User talk:Piotrus

Have seen worse days. Reasons for my raising wikistress: Average levels of trolling by few users...

Wikipedia is a kawaii mistress :)

[edit] african poles

Could someone please tell me how much of the polish population is from "African" decent?

[edit] Google Book links

They hardly ever come up for me, Piotrus. Sandford does. Even some of the Google Book links you quote in discussions don't usually come up for me, which is frustrating. I have a feeling these links are volatile from user to user. We can link the books themselves, if you like; but I suspect that trying to link the pages is futile. It's misleading to link the reader to a page when if he clicks the link he doesn't get the page, only the cover page. We could link to the cover pages in the references section. qp10qp 16:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I will put them back in because it is your article (give me a day or two). But I feel that they are unprofessional and will store up nothing but potential link rot for the future. (I even sometimes find that I can't get some of my own search results back a few minutes later; so I am learning that if I do find a page, I must make notes from it immediately. It is the same with the poppies in my garden: if I don't sniff them straight away, it may be too late.) qp10qp 17:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put them back. But I didn't find many (I compared two old versions of the page with the current one). Let me know if I've missed some. The Martin Dean and James Dunnigan ones don't bring a page up for me, just the book cover. (The notes are all a bit untidy and inconsistent at the moment. If we ever go for FA, we'll need to think up a stylish and consistent way of presenting all the refs, links, notes etc. But we might as well leave that till last. qp10qp 20:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prod

Hello Piotrus, you prodded Polish National Top 50, but one user and some IPs insist on keeping it by removing the template. I don't see any substantial improvements being made to that article. I've tried to engage the user in conversation, to no avail. What does one do in this situation? Appleseed (Talk) 21:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XIII - March 2007
Project news The project's scope has been updated to include depictions of military history in cultural media. The Spanish military history task force has been created. The project now has a publication department, which will work on producing collections of military history articles for offline publication. There is now a list of military-related deletion nominations available. Two new sets of guidelines have been introduced: Guidelines for classifying military conflicts and categorizing campaigns Expanded guidelines for citation styles and requesting citations Two new templates are now available: {{Infobox National Military}}, a primary infobox for use on articles about an entire nation's military establishment. {{Service record}}, an auxiliary infobox for documenting a military unit's or ship's service history. The old requested articles page and the automation department have been discontinued.	Current proposals and discussions The new project award structure is nearing completion; a draft currently is up for comment. A proposal for replacing the project's collaboration with a contest scheme is being discussed. Sign-ups for several potential task forces are open; all interested members are encouraged to list themselves! An automated system for locating new articles is currently being tested.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Group of Forces

On 30 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Northern Group of Forces, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] not stalking

Just to tell you in advance I was not stalking you. I accidentally run into this article when I came to 172's talk to tell him about a different one. Just letting you know 'cause I am getting used to ABF from your end. --Irpen 02:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, for whatever it's worth, I would never use that edit to assume you are stalking me; it is obviously an AGF argument and as such, appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This was prompted by DYK and DYK only. Again, not stalking. Thought I better explain. --Irpen 04:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, did I ever accuse you of stalking?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You did and exactly under the similar circumstances, when I showed up at the page after your edit. What was especially disconcerting was that you could not have not known that the particular page was on my watchlist. Should I dig the diff? --Irpen 15:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

All right. --Irpen 18:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that. Well, if you stop accusing me of canvassing whenever I report a Poland-related discussion on Poland-related board, I will have no reason to think that you stalk me...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

So, you are saying that I did stalk you, aren't you? What should I take? This or your "did I ever accused you of stalking" rhetorical question just two entries above? --Irpen 19:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that. Did I ever groundlessly accused you of stalking? And no, you don't have to reply, I see no point in pursuing this thread which has no destiny other than degenerate into more flaming. Please, in the future, you don't need to post on my talk with explanations of your actions until I question them.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for welcoming me. I was active last November, but using my IP. This time I decided to get an account. I'll check out the noticeboard and see if I can help with anything. I'm not 100% Polish, but of Polish descent (3/4ths). - Britlawyer 20:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, I understand. Now you are getting the orange. I will familiarize myself somewhat before continuing and making a mess of things. I thought I had learned a few tricks in November, but I need to brush up on it, especially now that I have an account. Britlawyer 20:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Jews in Poland

Certainly I'm planning to contribute to that article, but at the moment I need to finish Krakow pogrom article, which tends to consume huge amount of time so far. I've also started a copy edit of Żydokomuna, which also remains unfinished. M0RD00R 21:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polish Armed Forces in the West

--For heaven's sake, Piotrus!! ;)Camptown 13:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obrazki Brynowa na Commons

Witam, jestes moze z Brynowa? Widzialem Twoje zdjecia na Commons. Pytam tylko z czystej ciekawosci :) Necrokris 17:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Milo, ze nie jestem sam z Bryonwa na Wiki :D Jeszcze jedno pytanko. Nie wiesz gdzie na en.wiki sa prosby o zmiane nazwy usera? Pzdr, Necrokris 23:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thankyou Piotrus for this medal. This is a great honour, coming from one of most prolific DYK contributors ever, and one of the most prolific article writers ever. You are one of those who deserve it much more than myself. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey there

I've noticed that you are active in the BattleTech articles here at Wikipedia. I've started a proposal for a Battletech Wikiproject. If you are interested please check out my proposal at the Battletech main article's talk page. Thanks alot. NeoFreak 05:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mass AFD Nomination

Just through I'd give you a heads up, you have to put the AFD template on each of the pages, not your simple text without even a link to the AFD discussion. It may lead to the discussion being closed, and I don't think it was a good idea to proceed that route anyway. Mister.Manticore 06:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest nominating all of them at once. That would likely be a bad idea. My advice is to try The Village Pump to get people's consensus on what to do, or to look for a few of the worst offenders in the category, nominate them, and see what the consensus is. Or both, there's no reason you couldn't try it either way. Mister.Manticore 20:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, PROD is one option, but in this case, I don't recommend it without more discussion. Not exactly much attention was paid to it. Mister.Manticore 20:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] framing merge proposal

Please see Talk:Framing (sociology). - Grumpyyoungman01 13:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gerdorff pp.

After creating my first article on Wiki (Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff), I had no choice but recognizing your extraordinary contributes to this encyclopaedia. I hereby would like to draw your intention to my second try: Red Army atrocities (WWII). Probably you can give me some more information concerning Poland in this matter. Sincerely yours --Dionysos 19:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update request

Hoi: I'm very fond of your User:Piotrus/Wikipedia interwiki and specialized knowledge test; it's very interesting and a good antidote to subjective appraisals of Wikipedia's incompleteness. Anyway, recently on WikiEn-l, it has been proposed (and supported!) that article creation in general just be disabled for a while. The idea apparently is that biography articles are too troublesome and that Wikipedia is relatively complete anyway. I'd like to cite your essay in any such future discussions, but I'd be happier if it was brought up to date - besides, en and the other Wikipedias have grown and changed a lot since then! I don't know whether you have the spare time or want to do it at all, but if you did, I'd appreciate it. --Gwern (contribs) 04:45 4 April 2007 (GMT)

That's quite cool; I wish I could somehow fold all the time I spend on Wikipedia into a thesis! I don't mind waiting.

But as far as I can tell, it's an utterly serious proposal, and appeared well before April 1st; see Snowspinner's initial email. --Gwern (contribs) 05:24 4 April 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Location map Poland

Witaj. Powiem bez ogródek - jest już ten szablon na en.wiki. Zobacz hasło Warsaw - tam już działa. Co z resztą miast - te infoboxy jakieś takie nieporadne. --Hiuppo 11:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Felices Pascuas/ Happy Easter/ Wesołego Alleluja!

Dear friend:

This is just a wish of happiness in this Easter from myself. (The Easter Egg is a kindly gift from Tomek)

Regards

--Gustavo 13:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Vilnius Operation April 1919 Przybylski.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Vilnius Operation April 1919 Przybylski.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial Castle in Poznań

I've got informations, by no enough abilities in using English language :) Radomil talk 22:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Dzięki za zamek... a bezczelnie korzystajac z twojej uprzejmości - Poznań International Fair ;) Radomil talk 15:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Talk:Operation Wilno

Out of curiosity, why did you change your mind? And here I was happy for 12 minutes that one problem has ended :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind after reading more of that "Discussion" and "Alternative name" sections. -- tariqabjotu 01:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. If I may ask, what convinced you that 'battle of Wilno' is not a better name? Note that in this case we are not only in need of a 'best' name, but 'any' name will do as the article is occupying a name which 99,9% of all sources use for a different event (thus the first priority is to free a redirect, second, to have a better name).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion about which is a better name; I just thought there was no consensus that "Battle of Wilno" was a better name, based on the discussion. -- tariqabjotu 02:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, however I still wonder if keeping an article under a misleadin name (as users looking for 1944 battle will find 1919 one) is preferable to moving it to a name considered better by roughly half of the participants (note that no other suggested name has generated more then one support post; and nobody is actually arguing in favour of leaving the article at the current name - everybody is in agreement current name is bad). PS. Consider this case study in RM history: a move was carried out to a name with the highest number of support votes, even though only 1/3 of the voters supported that name...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding sources that use "Operation Wilno" to refer to the 1944 event. -- tariqabjotu 02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Try: 'operacja wileńska' + 1944 and compare to 'operacja wileńska' + 1919. And yes, in English historiography different name is usually used for the 1944 event - 'operation ostra brama' + 1944 or 'wilno uprising' + 1944. However on the 'operation wilno' name may be used (particulary relying on Polish historiography and translations) by some for the 1944 event - but certainly not for 1919.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not fluent in Polish (it is Polish, right?) so... I can only say that if you weren't able to convince the others involved (whom I'm sure are more knowledgeable about the situation) that the suggested name is better, I'm not sure I could be convinced. You are, of course, free to get a second opinion for another outside user, but I fear someone's going to think you're twisting arms if you do that. So... do that at your own peril. -- tariqabjotu 02:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet infantry doctrine

Write an article? I suppose I could do that, but keeping it encyclopedic would be very time consuming and time is just something I do not have. I would be glad to contribute to such an article, if one is started, but I don't think I could make one from scratch. At least, not right now. Should I get the time, I think I would like to do that. MVMosin 02:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for your help with the Soviet occupation of Romania article; you may find this poll interesting too. Biruitorul 07:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote, too (though I received a canvassing accusation). I voted in a couple of those Polish polls and will keep the page in mind. Unfortunately our board isn't as well-structured, but Romania-related deletions do sometimes appear here. Biruitorul 17:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I always say, Illegitimi non carborundum! Biruitorul 18:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Day of Rememberance of the Poznań June of 1956

Hello, Piotrus. According to Poznań 1956 protests, written mostly by you (Good job, BTW.), June 28th became a national holiday in Poland last year. I wonder if it was just for the 50th anniversary, or is it an anuual holiday from now on. If it's annual, would you mind updating Public holidays in Poland, please ? I don't know the Polish language, so references such as this doesn't help me. Thank you in advance. --PFHLai 12:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it is a new national holiday. I'll adjust the page accordingly, you may also want to drop note on WP:PWNB. There is however a difference between public holidays on that page and national holidays like that.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help on Public holidays in Poland. I am not aware of so many 'non-public' holidays in Poland. It's fine as is, but I wonder if we should move the page to Holidays in Poland (currently a redirect).

I'll be putting "Day of Rememberance of the Poznań June of 1956" on the Selected Anniversary template soon. Thanks, again. --PFHLai 18:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The list is still incomplete. It is possible we should rename all the articles, see Talk:List_of_holidays_by_country#A_mess.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, it's indeed a mess there. Is Wikipedia:WikiProject Holidays still active ? People there should be fixing things like this, I hope. --PFHLai 18:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please elaborate...

on this. Who is that you accusing in PA and a do you have a diff with the alleged PA? Note that baseless' accusations of PA are PA indeed. --Irpen 19:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of canvassing, which you are quite familar with, are PAs. Pestering other users is also not nice. You don't need to reply, I am sure you will disagree with my opinion.--_{ Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not reply, I will ask a counterquestion. Is accusation of Polonophobia a PA? --Irpen 19:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Depending on context and amount of evidence provided. In all cases it is better to take a person to DR rather than accuse them of phobias, trolling or canvassing. Unfortunatly, few follow that rule and low-level flaming proliferates... but you know that well, so why do you ask?--_{ Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You know why I ask. Should I find a diff? --Irpen 19:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

By all means.--_{ Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I already told you that I remember that incident vividly and I do not remember exactly at what page you called me a Polonophobe, but I can go and found a diff after spending some time on this just to show one more time that I was telling the truth, you knew that and you were merely trying to force me to spend time digging. This has happened before and this will happen again. So, I will be back with the diff when I dig it out.

But here is the difference. When you made this unspeakable accusation, I simply ignored it. I did not go to WP:ANI, WP:AN, WP:PAIN, WP:RFI (sounds familiar?) to call for sanctions or to other user's talk pages to just badmouth with a free hand. This is what I was trying to convince you of. To just stop seeking upper hands in content disagreement by looking for some sort of a policy that would have allowed you to call for sanctioning the user at best or, to at least, have an excuse to badmouth him on the talk pages at least (accusation of PAs is badmoutinh without doubt.)

This here is again merely a content dispute. Both sides presented their positions and one side went on to reinforce his by recruiting users who would vote support. Sounds familiar? I merely exposed that the said campaign was going on the top of the discussion. What I said was truth supported by diff. You accused me in PAs in return. Point is, there was no PA. Both sides has points in that argument. And the last issue is that, unlike pointing towards the fact that the user spammed host of others to increase the headcount (the fact supported by diffs), calling someone (me) Polonophobic (like you did), is a PA. Demanding diffs on your part would have been fine and dandy if this was the first time when you demanded hard to dig diffs when you knew in advance where the truth is and, once I dug them, turned the table accusing be in going through dirty laundry. But you bet, I will dig out that damn diff. --Irpen 20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, that is very disingenuous of you. One of your close wikifriends was notorious for wrongfully accusing others of Russophobia, but that did not seem to bother you. What you have written above can only be described as very disappointing. Appleseed (Talk) 20:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It bothered me. I just saw it wrong to use it as an excuse to go 'round complaining with the purpose to shut down the content opponent. I bet you would not have been worried by a much more vicious attempt by a non-editing filthy mouthed troll. It was editing disagreement that bothered you and your friends and you saw that as a chance to shortcut the content dispute. I did not see you condemning abusive users with a friendly POV. Much more convenient to use them as a battering ram. --Irpen 20:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It bothered you, yet you did nothing to stop it? And now you accuse me of not condemning abusive users? Sad. And how you scramble to dig up one diff against Piotrus, when I can even find many of your wikifriend's accusations of Russophobia in his edit summaries. As for your other accusations, I have refuted them before (see my talk page, for example). Please stop repeating them ad nauseam. Appleseed (Talk) 21:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Appleseed, I am accusing you not for "not condemning". I am accusing you (and Piotrus) in using every possible method to get an upper hand in content disputes by using WP:CIV and WP:NPA as a weapon to "get" your content opponents, have them sanctioned or, preferably, blocked. Incivility of your POV-sharing friends or users who don't edit much does not bother you that much for the very this reason. --Irpen 02:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we are evil. Do you have anything to say besides those personal attacks? If not, please don't hesistate not to post them on my talk page; there is a limit to my patience before I am forced to seek just... I am mean, before I decide to gain an upper hand and have you blocked for slander and such.--_{ Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, what you are actually doing is changing the subject now that I've exposed your double standard regarding accusations of phobias, which is what this discussion was originally about. As usual, your off-topic accusations are all without diffs, and all without merit. Appleseed (Talk) 03:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Besides personal attacks? That shot missed, Piotrus. There are none here. I may be not mincing words but no personal attacks were posted here. And you know that.

What diffs, Appleseed. About your sneaky post to PAIN aimed at Ghirla's block. Or Piotrus post to RFI. Those brought the thankful demise of these boards. Or Piotrus' going to 4 (!) different pages in [[Wikipedia:... space with endless complaints against me going to the next one every time the previous did not work. You forgot and need diffs? --Irpen 04:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, you're changing the subject again. When you take a break from searching for that diff, please answer this and only this simple question: why are you having such a problem with one supposed accusation of Polonophobia, even though you turned a blind eye to your wikifriend's constant accusations of Russophobia? Appleseed (Talk) 12:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Appleseed, the subject of this is Piotrus' one more time baselessly accusing one of his frequent opponents in content disputes in a PA.[1] Point is, this was tried before. Roaming from page to page with baseless accusations aimed at silencing the opponents in content debates (another prominent example) isn't new. --Irpen 16:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

IF Irpen could prove that acusations of Polonophobia are rife, then it would be hypocrisy. Since he is struggling to find one example, I think slander is the appopriate term.--_{ Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I can, Piotrus, I found it. The reason why I could not see it was because I deleted this at the time as I thought it makes you look bad and I did not want that then. I will gladly post the diff upon request. Now, we got another accusation, btw, in slander! BTW, it has been discussed at some board that the accusations of slander should be avoided at all cost since they may fall under WP:NLT because of the nature of this particular word. I know you did not mean that. In any case, here is the diff you asked me to find. --Irpen 16:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A great example of how you twist the facts, Irpen. After a series of your attempts to remove any reference to Poland from the article, I enquire if you have a problem with Poland - I don't accuse you of that. Now, it's your turn: explain to us why do you believe you are not guilty of the things you accuse me of when you speak about russophobia and canvassing here?--_{ Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Aha, so "Feeling Polonophobic, Irpen?" was just an "inquiry". Nice.

To answer your question, that Russophobia link did not imply you in any way. You did NOT try to disrupt Bakharev's RfA. It was someone else who I meant I would not have ben afraid to repeat it in connection with that particular editor. --Irpen 17:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so you can accuse others of Russophobia and its ok, but when others ask you if you are Polonophobic, its not? I am tired with your dual standards; this thread has wasted enough time. Please don't bother me again here - per tactic.--_{ Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, I do not "accuse" other's. I called one particular editor a russophobe and for a very good reason. That fellow is still posting all kinds of slurs about "Russians", "Muscovites" in every single talk page entry. I am ready to defend the propriety of calling that fellow as I called him all the way to the ArbCom if necessary. This has no relation to you, Appleseed, Halibutt or even Darwinek whose entry on account of the "Russians" were especially juicy. This has no relation to any serious editor who may be dear to you. So, I don't understand why you are bringing this up in an attempt to defend or justify yourself in connection to a very specific and clear offense, that it "accusing me in making personal attacks" (check what started this thread) when they were none, nada, zero of personal attack from me either in this incident nor anywhere I can remember. Well, maybe if you dig, you can find some harsh entries left by myself that you could with an overstretch call a PA, but you know this is not the habit that I have and, most importantly, you know that in the specific incident there were no PAs from me and your vehement entry at Biru's talk was false, unjustified and unworthy of an admin. It is, however, well inline with the previous incidents of you bringing up various accusations against your content opponents and spreading them to talk pages, admin boards or special pages (now there are less of those left) which seemed especially designed for such activity (and which they were deleted by the community). So, no, I did not ever accuse in in Russophobic motives. Yes, you did accuse me in the "polonophobic" ones. And my exposing the Biru's "get out the vote" campaign was not a personal attack. We may disagree on the propriety of such campaigns and that is fine. But my entry was not a PA and you calling it such was improper. This was not an isolated incident but a part of the trend to spread the accusations on PA's all around all the time. --Irpen 01:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I told you I don't intend to continue this pointless discussion. You are convinved of your own infallability, and nothing I can do will change that. I can only promise to write an article on Kali's morality one of those days...--_{ Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

My alleged infallibility is not the issue here. I am fallible. The issue is that in this (or other incidents) there were no PAs from me. All I am asking you is not to attempt to paint a picture from page to page that PA's is what I do. I don't. You indeed do not need to respond. Just don't do it again. --Irpen 01:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I consider accusations of canvassing, spreading propaganda, attempting to get one's opponents blocks just because they disagree with one and similar PAs and underhand tactics for those who cannot win a dispute on the merit of facts and our NPOV/ATT policies alone. You disagree. Let's live it at that.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Riiight. Until you provide the diff I will concentrate on writing articles and content discussions; I have had enough flaming recently. Thank you.--_{ Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, Piotrus. I will come back with a diff. Trust me it is there and therefore, I will find it. --Irpen 20:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have no dobut that you will find something. After all, dajcie nam człowieka a paragraf się znajdzie... May I suggest if you have a problem with me, go to WP:DR - or WP:ANI or such. I don't enjoy playing semantics on my talk page; there is enough of that on article's talk pages recently thanks to certain somebody whom you have defended from public scrutiny several times...--_{ Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, no. Not "something", Piotrus. A specific statement by you calling me "Polonophobic". More specifically, not that what I said was "polonophobic" but me being "Polonophobic". How could you forget? I am telling you in advance what this is, not that I am looking for any "paragraf" to nail you. Just have patience. --Irpen 21:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Poland (1945-1989)

Are you going to be able to work further on this for the FA review? It's quietly turned into a two month review and I don't know what to do with it. Hard data remains that ought to be cited (e.g., elections results at the beginning of The Gomułka period). Marskell 08:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Stanisław Krasiński

On 6 April 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adam Stanisław Krasiński, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Re: Mimimize category clutter?

Nope, nothing we can do. The way categories are displayed is controlled by MediaWiki; unless the devs come up with some general way of hiding categories, we're stuck with having them all shown like that. Kirill Lokshin 05:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World War Two

You assert that the British could've dropped bombs or leaflets. With what planes? The RAF was a hollow shell in 1939, equipped with obsolescent aircraft. Moreover, what good would dropped in a few bombs or leaflets have done? You think ther Germans would've said "Oh, the British bombed a city or two, so we'd better pull out of Poland, and make the Soviets do the same"? Only France was in a position to do anything meaningful during Fall Weiss. I have not yet reverted your change for the 2nd time, to give you the opportunity to defend it. If you'd like to reply, you can do so here. Parsecboy 16:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Those same sources you cite on my talk also discuss the terrible preparedness of the RAF in 1939. The only bomber unit in France at the time was equipped with the Fairey Battles, which were entirely useless as combat aircraft. Moreover, the only thing that could've saved Poland in 1939 was an immediate French offensive by the majority of its divisions. Bombing raids would've accomplished little (there are many historians who believe the American/British bombing raids of the war contributed little to the overall war effort also). Parsecboy 17:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet brigades

Hi Piotrus, I have created a new article Internet brigades. It was marked for a speedy deletion. Could you take a look and tell your opionion? Is it really that bad?Biophys 17:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Getting there

Well, those maps have made a difference, too. We're getting there!

I did note your previous request for a copy-edit of History of Poland. That I haven't addressed it is because I really can only work on a couple of articles at once (I'm slowly writing a new one of my own offline), and with Soviet invasion of Poland and the occasional FAC review, I am about up to capacity. For what I call "deep copyediting", I tend to delve into sources to check we really have accurate wording–which takes ages. In fact, I've just spent a couple of hours reading forty pages of a very detailed and, it seems to me, impressive book about the deportations (Rieber), in order to address Mosin's objection that we didn't (of all things) present a Soviet justification for the deportations. I enjoy close reading, so it's a pleasure. But at this slow rate of working, I can't do much else. qp10qp 02:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)–

[edit] Triple crown

Piotrus, I'm pretty sure you qualify for one of these. User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle Would you drop a line by my user talk and specify which articles? Cheers, Durova^Charge! 02:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very good at playing user talk tag so the reply to your reply is at my page Tag! scurries away Durova^Charge! 04:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poznań 1956 protests

On 8 April 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Poznań 1956 protests, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Imperial Castle in Poznań

Did you know? was updated. On 8 April 2007, a fact from the article Imperial Castle in Poznań, 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.