz robi za kata. Wykluczyl 12 glosow (pro-Gdansk) ktore by zmienily wynik glosowania. Nie istnieje zadna oficjalna regula na wikipedii ktora mowi ze uzytkownicy z mala liczna "editow" nie moga brac udzial w glosowaniach.--Witkacy 20:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Ponownie pododawal niemieckie nazwy, uzywa jakiegos bota, bo robi to w pare minut w 10-tkach artykulow, zobacz na jego historie [1]. Robi co mu sie podoba...--Witkacy 23:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your calm voice and understanding. The problem is tricky, and I think there is no solution that is accepted by all. The vote on the double naming for Gdansk/Danzig had more than a 2/3 majority (46 to 19), and the general double naming was also accepted with more than 2/3 (44 to 17). This is i think as clear of a vote as we can get on this issue. I can understand that polish people know these places only under the polish name, but internationally these polish names are not yet widely known. Even for big cities like gdansk the name is not yet universally known in the english speaking world (although this is changing). Personally, I also have no problem with german locations getting a polish name if there is a historical overlap. Could you talk with Witkacy again about this issue? Also, I would be quite curious what the text above means. Guess Witkacy doesn't like me. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 23:03, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

There have been votes on how to count votes before, with a proposed required number of edits anywhere between 0 and 200 edits. (somewhere on the admin talk pages). So far no concrete result has come out of this, and the majority voted to decide on a case by case basis according to the disgression of the admin. If you want to start a vote about this, I would be more than happy to participate (My goal: 200 edits before being able to vote). But it is absolutely common practice to ignore votes of voters with a very low edit count, and in the Gdansk vote, many voters had NO edits esides the vote pages. Of course, depending on the exact limits implemented, the exact outcome will change. When the vote was held a lot of admins looked at it, and no one disagreed with the counting of the votes. I believe Halibutts and Spacecadets edits to be malicious and only there to start trouble, hence I am reverting the edits. With the spelling error, the only one i could find with the latest change was the polish character in gdansk. Now, is Gdansk or Gdańsk the correct spelling in english? I think the first one, but I don't care either way. Again, thanks for your calm voice, it is good to have a neutral and polish admin here at the english Wiki. Let me know if you start a vote on the vote count -- Chris 73 Talk 09:40, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to that page. I wish to ask you what sections do you think were short in the article. I do need to beef up the bios a bit, and I think the lead is just fine. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I made changes to it and I was wondering if you wish to peek at it again. I just want to be sure if all objections have been met. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Ciekawostka, na WP:AN3 toczą się teraz równolegle trzy postępowania przeciw Zivinbudasowi: tu, tu i tu. W tej ostatniej chodzi o "bliżej nieznanego anonima", ale admini rozważają range ban, co chyba jest niezłym pomysłem. Rzucisz okiem? Halibutt 15:14, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm, chyba się pomyliłem. Już nie taki żywy. :) Halibutt

Mam dość. Na razie przygotowałem częściowy szkic RfA tutaj. Dołączysz? Halibutt 00:52, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

In order of appearance - the following pics are problematic:

Clear problems: "bzura.jpg" no source, just stating it is in the public domain. I could not find this picture anywhere on the internet to veryfy public domain status - normally pictures without source or explanation for their public domain status are subject to deletion on wikipedia => unless source found, delete/replace. Same reasoning for

  "PZL P.11c.jpg"
  "Ac.corridor.jpg" 
  "Ribbentrop Molotow.jpg" 
  "Warsaw siege4.jpg" 
  "Cios w Plecy Dziennik Chicagoski 19 Wrzesien 1939.jpg" (Poland prior 1994 without copyright notice?) 
  "Warsaw siege1.jpg"
  "Warsaw siege3.jpg"

"German Troops In Warsaw.jpg" -> as described under FAC (if Riefenstahl made this photo - it is certainly not public domain unless expressly released into public domain) "German Soviet.jpg" - the source points to the US Memorial History Museum with a copyright tag -> this is a clear copyvio

Less clear problem: "7TP.jpg": I do not know the copyright laws in Poland and cannot confirm the public domain statement to older polish fotographs published without a copyright notice - however with Poland being an EU member state since 2004, I just want to point to the fact that the 1995-EU-copyright-regulation should be enacted into law as of now (stating 70 years copyright duration for pictures made by professional photographers after their death - retroactive because Spain had long copyright durations) - however as I am not an expert here: no objection to the pic (same reasoning for "TKS.jpg", "Pzl37b.jpg", "Lublin Rxiii.jpg")

Conclusion: The pictures stated under "clear problems" should either be excluded from the article or the copyright status should be explained. Themanwithoutapast 18:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I explained the situation of some of those pics. Others still need attention. In some cases I simply did not remember what was the book I saw them in; in two cases the same pics were available through the Institute of National Remembrance, which is a State-owned institute and publishing the state-owned archives is one of it's statute aims (See Institute of National Remembrance Act, Chapter 6, Article 53, cases 2 and 4). If the institute published those pics without any copyright notice or disclaimer, then those should be treated as heritage of mankind, hence I assumed that the PD tag would be the best for them. However, if that's not the case, I could try to find those books and then change the license to PD-Poland.

Image:Warsaw siege1.jpg expanded info

Image:Warsaw siege4.jpg corrected the tag

Image:Pzl37b.jpg corrected the tag

Image:Lublin Rxiii.jpg - tag needs to be changed since the pic was published in 1937 and the non-retroactive Copyright Act was passed in 1952; pre-war Polish copyright laws should apply

Image:Bzura.jpg - expanded info

Image:Warsaw siege3.jpg - slightly expanded, though I can't tell whether it's enough or not.

-- Halibutt 20:01, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I added my comment on the FAC page - supporting the article. As I pointed out there, I am not one of the copyright paranoids who delete every image that they just don't like, I was merely pointing out that some pictures should have sources/explanation for their public domain/fair use status. Themanwithoutapast 13:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Może Cię zainteresuje: [2] --Halibutt 19:24, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

With a little work, this could be your 11th FA. :) --mav 03:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

To a great extent, I think we're very different kinds of editors with very differing POVs, especially concerning history, but I feel that this could be turned into something very creative when it comes to improving World War II. Not that I think we should go at it all alone, but what I've seen of your work so far, gives me confidence that you're aware of issues of verifiability and neutrality. How would you feel about really concentrating on the article and trying to our best to make it the model summary of a very broad and extensive topic?

Peter Isotalo 12:46, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hello again! Some major improvements have been made to the article. I've also eliminated the link within the article as you suggested and added three more references to support the casualtiy numbers. I hope that you like it and that it receives your approval. Take care, Tony the Marine

I'm back again! At least I don't give up, right? Anyway I just wanted to inform you that I've added "inline references" to the article. To tell you the truth I was totally clueless about them but, user MAv showed me how it was done and bingo. I hope that you reconsider your minor objection, a weak support would be fine (smile). Anyway take care Tony the Marine

Moglbys cofnac wersje anonima ktory wandalizuje pl artykuly i ktory zmalal dzis ponownie 3rr [3] na Erika Steinbach. Prosilem by strone zablokowano, pojawil sie pan admin ryszard ktory to zrobil, ale jakos mu sie nie chcialo cofnac wersji anona - co jest chyba normalne gdy ktos zlamie regule trzech cofniec. Dzieki--Witkacy 08:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Ratunku! Ja już nie wyrabiam :) Mógłbyś zerknąć na Talk:Erika_Steinbach#Naming? Kolejny rewizjonista... Halibutt 01:04, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... po prostu wykonałem część planu z sekcji "to do" na stronie Wikipedia:WikiProject_History_of_Poland/Periodization. Trzeba będzie jeszcze podzielić następny okres na dwa i przestaną na siebie zachodzić. A rediry wszystkie (chyba) naprawiłem od razu. Halibutt 11:22, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Kolejna galeria: Talk:Armia_Krajowa#Pics Halibutt 01:23, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Wybacz, myślałem że już Ci pisałem w liście że mój komputer jest zepsuty. Mogę się logować jedynie sporadycznie, albo z komputera w pracy, jeśli mam chwilę wolną (nieczęsto ostatnio, zamknięcie numeru w poniedziałek), albo z komputera matki (która broni mi doń dostępu). Więc na wiki ostatnio jestem nieczęsto i zazwyczaj tylko na chwilę. Halibutt 20:02, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus: Thanks for your note on my talk page. I have been online for a while now and I have to log off, and will be away this weekend. I have read and seen some Jewish English books about the subject, but it will have to wait till next week for me to bring them over. And yes, the Jewish Encyclopedia is extremly reliable. By the way, I do NOT subscribe to the view that either Moses or Jesus were "myths", why should I? Just because a bunch of professors had a few meetings and decided to debunk the Bible and God. You know that old line, that above a urinal someone had scratched the words "God is dead --- Nietzche" ...and just below it someone else scratched the retort "Nietzche is dead --- God". To believe that people emerged from monkeys is a far greater myth. But no need to go so far back in time. Just think about it, why would Catholic Poland and the mighty Catholic church want to keep alive a story of one of their own who abandoned them to become a "Zhid" of all things? Same reason the ancient Egyptians would remove any talk that the God of the Hebrews had screwed their Pharaoh. I will get back to the article soon I hope. Be well, and don't "believe" everything you read! There may be some professional Holocaust denial at work too within those tomes. IZAK 11:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You did a nice job on the Serfdom article. Falphin 21:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that you and I are miles apart. But

• you must give sources for this article as it is very contentious.
• I think it is better to keep the opening section short to stop PVO creep -- as we used to have "IT was a war crime" "Not it was not" "Yes it was so and so said so" etc. -- But I also think it is useful to keep the intros short so that the TOC is close to the top. Most of the articles I work on are like this, and a couple you may be familar with are Eastern Front (WWII) and Battle of Berlin. -- Philip Baird Shearer 17:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• I will add the population numbers over the next few days when time and children alow. Working on an obscure English Civil War person (Robert Overton) at the moment :-) Philip Baird Shearer 18:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Silversmith/The_Fabdabulous_Wikipedians_page you can remove yourself if you don't like it. Andries 22:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I have now officially filed an arbitration request against User:Zivinbudas. Since you were one of the parties disputing his behaviour, please join the WP:RfA discussion. Halibutt 04:09, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ano widzialem ze kupe dobrej roboty zrobil ;) Z Rydlem poszlo o Ignacy Domeyko i absurdalne problemy narodowosci. Looknij na dyskusje, podalem cytaty Domeyki - wielki polski patriota, a zaluja mu polskosci. Rydla problemy sa nieco smieszne, typu: Polscy nacjonalisci, staraja sie zrobic z Polaka patrioty.., Polaka!! ... :) Czasami odchodza ciekawe parodie na wikipedii: Zivinbudas znowu wyzywa nas tutaj wszystkich od nazistow, a sadzac po jego pogladach i wypowiedziach, sama Ewa Braun go mlekiem karmila ;)--Witkacy 16:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Co do medalu - chyba tylko ja dostałem. Zasada w sumie słuszna, bo przecież nie o to chodzi, byśmy tu sobie stworzyli klub wzajemnej adoracji (choć to takie przyjemne... :) ).

Co do języków i Babel - niewiele mi bozia dała, ale szczęście do języków mam. Tak naprawdę gdzieś tak od trzeciego nie ma już większych problemów, zwłaszcza jeśli są podobne. Z językami słowiańskimi jest jeszcze prościej. Tak naprawdę moja znajomość większości z nich jest bierna, a porozumiewam się czymś, co nazywam dialektem pansłowiańskim. To taka zabawna mieszanka wszystkiego ze zdecydowaną przewagą czeszczyzny, staropolszczyzny i ukraińsko-rosyjskiego. Dla wszystkich Słowian brzmi to jednako niegramatycznie, ale dla wszystkich (za wyjątkiem Bułgarów) jest zrozumiałe. Prowadzi też czasem do śmiesznych sytuacji: w Słowenii kiedyś permanentnie brali mnie za Czecha. Panuje tam przekonanie, że ich język podobny jest jedynie do czeskiego, i jeśli ktoś ich rozumie i coś-tam duka, to musi być Czechem :) . Co do samej tabelki - myślałem czy by jej nie umieścić na stronie użytkownika, ale strasznie by mi dużo miejsca zjadła, a i tak nie umieściłem tam wszystkich języków, które rozumiem :). Na przykład właśnie skończyłem roczny kurs nahuatl, ale nie jestem pewien czy byłbym w stanie zrozumieć post pisany w tym języku. Głównie dlatego, że ćwiczyłem się wyłącznie na szesnastowiecznych tekstach. Ale czy to ważne gdzie umieszczam tabelkę z językami?

Co do mentitle - zabij mnie, nie wiem. Nie pamiętam ani po co mi to było, ani do czego służyło. Przypuszczam że mogło chodzić o jakieś zaszłości z Nico czy jemu podobnymi, ale głowy nie dam. Tak czy siak - nigdy chyba nawet tego szablonu nie użyłem.

Na koniec, co do mapki - bałem się że to powiesz. Bo widzisz, legendę robi się równie długo co całą mapkę... a potem trzeba ją zmieniać przy każdej wersji... a ja leniwy jestem :)

--Halibutt 19:35, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

zapraszam.--Witkacy 13:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zivinbudas has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zivinbudas/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 10:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look at the article and the discussion. --Ttyre 19:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Instead of adding more material to this deeply flawed and POV section which, as I mentioned in discussion, consitutes 14.5% of the whole article, why not to move parts of this to their proper places History of the Jews in Poland, Abraham ben Abraham, Chmielnicki Uprising, History_of_Poland, etc. At this rate, one quarter of the Anti-Semitism article will be soon about Polish A-S. Whait for HKT's XIX, XX, and XXI centuries entries. Don't you see that by doing so the author makes A-S issue mostly Polish issue? --Ttyre 21:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The intention was not at all to make "A-S issue mostly Polish issue." I reacted to the previous state of the "Anti-Semitism in Poland" section, which only discussed how nice Poland has always been for Jews. I would love an expansion on "A-S" for all other countries, as well, but I don't really have the time to do that. Nor do I have the time to add information on "XIX, XX, and XXI centuries." I don't mind having no section at all as much as I mind a blatantly skewed one. If all of the "A-S by country" sections would be removed from the "A-S" article, then I would think it appropriate to remove the section on Poland as well (and incorporate it into History of the Jews in Poland). P.S. Your efforts are helping a lot in these content/neutrality disputes. Keep up the good work! HKT 02:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

HKT, I don't have any problem either with no A-S in Poland section or one with a couple of well-written and balanced sentences about both history of tolerance toward Jews and A-S in Poland pointing to History of the Jews in Poland and other relevant existing articles. Recently made changes in History of the Jews in Poland by, among others, User:Goodoldpolonius2 make the quality of this article steadly improving. --Ttyre 08:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

so, you don't even list Eric in the SF section at the bottom of your main page, but you list RINGO!!?!?! For Shame!!  ;-) Hi Piotr. Rick Boatright 22:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Piotr, sarcasm. Rick Boatright 04:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes I am feeling alright (well, exactly now not really after the football match we lost lol); I meant my own arguements where I given possible solutions and nobody of people in concern answered yet what solution out of those they would prefer. Understandably, for great number of people the current de facto situation where Polish names are added to every Lithuanian city even when they are completely unrelated and Lithuanian names are removed even from related towns is good. As Noel said in Talk:Goldap this is English wikipedia, there should be no place for such nationalism. DeirYassin 21:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_conventions/Vote_on_city_naming , tell your opinion on the matter DeirYassin 22:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like your comments on my rough proposal in Naming conventions/Vote on city naming#Proposal for further clarification. Balcer 00:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The blanking was completely unintended. I had been trying to fix some spelling errors in Polish-Soviet War of 1920 (see here), but I'm not quite sure what happened. Thank you for alerting me. Sango123 16:29, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Widzialem ze wstawiasz powitania, moze byc dolaczyl WP:WNBP, link do polskiej kanciapy do powitan polskich uzytkownikow? Ja rowniez co jakis czas wstawiam linka gdy widze kogos nowego, za jakis czas sie rozkreci--Witkacy 21:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... Nie, nigdy tam nie byłem, choć planuję w te wakacje wyskoczyć do Wilna, Rygi i Tallina. Ale raczej nie autokarem, bo pałam prawdziwą nienawiścią do wycieczek autokarowych. Jeśli będę jechał, to raczej stopem i pewnie jakoś w październiku. Masz ochotę? Halibutt 07:54, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

You're accusing me of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point by blocking a user for a 3RR violation? Don't be ridiculous. (I must admit, I am intrigued as to what "point" exactly you think I'm trying to prove.) Proteus (Talk) 22:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And as for your last unblock reason: I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. I don't have to prove that the 3RR applies to a particular user. If he feels he has immunity, he can try to prove it to me. Otherwise he stays blocked. (You might also try re-reading the blocking policy, as you seem to be new to this. You can remove blocks if you feel they violated policy, but removing them because you feel they would be unhelpful or you think they were a bit harsh is not really the done thing. As the blocking admin I'm the one who makes that decision.) Proteus (Talk) 22:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please don't unblock Halibutt. He is clearly disrupting Wikipedia with his unsupported changes. This is entirely a WP:POINT action, and he needs to knock it off. If Proteus wasn't blocking him, I would be. Your unblocking is suspect, and I am not hesitant to suggest it has to do with nationality. RickK 23:16, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, please. The vote was clear, and only those attempting to circumvent it can possibly think otherwise. Halibutt is pushing an agenda and trying to get around a clear vote. RickK 23:36, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

You honestly don't think Halibutt has an agenda? He's trying to subvert the vote on Polish city naming by trying to apply it whenever he possibly can, to all unacceptable places, so that people will say, "Let's do away with the vote and only use Gdansk and Polish names in all case." RickK 19:07, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

You removed the "Animated television series"-cat from the Noir (Anime) article. While this in itself is understandable, it makes it impossible to find Noir from there. This is odd because Noir 'is' an animated television series. Adding "Anime"-cat as a subcat of "Animated television series"-cat is not possible, since a lot of anime were released as OVAs or as full feature movies. I'd appreciate your thoughts on a solution to this problem. Bye, Shinobu 22:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a solution would be to make both anime and animated tv series a subcategory to sth more general like 'Category:Animation' ? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note - it is already like this. Shouldn't this be sufficient? Anybody interested can go 'up a level' to find anime or vice versa. Logic is: some anime are animated tv series but not all, so after a consideration I'd say my removal of this cat was wrong, but then it should be carefuly applied to many animes (all that fit that cat). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll think on this for a while. In any case, I agree with you that if we cat Noir as "Animated television series", and we should decide to do this with other anime as well, we have to be careful not to accidentally miscat something as "Animated television series" when in fact it is not. Thanks for your insights, Shinobu 23:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I rencently came across the Polish collaberation project and was very disapointed by two developments there. The sole use of Polish on the English encyclopedia, and discussing other users in a language they don't understand. I'd like you to read my post under English please. Please take action within 24hrs. -JCarriker 00:35, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

The difference is it is not a user page, its a public space. Many of us read talk pages, but ultimately we don't have the right to know what's being said that's different on a public space. If Lithuanian and Russian is being used in public spaces on en.wikipedia then the same applies for them that does for Polish. I have no problem with Polish being spoken on user pages, or in the instance someone can't speak English, but that's not the case here. Quebec and Russia use Enlgish on their collaborations, Poland should too. Many people won't take kindly to not being able to read a public space on thier language's wikipedia, and I don't see that's in your projects interest. The fact that users who don't speak Polish are being talked about will only make matters worse, especially since it's a collaboration project. Online translators help and I've found a fairly good one for Polish. Online traslaors are only good for help, however: thier vocabulary is limited, they don't recognize false cognates, they screw up verb tenses— ultimately a human touch is needed. I strongly urge someone to translate the piece about the user, I consider the response to my request action, so I'll wait longer than the intial 24hrs. I won't wait forever, if its not translated I have an ethical obligation to notify the users being discussed. If it is translated, meaning they can understand it, then they can find it themselves. -JCarriker 22:47, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'll accept that. BTW, I had a postive encounter with user User:SylwiaS I think she (I think she's a she, my apologies if male) has potential here. :) I would think a request to Witkacy, from you would have more weight than one from me and possibly be better reccieved. -JCarriker 23:01, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think I've resolved your objection at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George F. Kennan. Let me know, since time for the nomination seems to be running out. Thanks. JBurnham 02:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've removed your FARC nominated candidates. The rules have been changed and the new rules are put up on that page. This was mentioned in Village pump (policy) and (news) and went into effect on June 4. Please list new candidates only after following the new steps. This was done to prevent whimsical nominations.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 07:56, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

1) Sorry about the Aryan Invasion Theory, my mistake. 2) "allowing bad article to stay and acting contrary to the FARC spirit". No, I am not in the habit of keeping bad articles. I removed the nominations because the rules had changed. You were informed so that you could list your complete objections on the article talk page, as you had reviewed the page. I had also made a remark on the removal page so as not to confuse those who already voted. regards,  =Nichalp (Talk)= 10:22, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ah wiesz, nie chce mi sie szczerze mowiac. Przez ostatnie wydarzenia jestem ciety na wszystkich bez orzelka na paszporcie. Nie chodzi mi tu o JCarriker bo jemu niema co zarzucic, poza tym ze jako pierwszy nie Polak w naszej kanciapie ... zamiast z kwiatami przyszedl z klopotami :)

Najwyrazniej osoby ktore tam byly wymienione sa zainteresowane tym co o nich pisalismy, i nie widze powodu bym sie z ich powodu pocil z tlumaczeniem.

A co do dobrej woli - przedczorajszy/wczorajszy ban pokazal dobra wole innych... i przy okazji ich oblude.--Witkacy 09:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ciolek sie na Ciebie skarzy looknij: [4] --Witkacy 20:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You've reverted 4 times. You ought to bring it up on WP:ANI instead of continuing. RickK 20:40, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Contrary to your description on my talk page, you're involved in a content dispute, not Wikipedia:vandalism. (If you don't agree, please read that page and tell me which of the "Types of vandalism" you claim this is - noting that both "stubbornness" and "NPOV violations" don't count.) If I hadn't gotten a favourable impression from the way you acted in the recent German-city naming mess, I would definitely handle this as a 3RR violation. Noel (talk) 18:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am very well aware that he is an obnoxious jerk whom I completely agree deserves a complete ban from Wikipedia - if you will note, I have in the past protected many pages from him, and later placed a lengthy range-block on his entire ISP. However, getting into a revert war with him is not the way to handle him - and what he is doing is not vandalism. Noel (talk) 19:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Czy możesz rzucić okiem na sprawę dyskutowaną pod User talk:Witkacy#Prawa autorskie?. Witkacy znalazł i używa fajne źródło angielskich tekstów o polskich sprawach na stronach www.poland.gov.pl . Niestety mam wątpliwości czy zasady opisujące prawa autorskie pozwalają na użycie tego materiału w Wikipedii. Balcer 15:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A references section has been added in addition to the notes. [5] JBurnham 21:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wywieszona flaga z kosciotrupem wskazuje na to ze kogos zatopil, niemieckie swastyki, ze jakis niemiecki statek. Polska flaga z orzelkiem (marynarki) wisi troche bardziej z tylu na kijku (zakladam metalowym) - ORP Sokol zdecydowanie nie bil sie po zlej stronie ;)--Witkacy 09:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus, istnieje mozliwosc sprawdzenia ilosci osob odwiedzajacych poszczegolny artykul w danym dniu?--Witkacy 11:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Czy nie czas cos zrobic przeciw takim [6] wypowiedziom? Moze powinnismy je wszystkie gdzies zbierac, a rownoczesnie za kazdym razem prostestowac na stronie adminow? Ja jestem za tym by obgadac ten problem w polskiej kanciapie i wspolnie cos wobec takich wypowiedzi ustanowic. Co o tym sadzisz?--Witkacy 16:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nie, nie chodzi o nazwe Kijowa, tylko o jego wypowiedzi na temat polskich nacjonalistow. Mozna przeciez jak ludzie dyskutowac na ten temat, ale owy osobnik zaraz sie zaczal pluc i wyzywac Polakow od nacjonalistow. To czlonek ArbCom - nie dziwne wiec ze skoro ludzie ktorzy powinni tu dawac przyklad na innych, w taki sposob postepuja, ze potem kazdy beton nie majac argumentow zaczyna sie wyzywac--Witkacy 16:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dokladnie, wspolne dzialanie to polowa sukcesu. Dlatego poroponuje to obgadac, ustalic co dokladnie bedziemy w takich sytuacjach robic i wspolnie uczyc takich madrali szacunku.--Witkacy 16:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. SylviaS uses JCarriker. Is this a typo or are you trying to translate my name into Polish? If you are it doesn't look right to me, but then again in an all text enviroment you don't know how it said— I'm willing to help with that, if desired. -JCarriker 19:07, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

No, Sylvia uses JCarriker. It was your post that uses JCarrera. I'm not talking about meaning I talking changing spelling to better fit a language. My surname works fine with Spanish and French, with only mild changes. Removing the second r in my name to avoid a trilled r in Spanish would be an exaple of what I'm taling about (Though I like trilled r's so I don't remove it.) I thought you might have done that on the talk page, but I given your response I see its a typo. Thanks anyway. -JCarriker 19:16, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Byłem szybszy :) Wikipedia:Peer review/Virtuti Militari/archive1 Halibutt 20:34, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I just thought I stop by to say that appreciate your attempts to cool off some heads Wikipedia_talk:Polish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Minsk_i_Kij.F3w and other talk and user:talk pages. I made similar calls trying to convince the editors upset by recent DE/PL and PL/LT name conflicts, as well as by the Russian name in Kiev article, to help improve the city history sections instead of making a WP:Point. I think the project Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Vote on city naming may help resolve such problems in the future and I will also try to come up with some ideas there. Thanks again! Do widzenia, -Irpen 00:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Could you please take a look and comment at a couple of proposed revisions to your recent summary you wrote for the intro to Kiev article at Talk:Kiev#Historical_Summary_in_the_lead. If you don't disagree with proposed changed, I will make them into the article itself. Thanks, -Irpen 18:20, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Re the proposal, I will look at it in detail and see if I have some propositions on it. I will not be able to do it within several hours, but I am very interested. I will be honored to co-sign it. Cheers, -Irpen 20:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering if the lead I have created is long enough. There is only so much we can talk about Medals in the intro. Though, personally, I wish to rewrite to whole article. I probably wish to talk it over with a few folks, but I think it needs to have a huge make-over. Also, if the article is removed from it's FA status, can it reapply for the status? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I noticed you added some nuclear physics articles to the atomic physics category, e.g. [7]. Please don't do that. -- Tim Starling 07:52, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not condemning you, I'm politely asking you not to do it again. And you're not a new contributor. I figure someone as committed as you can handle occasionally being told to check your facts without being scared away. -- Tim Starling 15:39, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort in a voting proposal. Most of what you say sounds good to me, although some points may be difficult to fix precisely. Since I was offline for the last few days, I am not quite up to date yet, but I am looking forward for your proposal. I also think it should include some sort of enforcement option (i.e. 3RR exclusion or such as on the Gdansk vote), because otherwise non-consensus editors just have us jump around in circles. Anyway, looking forward for your proposal. -- Chris 73 Talk 16:50, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Czołem. Wpadliśmy ostatnio na pomysł, by takie przypadki jak te, na podstawie których powstała słynna już strona meta:How to deal with Poles notować i próbować wyjaśniać. Pomyślałem, że lepiej takie sprawy trzymać osobno i próbować załatwić polubownie, acz kolektywnie, bez konieczności odwoływania się do arbitrażu czy RfC. Stąd pomysł na Wikipedia:Polish Wikipedians' notice board/Black Book. Co myślisz? Halibutt 00:07, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Albo mam jakies zwidy albo ten tekst: Appreciation: Austria's Franz König dies at 98 Last remaining cardinal named by John XXIII was Vatican II luminary By JOHN L. ALLEN JR. Rome http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2004a/032604/032604k.php pojawia sie we wszystkich artykulach biskupow krakowskich, chodz nie jest ani wstawiony w tekst ani do template. Coz to za cudenko? Template:Bishop of Kraków, np Eugeniusz Baziak--Witkacy 23:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Juz znikl, jednak czary mary :)--Witkacy 23:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And the secrets for accessing the WikiEN-L list can be found at Wikipedia:Mailing lists -- not only how to subscribe, but how to access the archives. -- llywrch 00:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your invitation. I feel honoured that - despite the Gdansk mess - you would like me to comment. Currently, I am on a slow modem only internet access, but I will give a feedback on Friday, when I have a better connection and more time. But a quick glance looks very promising. More on Friday -- Chris 73 Talk 07:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping that things were improving but I view Logologist recent edit as hostile. It seems logical, that when someone knows that people that don't understand a language are involved in a particular discussion and then that someone makes a post about that subject in a langauge not understood by all of the people involved in the discussion, that they don't want people to know what's beig said. I know enough about lanagues for the wors angielskiego to catch my attention so I translated it sentence by sentence, which gets better results than trying to translate entire posts at a time, and found comprehended enough to know the subject matter. I would however like a human translation of what he has said. Thanks. -JCarriker 10:29, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I provided the translation of the two sentences that spooked User:JCarriker. I certainly don't see anything offensive in them, and they are not directed at any particular user. Still, these paranoid reactions to comments in Polish by non-Polish users of Wikipedia are depressing. What is so disturbing to people about a few sentences in a language they cannot understand? Anyway, I am sad to say that Wikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board is rapidly becoming a kind of small hell. Could we not move the discussions in Polish to some other page, where they will not offend other users? Balcer 14:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your translation work Balcer, but I do not appreciate being called paranoid. Logolist was refering to a topic I brought up, logolist knows I don't speak Polish, yet logolist posted a response about a topic I brought up in Polish. If logolist wanted me to know what was being said he would have posted in English or provided a translation and he did not. That sir is fact, not paranoia. Excluding someone already discussing a topic, is not only rude, but in bad faith. I don't go around demanding translations of texts on talk pages, but I do insist on English being used in public spaces on the English wikipedia. As for describing people as paranoid, such statements are largely, viewed as personal attacks, I would urge caution in making such statemnets in the future, you will find not all wikipedians are as understanding as I. - JCarriker 16:08, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for calling User:JCarriker paranoid. Balcer 16:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will no longer be going out of my way to help the Polish community here. I'm tired of working in a simi-hostile enviorment. I'll still be available for individual Polish friends if they need me, or invite me to a page. Good luck. -JCarriker 10:11, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

If your still on line meet me here #en.Wikipedia (irc://irc.freenode.net/en.wikipedia). Type in my nick to get my attention. -JCarriker 11:03, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Recent comments and reactions on the talk page made me realize that there are deeper issues than the use of Polish in play here. Ultimately it is the balance of power between cosmopolitan Poles and nationalist Poles on wikipedia, both with equal love for Poland, who are going to decide whether Polish related topics are going to take a leadership role as one of the best covered and respected topics in wikipedia or be regarded as a POV backwater avoided by most contributors. I sympathize with this because my culture (Southern) has a similar conflict between those who want to include and those who want to exclude. I'd be happy to return, especially if a number of Polish wikipedians encouraged me to, but so long as a vocal and hostile plurality remains unchallenged (your efforts recognized and appreciated of course), by most Polish users not only are people going to be ran off Polish related topics— this minority of Polish contributors are going to continue to spread the emerging false stereotype that all Polish contributors are nationalists bent on inserting there POV. It is up to you, and users like SylwiaS and Balcer to solve the problem, anything coming from a non-Pole like me is only going to be discounted, and as such my energies are better use elsewhere— for now. Good luck and Gods speed. -JCarriker 12:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Roul preliminary deleted the Anschluss article on the FAC-page, because your objections from June 10th have allegedly not been addressed. Would be nice if you look at the article again and make a short comment on its FAC page. Thx. Themanwithoutapast 01:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hallo Piotr - may I ask you to transport some more of the text and images of Antarctic krill into your fine country - or ask somebody - (I was there and have nice and fun colleagues in Poland) - good luck Uwe Kils 15:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hey - Actually, I think the idea of using "Gdansk" for articles centered on the PLC, while using "Danzig" for articles focusing specifically on the city, or on Europe more broadly, in the 1466-1793 period, actually makes a lot of sense. I had actually thought that this was allowed by the results of the voting, which said that for "specifically Polish" topics in any period, the Polish name could be used. So that's fine with me as a compromise. In terms of historical correctness - fair enough. I have generally been more concerned with discerning what typical English usage is, so as to determine the "most common name" today for the city between 1466 and 1793. I think that this is probably "Danzig," but the usage is split, and I'm happy to have some sort of compromise, so long as we can reasonably determine what the boundaries are. john k 19:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I appreciate your putting some effort into improving wikipedia policy, that's great!

But... (you knew there was a "but" coming, right?) this particular case has been chewed over hundreds of times by now, and it turns out that voting on wikipedia is a Really Really Really Really Really Really bad idea.

So while survey guidelines could use an overhaul, you might want to try overhauling them in the opposite direction, namely: stressing that we're not doing votes here, and that the idea is to find out if consensus has been reached, and/or what issues still need to be discussed.

Sorry to cause you more work like this, but you think you can give it a shot?

Kim Bruning 20:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I managed to enforce Wikipedia:Ignore all rules once, how hard can this get? (famous last words).

Show me some history/diffs which show the problem? Kim Bruning 11:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think Roman Catholicism's links with political authorities#Elsewhere in Europe (Poland) needs attention! Fjl 07:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pardon my quirckiness, but I guess I'm somewhat of a "purist"; the Atlantic Charter uses the term "peoples" three times; (1) "freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned; (2) "right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live"; (3) "lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments". IMO, using the exact terminology of the source document somewhat reduces the confusion when contentions arise that an interpretation of the source is faulty. "Peoples", in its plural form, refers to the people of Poland, the Czech people, the Solvak people, etc., collectively referred to as "peoples". Nobs01 16:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Technically you're correct, the word is a plural form in itself, and it does sound somewhat awkward in English, but the meaning is apparant that it speaks of a wider classification of "various people". Nobs01 16:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus, can you please delete the article Statue of Kalisz? (I made a typo) - thanks! --Ttyre 02:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what your talking about! Yo Mama 5000

I'm a Polish-American. What is it like in Poland right now?Yo Mama 5000 21:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus. Sorry to hear that your proposal is currently not moving forward. It would be good to have at least an edit count recommendation. BTW, voting on Meta Wiki now requires 400 edits in one namespace. Unfortunately, I cannot be of much help, since my workload outside of Wikipedia varies widely, and leaves me with much less time for Wikipedia than I would have liked. I am happy to give inputs, but I don't have the time for a major task that requires daily attention. Sorry again about that! Also, it seems the gdansk issue has calmed down at least for now. Hopefully it stays that way. Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 10:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have been informed that yet another "problem user" is the topic of a Polish language discussion on the pl collaboration, since I removed Polish topics from my watchlist and the alleged discussion is in a langauge I don;t understadn I have not confirmed it. Please tell me that after all of the discussion and the removal of the intial "problem user" discussion, that this is not happining again. I've already recieved several e-mails about it, and I don't usually get alot of e-mail from other wikipedians. -JCarriker 17:29, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I believe the issue had something to do with some Belorussian and Witkacy. I ask out of concern, I have no intention of doing other peoples dirty work for them, I don't even like having to do my own dirty work muchless that of others, and I'm certain the e-mailers knew of my efforts and didn't support them publicly, therefore I have no firm commitment to them. I don't know what's going on the collabe and I've removed myself from the situation, I'd urge you to check again just to make sure since talking about problem users on a collaboration would be controversial even if it were in English. -JCarriker 18:47, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I won't loose any sleep over it, as I intimated in my previous comments I really don't care to be envolved with the issue, just passing along information to you and let you do as you see fit. -JCarriker 19:51, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm an admin on Belarusan Wikipedia (so far, everything has been going very smoothly over there, we did not have almost any problems of any kind), and in our Belarusian WP I really enjoy contributing articles on natural science and technology, especially on computers, physics, astronomy and aerospace. What is especially important is that those articles very rarely become an object of conflict or revert wars. This is because it's hard science and we deal with hard facts. I wish I could work on similar articles in English Wikipedia, but there are really smart people working on those topics and they've already have wonderful articles, and therefore in 99.9% of the cases I simply had nothing to add.

So I started thinking, what are the areas then in which I could contribute something valuable to the English Wikipedia? After browsing around a little bit I concluded that Belarusian history pages (or, actually, most Belarus topics) are grossly under-represented here or presented in a twisted fashion from the imperial Russian or Polish perspective (not to say POV). I've tried to correct the bias and fix the factual errors, but most of the time my edits were reverted by Polish and Russian "watchdogs." Finally, I decided that I have enough of that. It's a waste of time. Today, feeling sorry for my lack of judgment, feeling sorry for my wasted time, feeling disgusted by some Wikipedians, I'm simply leaving English Wikipedia, with a possible exception that I'll be occasionally inserting interwiki links.

So now it's all back to "normal." Let Polish people call Ignacy Hryniewiecki and Jan Karol Chodkiewicz Poles. They can also call me a Pole, because I'm definitely as much Polish then, as both of those men. The Russians can have their fun too. Let them use Russian spellings for Usiaslau and Rahneda and Polatsak and any other Belarusan person or place which they want to present through a Russian imperialistic perspective and in Russian spelling. They can call me a Russian too. Enjoy it. Whohoo! I feel like it's 1905, not 2005.

There is a great "Polish" poet Czeslaw Milosz, a Nobel prize winner, who considered himself a citizen of our Great Duchy of Lithuania. I read his wonderful brilliant book Native Realm (Rodzinna Europa) several years ago and I was really surprised what he says there about Belarusians. He said something like this (sorry, the book is in Minsk, so I can't give a precise quote): I don't really understand how Belarusians survived and how they can survive, living always between the two big hammers, the Russian hammer and the Polish hammer.

I always found this quote a bit bizarre. I could only understand the Russian part, it was obvious what he meant. But Polish? I never understood that until now. And now after attempting to fix some historical mistakes on such articles as Battle of Orsha, Felix Dzerzhinsky, Ignacy Hryniewiecki, Jan Karol Chodkiewicz, Tadeusz Kosciuszko, Adam Mickiewicz, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, I suddenly got a few powerful blows in my head from the Polish hammer. And I finally felt on my own head what Czeslaw Milosz really meant. Thank you, Czeslaw. And bye-bye, English Wikipedia.

Let Russians and Poles have their fun.

--rydel 11:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok nie bede juz tam pisal po polsku, chodz uwazam ze ta osoba przesadza - szczegolnie w kontekscie dyskusji na mailinglist z ktorej wynika ze niema zadnego prawa na wikipedii ktore by to zabranialo. Rowniez w kontekscie do osob o ktorych napisalem, dla ktorych jak sadze latwo zrozumiec nasz jezyk. Wychodzi na to ze jakas grupka ludzi chodz zapewne nie chce uczestniczyc w dyskusjach, chce wiedziec o czym piszemy :)--Witkacy 13:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)