User talk:Piotrus/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5 |
Archive 6
| Archive 7 →


Contents

Needed help with Polish-Swedish War?

Hi, I answered a question for help with Swedish commanders about a week ago on the above article talk page. I have been doing a few other things, but I am now free to help out if you need anything. Just give me a list (post it here, I'll keep an eye open, a.k.a. adding this page to my watchlist) of Sweden-related things you need and I'll see what I can find. -- Elisson • Talk 20:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I've answered you at my talk page. I'd like to keep a discussion in one place, makes it easier to follow for outsiders, or later on. -- Elisson • Talk 18:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Wegrzynowice

Hello again Piotrus -- just thought you might want to check out yet another article in Polish, en:Wegrzynowice, place of birth for en:Jan Chryzostom Pasek. Here is the full text [1] (the anon author blanked the article out just minutes after it's been tagged for translation! (If you aren't available for help with translations, not to bother you - perhaps you could name someone other who would?) Many thanks. - Introvert talk 01:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks much for your help with translating, thanks for pointing me at the Eastern European Wikipedians notice board! Will do. See you there :) - Introvert talk 18:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

War Cycles

Hi Piotrus, Thank you for your kind words, helpful suggestions (coding in HTML is real pain) and help with editing the War Cycles. I just finished reading Prus’ (1895) Pharaoh, a favorite of Joseph Stalin. Interesting reading. Best Wishes, David Cruise

Structural Differential

Hi Piotrus, Thank you for your vote of confidence. My personal sites are visualstatistics.net and vstat.net. The reason I posted the copyright violation for the semantic differential (which I wrote myself) was the vendetta by SimonP and few others (cf. vstat.net -> Visual Statistics Illustrated -> Censorship). At that point I wanted to dissociate myself from Wikipedia. Later, I decided to give it another try. By the way, my name is David Krus which was originally spelled with a small v above the s. Best Wishes, David

Re: Socio-cultural evolution (2nd nom for featured article)

Hi Piotrus--Thanks for the note. I'll take a look tomorrow evening and see if there's anything I can contribute. I'll certainly add my vote to the nomination as well. My apologies for not contributing more to the process; have been unexpectedly busy this summer. All criticisms aside, it's a solid article and definitely worthy of a featured article status. Thanks for all your hard work. Cheers--Pariah 03:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Silesia

Would you be knowing if there are any groups, organisations etc. that wish for independence / autonomy for Silesia? User:Nichalp/sg 09:16, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. User:Nichalp/sg 04:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Potsdam Declaration

Here some quotation from the "Official Gazette of the control council for Germany" (Documents relating to the establishment of the Allied Control Authority) - published by the "Allied Secretariat" in Berlin, Elssholzstrase 32.

Under item VI (Statement by the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and the Provisional Government of the French Republic on the zones of occupation in Germany) they write:

"1. Germany, within her frontiers as they were on 31st December, 1937, will, for purposes of occupation, be divided into four zones, one to be alloted to each Power as follows ..."

Under item VIII (Report on the Tripartite Conference of Berlin) and there Article IX concerning the western frontier of Poland they write:

"The three Heads of Government reaffirm their opinion that the final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland should await the peace settlement."

Until this peace conference the disputed territories "shall be under the administration of the Polish State and for such purposes should not be considered as part of the Soviet Zone of occupation in Germany."

In this way it´s obvious that the (West-) Allies didn´t order any transfer of Germans out of their ancestral homelands because by doing this they would have created a fait accompli.

Actually Russia and Poland created such accomplished facts by expelling most of that Germans - even quite long before the Potsdam Declaration.

(Comment: Any forced transfer of population is a crime against humanity; and this it was already at times of 1945 - Nazi-Germany was trialed exactly for such crimes, too.)

-- Wikiferdi 13:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Here is my first message!--Libbysoc 14:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Hi,Piotr --Tim Vining 20:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Reprivatization

I started a stub about reprivatization, and I thought that you might be able to contribute, being an MA in Econ from a country where some reprivatization is occuring. --Jpbrenna 21:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Social progress page

Register? How do you mean? User:Jurriaan. BTW you do some good articles, even if I don't necessarily agree.

Pittsburgh project

Just noticed your mention of this - it's an excellent idea! I hope the program works out well - the potential for expanding this to other courses here and there is very promising. Best of luck! Shimgray 20:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

PBW

Czołem! Na Talk:Kiev Offensive (1920) Irpen umieścił, skierowane do Ciebie, pytanie o ewentualne copyvio. Halibutt 01:47, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Kiev_Offensive_(1920)#New_lead_vs_copyvio_old_text - cała sekcja o copyvio odnosi się do fragmentu z Twojej (pierwotnej) wersji artykułu. Co do mapek do Dymitriad - dopiero wczoraj wrócił do mnie odpowiednio mocny komputer, więc dopiero w najbliższym czasie będę mógł się za to zabrać... Pozdrawiam Halibutt 16:10, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

It is perfectly common and legitimate to delete talk that is pure ranting without any relevance to article improvement. Everyking 03:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Poland

Any luck with picture permissions? --Goodoldpolonius2 02:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Aside from the permissions, I really don't know what to do about the other objections, since the authors of them didn't see fit to actually add information to the article. What do you think, re-submit anyway? --Goodoldpolonius2 14:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Sure, lets resubmit, I'll answer any objections, as best as I can. Did you email about the permissions, by any chance? --Goodoldpolonius2 18:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I still owe some edits on the ghettos, which I've allowed to fall by the wayside. Is it a problem if I try to catch up in the middle of the FAC process? Buffyg 17:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox Biography

I'm having some issues on John Vanbrugh. People keep removing the infobox! I think it's quite useful as it does take some hunting to find information about birth places, birth dates and death dates/places in many of the articles. Could you comment on the talk page? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Belarus

In the lead, I have this: "Since independence, Belarus has been the focus of international attention due to the authoritarian leadership of President Alexander Lukashenko, who has ruled the country since 1994." While I know Poland and the US called him a dictator, I am not sure if this is trying to remain NPOV. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I forget to mention the entire section, which I pasted it at the FAC page. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I only have one strong objection, mainly for grammar. The revert issue he talked about, I resolved it. Carnildo withdrew his objection since the images were taken care of. Zach (Sound Off) 05:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Union of Poles in Belarus

I know they have been in the news, but I do not know much about the group at all or their goals. Can you and others who are good at Polish articles fix this up to be a non-stub? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Kammerlader

Hi. I applogies for 'spamming' your talkpage like this, but some time ago you was helpfull with comments on one of 'my' other articles on old Norwegian rifles and I wondered if you might be interested in helping out peer reviewing the article on the Kammerlader. Thank you for your time. WegianWarrior 11:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Culture of Poland

Hi Piotruś,

Just got your message about improving Template:Culture of Poland. Funny, I was thinking about doing just that. I was considering using an image of one of the Three Bards or Kochanowski or even Norwid, but I haven't found one on WP that I like. (I'm looking for something in color, easily identifiable, and preferably not a detail of a larger painting.) As for the layout, something along the lines of Template:History of Poland and Template:Polish statehood, but with a different color scheme. What do you think? Appleseed 22:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyright question

Image:Order_Orla_Bialego2.jpg is a Polish decoration, but are they Public Domain under Polish law? Zach (Sound Off) 02:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Stańczyk

Piotruś, I noticed you changed the image in Template:History of Poland back to Stańczyk. Could you take a look at my comment in the talk page there? Appleseed 12:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Spoo!

Spoo has just been featured! Thanks for your support! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Popular culture studies

Hi Piotrus, thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Popular culture studies. I've replied to your critique and was wondering whether you could look over it. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Many thanks. TreveXtalk 09:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Kazimierz Wielki

W artykule o tym krolu jest wymieniony Kazimierz Pomorski. Niestety nie jest on wymieniony w spisie ksiazat pomorskich. Czy mozesz pomoc wzjasnic ta zagadke?

Dear Fvw, you seem to be a bit to eager in removing elinks. While I prefer that all elinks are moved out of the body and into the main, it is better to have some relevant in the text (as sources or examples) instead of none. 'Wikipedia is not a dictionary' policy was designed to avoid having articles which are nothing but a list of external links and nowhere does it state that external links themselves should be removed from articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
If they're links with informative content on the topic I quite agree. Bulletin boards and club pages without extra content aren't useful as an extension of the article however. Have a look at Wikipedia:External links. --fvw* 23:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Mapki

Oj niebardzo, niebardzo... Po pierwsze z czasem u mnie krucho, po drugie mój komputer nadal nie działa, więc nie mam dostępu do podstawowej mapki. Być może po wypłacie będzie mnie stać na nową matrycę lub chociaż jakiś stary monitor, ale na razie... Pozdrawiam - Halibutt 01:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Sociology question

Mr. Piotrus,

I'm new to Wikipedia. Not sure if this is the correct place to contact you, but I'd like to know if the pages on sociology include noteworthy universities which feature esteemed professors of the subject. I'm interested in pursuing my extended education in this field but am unaware of the best universities for it.

Please advise.

Thank you for your thorough research and explanation of the field of sociology.

Lola R. lolacdoa@yahoo.com not a current Wikipedia account member

Wołodarka

Mam problem i nie do końca wiem jak go rozwiązać. Na temat wyniku Battle of Wołodarka dyskutowaliśmy z niejakim Irpenem przez miesiąc czy nawet więcej. Jego zdaniem najpierw była to bitwa nierozstrzygnięta (chodzi wyłącznie o opis w tabelce), następnie zamiast polskiego zwycięstwa powstał potworek w stylu "Rosjanom nie udało się osiągnąć zamierzonych celów" a na koniec wszystko zamieniło się w "Rosyjską przegraną". Mam wrażenie, że dla Irpena jakakolwiek wersja jest lepsza niż "Polskie zwycięstwo", co wydaje się najbardziej logiczne, i co zostało poparte przez jedyną osobe, która się zgłosiła po moim wszczęciu RfC i Third eye. No i teraz problemy:

  • Miesiąc temu obaj zostaliśmy poproszeni o podanie źródeł do swoich wersji. Ja podałem dwa. Z jednego (pamiętnik z epoki) wynika jasno polskie zwycięstwo. Drugie (monografia wyprawy kijowskiej Wyszczelskiego) wynika to samo, choć w tekście autor używa raczej sformułowań w stylu "rosyjska klęska" czy opisów w stylu "Polacy osiągnęli wszystkie zamierzone cele, podczas gdy Rosjanie żadnego". Natomiast Irpen, mimo moich ciągłych monitów, nie podał żadnego źródła, które poparło by którąkolwiek z jego wersji. Wychodzi na to, że była to głównie dyskusja między moimi źródłami, a jego nosem.
  • Ostatnio Irpen powtórzył, że wycofuje się z dyskusji. Uznałem, że skoro jedyny, który poddawał w wątpliwość trafność określeń użytych w artykule, wycofuje się z dyskusji i w dodatku nie może podać źródeł, to nie ma sensu trzymać taga "Disputed" na stronie artykułu. W końcu oznacza on, że na stronie dyskusji toczy się dysputa, a ta się właśnie zakończyła. Niestety, Irpen najwyraźniej uznał, że wprawdzie on nie poda żadnych źródeł na poparcie swej tezy ani nie wyjaśni swego stanowiska, ale może kiedyś zgłosi się ktoś, kto mógłby to zrobić, więc tag powinien zostać na miejscu do tego czasu. Ja wycinałem taga, on go wstawiał - i w końcu mamy artykuł zablokowany.

Czy masz jakiś pomysł co z tym zrobić? Halibutt 01:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No właśnie problem w tym, że Irpen jest cokolwiek impregnowany na moje prośby o argumenty. To dziwne, bo przy innych artykułach nigdy nie było problemów z dogadaniem się. Stąd z resztą moję wątpliwości czy to przypadkiem coś nie jest nie tak z moim rozumowaniem, że jeśli jedna strona nie osiągnęła nic a druga wszystko, to druga wygrała, a pierwsza przegrała. Problem w tym, że - dopóki jeszcze co jakiś czas uczestniczył w dyskusji - Irpen koncentrował się głównie na zbijaniu moich argumentów lub zbywaniu ich milczeniem, a nie na przedstawianiu własnych. Więc teraz w sumie nie wiem jak dalej prowadzić ten spór, skoro nie ma ani z kim, ani nawet źródeł do konfrontacji pod nieobecność Irpena.
A artykuł został zablokowany przez Carnildo, i w sumie trudno się dziwić, bośmy się z Irpenem nie mogli zgodzić co do tego, czy on nie zgadza się ze wszystkimi wersjami poza swoją, czy tylko z dwiema. Halibutt 15:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"Sources are better than single user's personal opinion". Well said and I entirely agree. However, the problem is with personal conclusions users make from the sources on their own. Please take a look at an earlier talk. If you still stand by your vote, fine with me either way. --Irpen 06:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Besides, could you check what outcome of the battle is given by Davies? --Irpen 07:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Redirects for deletion

Piotruś, could you delete the following pages? They're redirects, but not really useful.

Also, could you check out my latest post on Template talk:History of Poland? Appleseed 22:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

ancient Polish clothing

I'll see to the matter and try to find and correct all mistakes. The blue thing is żupan. Greetings, Selena von Eichendorf 19:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey! I guess I've done all the corrections in descriptions of clothes - at least in those that came into my mind and linked to the images. I removed one picture in kontusz - the one of Rzewuski's bust. It did not show the idea properly (besides - there was a question of what that greenish girdle was - it was probably connected with him being awarded a medal of some sort). The two remaining are good enough. In the description of Zamoyski I removed the info about him being tied with pas kontuszowy. It is pas żupanowy. I'm not writing in Polish because others on En Wiki might be interested in what I'm doing with those changes. You can contact me on Pl - I'm always there. Bye! Selena von Eichendorf 11:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

May 3rd Constitution

Halibutt and I have been unable to raise the Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791 Wikisource, which contained an English translation of the Constitution, including the Free Royal Cities Act. Do you know what might have happened to the Wikisource, and how it could be restored?

Is it really true, as now appears in the extensively edited Wikiquote, that Edmund Burke's quote was in response to Ewald von Hertzberg's? Regards, logologist 22:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing back the English translation of the May 3rd Constitution. It would have been a shame to lose it permanently.
Texts disappearing — perhaps the entire Wikipedia, like some Library of Alexandria — is a nightmare of mine. Occasionally I print out texts that would be particular losses. It might make sense to put key articles on disk as backup.
Thanks. Regards, logologist 06:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

kontusz

Wstawiłem inny, Bardziej charakterystyczny bo obejmujący całą postać. To lepiej oddaje pojęcie jak wyglądał kontusz. Mzopw 12:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Po pierwsze: to czym przewiązany był ten żupan to nie pas kontuszowy tylko pas, jaki stosowano przed pojawieniem się kontusza do przewiązywania żupana (to co ma na wierzchu Zamoyski to delia). Nie funkcjonuje pojęcie "pasa żupanowego" - jest to po prostu "pas". Zdecydowanie nie kontuszowy, który bez kontusza nie istnieje; ten kontuszowy ma jako rzecz wierzchnia inny - bardziej ozdobny - charakter, co na pierwszy rzut oka zresztą widać. Więc po prostu: informacja że Zamoyski jest przewiązany pasem kontuszowym była nieprawdziwa. Zaś Rzewuski to było tylko popiersie nie oddające w całości idei kontusza. Dodatkowo jest tam ta szarfa zielonkawa, która wprowadza zamieszanie, bo obserwator zastanawia się cóż to za część odzieży - a jest to raczej szarfa a propos nadania jakiegoś odznaczenia. Uważam że tamte dwie inne grafiki w zupełności wystarczą, ale oczywiście wstaw Rzewuskiego na powrót jeśli uważasz to za stosowne. Pozdrawiam, Selena von Eichendorf 14:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

  • O własnie. Selena super wyjaśniła. Nie ma sensu umieszczać popiersia bo kontusz to długa szata i dół też ma bardzo chcarkterystyczny krój po którym go się poznaje. To tak jakby ilustrując spodnie dać zdjęcie człowieka powyżej kolan. Mzopw 15:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
O! To może zaciągnę Mzopwa do współpracy bo się zna i w miarę czasu poprzeglądamy. Kategoria rzeczywiście imponująca. Pzdr, Selena von Eichendorf 15:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

FA image

I was just using the same template that I think is used to great effect on the German Wikipedia. I think there needs to be something on the article itself to indicate that it is featured, but Raul apparently doesn't like the idea. What to do? 128.122.89.106 14:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:featuredarticle looks nice. We can have a discussion and a vote. Btw, is it you, PZFUN? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, it is I, PZFUN. I was using a computer in a library that won't allow cookies, so I couldn't log in. Where do you suggest having the discussion/vote? Páll (Die pienk olifant) 15:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Molobo

Hi Piotrus. I did not block Molobo for a 3RR, but for disrupting Wikipedia. (This is a valid reason to block according to Wikipedia:Blocking policy [2]). A block of Witkacy for the same reason was spontaneously confirmed by another admin whom I did not know before. About the vote: The vote is not perfect, but I still think it is good. A very strong majority voted for double naming, yet a few editors go into the face of the 70%+ majority. Molobo would even remove the birthplace of a bio-article from the middle ages just so that there is no mentioning of Danzig [3]. He did remove double naming repeatedly and over long periods. He also has the annoying habit of calling edits he does not like either vandalism or personal attacks, and he is in a POV dispute with dozends of editors and a few admins. Hence I finally blocked him for disrupting Wikipedia and going against community consensus by again despite multiple warnings removing double naming. On one point I agree with you, maybe the wording of the vote should be renamed to something like "other names still in use in English in relation to the article". On the other hand, every voting result can be misinterpreted and stretched beyond reason if someone really wants to. One editor even wanted to rename New York since it has a relation to Polish-German history. If you have a solution for this conflict I am all ears. I DO have a high opinion of you, and value your contributions. I just don't want to go back to ignore the vote and restart hundreds of edit wars. Other than that I have little interest in articles about Polish or German history. Best wishes and happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 12:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: I do not know this anon, and I have not requested support from anybody. I also dislike German POV edits. -- Chris 73 Talk 12:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your update on Wikipedia_talk:Survey_guidelines#Fixing_giant_loopholes. Also, i have definitely warned Molobo, SpaceCadet, and other user numerous times. I do not block without warning (unless the username includes on wheels), and in the Gdansk issue I have warned repeatedly and frequently. I had no contact with the user Zvinbudas, but if he got banned by the arbcom then I am sure he deserved it. In the Gdansk issue, we have the advantage of a vote with a clear outcome (double naming), and I plan to support it until we have something better. If necessary I will block users. This support comes with common sense, so I don't agree with the recent renaming of Braunschweig. If you see me reverting an edit you think was good let me know. I make mistakes, too, and I do value your comments. Thanks! -- Chris 73 Talk 05:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

3RR inquiry

Hello Piotrus! If you have time, do you think you could look into this situation and give your opinion? Molobo has accused me of violating the 3RR regarding edits on Warmia yesterday. I have responded to his claims on his own Talk Page, but as this is the first time I have been accused of violating the rule, I would like to seek the opinion of a mutually respected third party. Olessi 18:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Wersja beta

I co powiesz? Jakieś pomysły? Sugestie? Halibutt 23:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

A jak z kolorami? Czy Ukraina nie powinna być w całości na "polsko"? Poza tym - nie jestem pewien czy lepiej zostawić całą mapkę, czy na przykład jej nie przyciąć, by szlaczki były lepiej widoczne... Aha, no i kiedyś będę się musiał w końcu nauczyć robić gify, wtedy mógłbym zrobić z tej mapki animację... Halibutt 23:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Cholera, a które obszary zmieniły status za czasów Dywilina? Niestety, mój własny atlas historyczny gdzieś się zawieruszył, a na skanie od Ciebie niestety niewiele widać... Halibutt 00:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

samuel Jacob Jackan (Yatskan)

Hello, I am the grand daughter of S.J. Jackan and I was very touched to see his name listed on your list. I have difficulties with the date of his birth, were did you find it was 1874 ? I have read 1874 stated on the commercial satus of his french newspaper, wereas his death certificate mentions 1973 (in vabolniki). In November the 23rd 2006 it will be the 70th anniversary of his death. He has been an exceptionnal man, very influancial, in his time... and I will try to make an event. Hope to read you... Best regards, ACK.

Sorry I made a mistake. S.I. Jackan was born in Vabilniki eather in 1873 or 1974, he was dead in Paris in 1936 and was buried in Warsaw. He is a pionnier of the yiddsih press and the founder of the leading yiddish daily newpaper between world war I and II, The Haint, published in Warsaw and read worlwide (and of the french edition, the Parizer Haint).Best regards, ACK.

I am happy you find something useful in our efforts, but I admit I am confused what list/article do you refer to? Feel free to add any information you have to his biographical article (Jacob Jackan/Jacob Yatskan/Jakub Jackan?), and ask me if you have any more questions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I was refering to your "list of poles" which had a link but no article yet. His first name was Samuel (Schmuel) second Jacob (Yacov, Jacub) and last name Jackan (Yatzkan, Yatskan). There are lots of other ways to spell his names for he was born in Lituania in Russian times, then it became Polish, he moved several times, lived in Warsaw and Paris. I wish I could provide you with data but I am very very busy right now. If you cannot wait there is a fantastic site http://www.haynt.org/ where the saga of the newspaper from 1908 to 1939 by its last redactor is being tanslated from yiddish to english. It is full of very vivid descriptions. One can see my grandfather as in a pleasant documentary film.. he appears almost in all the chapters but there is a biography in pages 23 to 38: http://www.haynt.org/chap01.htm The Yivo institute is also preparing an article tto be issued shortly. I hope you can find where you got the date of his birth... Best regards. ACK.

All right - tnx for the info! When you have the time, feel free to come back and create an article about him. Take are, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Support Template

Hi Piotrus,
It certainly is a shame that those harmless templates were deleted (and I still hold that the case against them was seriously flawed - have you read the discussion?), maybe a redirect would help. The other thing is to provide a template piece of text on the FPC page and let people make sub user pages like I have and use the support icons that way.
On a completely unrelevant note, I'm Piotrus as well! Both my parents immigrated from Poland and settled in Australia. So I'm Peter now but I used to be Piotrus. My mum told me that Piotrus was like a baby name and that most people became "Piotr" after a while. Is that right? Anyway, see you around --Fir0002 02:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

No I can't read very well at all and can write less - skills I've shamefully neglected I guess. I can understand quite a lot - especially basic vocabulary like water is woda but find it hard to formulate sentences. I think I pronounce words quite well because up to the age of 4 I only spoke polish, and my grandparents speak Polish to us all the time, although Mum and Dad speak much less Polish to us now. I love "Czterej pancerni i pies" and spent my early childhood playing pancerni! Anyway, I didn't really understand the poem but Mum and Dad thought it pretty good. --Fir0002 02:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Survey

Hi, I am thinking about a survey for the names issue for the places in Ukraine. Could you please take a look at Talk:Kiev#Summary_of_older_discussions_over_names_in_the_articles and the comments after that? So far, there are no good reasons not to start a survey on this, I think. Please comment there if you'd like to say anything on the matter. Reagrds, --Irpen 04:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

In need of a Polish speaker

Yours was the first name that came into my head when attempting to translate these articles from the original Polish to English.

I've noticed there are a lot of articles on Polish soccer players which are not available on the English Wikipedia but are available on the Polish. I was wondering if you could help with some translations of articles from the originals. (I realize this may not be the strongest of fields, for that matter, of anyone who contributes to the English Wikipedia, but I was hoping you could help). Articles I have already attempted to translate include those for Dariusz Adamczuk 1 and Teodor Anioła 2, and the rest are on my user page, prefixed in the table on the right with the Polish flags.

The main reason I ask is for translation purposes. I need to assure that my English versions are accurate to the Polish versions in terms of content, and you are one of the few native Polish speakers' names I recognize on Wikipedia. If you could help me with this job then I would be very grateful. Thank you. Bobo192 05:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus said: Sorry, but I am completly uniterested in football and prefer to work on history and science articles. But I would recommend you post your request at Wikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board and Wikipedia:Translation_into_English#Polish_to_English, I am sure some fans will reply.

No problem. Just asking around for better Polish speakers who were actually active on the English Wiki as well as the Polish. Most of the contributors in that area do not contribute here, and you appeared to be one of the more active Poles. Thank you for reading, though, and happy editing. Bobo192 18:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Kulturkampf

Możesz zerknąć na ten artykuł ? Usilnie trwa tam próba wymazywania wszelkich wzmianek o prześladowaniu Polaków i stanowisku Bismarcka--Molobo 00:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Wojsko

Talk:Polish_Armed_Forces#So_what.3F - zerkniesz? Halibutt 15:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

No właśnie, już jakieś trzy miesiące minęły odkąd nic się tam nie ruszyło. A propozycję stuba na temat Polskich Sił Zbrojnych zamieściłem nieco powyżej. Tylko że do przeniesienia potrzebny jest administrator. Halibutt 16:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
A co do mapki - ostatnio nie miałem czasu, ale postaram się za to zabrać w najbliższym czasie. Halibutt 16:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

prośba o info

Poszukuję informacji o Włodzimierzu Samojło-sulima 1878 - 1941 jedyną znalazłem w Pańskiej Wikipedii proszę o kontakt piotr.szymanski@mediclub.pl

Chętnie pomogę, ale musi Pan być bardziej szczegółowy - na jakiej stronie są informacje o Włodzimierz Samojło-sulima? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Hey, Peter, bet you are surprised that I am visiting you here on Wikipedia! Tim

Nope. I knew you would see the light one day... ;p --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Featured picture

Image:Maly Szyszak.jpg
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Maly Szyszak.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Congratulations! Raven4x4x 01:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

War of the League of Cambrai

Thank you for your comments! I've added a warbox to the article; I'll try to get a better map as well, but I don't know how successful I'll be. Kirill Lokshin 19:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

PMW

I just want to praise your image substitution at PMW. With great respect, --Irpen 20:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocking

It is the duty of admins to enforce Wikipedia:Civility, a policy that Molobo does have serious problems with, and he fails to respond to Shauri in a constructive manner. I do think that a few hours of reflexion is in order. On the other hand, he seems to have been unblocked anyway.--Wiglaf 04:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I find this to be both obstructive and uncivil. Moreover, as you can see by the responses, they are also mendacious by citing purported references to Yad Vashem, when the actual sources he was criticised for were these [4] [5] [6] [7].--Wiglaf 05:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Why Wiglef, you manipulate things, Shauri attacked me for different article.I responded that I doubt her neutrality because in the past in the other article she supported an opinion by a User that Yad Vashem or Jewishlibrary souldn't be used as source of information on war atrocities. --Molobo 11:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

No, Molobo, you manipulate things, for I: 1) Never attacked you, and I invite you to show exactly where is the supposed attack (much on the contrary, I have treated you with utmost respect), and 2) The claim that I supported the opinion that Yad Vashem should be doubted as a source is a plain and most outrageous lie, bordering the personal attack, that I dare you to prove with the proper link to any statement of mine saying otherwise. Shauri smile! 12:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The claim that I supported the opinion that Yad Vashem should be doubted as a source is a plain and most outrageous lie, bordering the personal attack, that I dare you to prove with the proper link to any statement of mine saying otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Erwin_Rommel Another comment from Cadorna (this time comparing Jews to Klu Klux Klan and Nazi units to oppresed minority) : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=12th_SS_Panzer_Division_Hitlerjugend&action=history "(Serious sources only, please - using www.jewishlibrary.org as a source on this matter is like quoting the KKK on the Black Power article)" --Molobo 16:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been reading thru the discussion, and I think that rather than a comparison, he was merely offering an example of what an unneutral source is. On the other hand, you, Molobo, have much more to answer for. Shauri 17:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC) --Molobo 12:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC) The same user in the discussions used the argument that Yad Vashem is untrustworthy source.You supported that user as seen above. --Molobo 12:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It is very interesting to hear how you accuse another user of POV. You appear to have no grasp of assume good faith, and you appear to see conspiracies everywhere. I am absolutely positive that Shauri did not scrutinize the pages' history like you do. She only demanded what every sensible user does - ask you to provide reliable sources.--Wiglaf 12:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and from your point of view, the fact that I make a personal interpretation of what another user could have meant automatically makes me support his claim? Show me exactly where I endorsed such a view, please. You had much to respond at that point because, at the Rommel article and its Talk Page, you were pushing your own POVs as usual, and not only me, but many other users like GeneralPatton, Thorsten1, R.D.H. Ghost in the Machine and others were pointing it out.

you were pushing your own POVs as usual, and not only me, but many other users like GeneralPatton, Thorsten1, R.D.H. Again you change the subject.My edits incorporated Myth of Rommel series, scholary work on military strategy of Rommel, and his diary which admited to murdering of french prisoner.The reaction of course was complete denial and personal attacks.


I assume we all form part of a Nazi conspiracy, according to your opinion, then? Please point to such accusation.

Well, I've got news for you: post all the coments by some guy that I have never endorsed; a mere interpretation and an opinion of the meaning he may have intended doesn't make his opinions mine. You supported an opinion that Yad Vashem and Jewishlibrary aren't neutral resources by user who compered them to KKK and Nazis to opressed minority.--Molobo 15:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Did I actually say that Jewish sources should be disregarded? (quite an ironic acussation, if you mean so, considering my part-Jewish heritage) You used that argument before,however it seems then that your accusations are also ironic since I have German heritage. --Molobo 15:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Did I endorse said claim of disregarding such sources? No, I said that you were responding to the fair urging of many users like me and the three people I mentioned above of stop pushing your POVs I am sorry but I presented no POV.Rommel himself admitted to executing a French prisoner. --Molobo 15:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

with an attack to a particular user who made a very unfortunate statement Yes unfortunate indeed, naming Jews Klu Klux Klan...

but with an intention that was not, imho, the one you assigned to it, instead of going to the center of the argument: your POV pushing. Much like you do now: you hide your own faults behind the smoke curtain of an acussation that has nothing to do with the matter of discussion, And my I ask what your constant attacks on my person have to do with the article or any policy that I supposodly broke that led to block ? --Molobo 15:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

not to mention that, at least in my case, said attack is completely out of place and false. You sure are skillful when it comes to twist other people's words, and to assign second intentions to the fair claims of seriousness regarding POVs. So stop attacking me over a statement that does not in any way mean the sense that you give to it from an extremely bad faith position, and answer once and for all the reason why you refuse to provide solid sources to your many questionable claims.

You've posted information that has been proved to be false in the past, and you have never expressed any regrets towards it. Please point me to such information.I will gladly correct it. --Molobo 15:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Responded at Molobo's talk page. Shauri
Thus, the claim for verifiable and solid sources is an imperative need in your case.
Piotr, I am extremely sorry to have taken this space at your talk page to respond to these unfair attacks. I'm very sad that we first have met through this unfortunate event, considering how much I admire and respect you and your work. I will not respond to any more comments here, but rather, at the attacker's own talk page. Again, I'm truly sorry, and I hope we get to talk again in better circumstances. My hugs to you, Shauri smile! 14:47, 47 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't mind. Talking is better then blocking. I have read part of your discussion and I think it's a large misunderstanding. I hope you work it out. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
BTW, it was not a ban but a 6 hour block. The shortest one I have ever dealt.--Wiglaf 05:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

And what policy breaking led to 24 hour block which you shortened when I pointed out that no polic y was violated ? --Molobo 12:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You have to compare the quote with Shauri's offers of friendship and respect. After having followed for some time how he responds to communication, I doubt that communication is sufficient with this user.--Wiglaf 05:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Fear not. You are receptive to communication.--Wiglaf 07:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Trans link

No problem. Keep up the good work! --Leo44 | Talk 12:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

SYS FARC

I've nomintated Sun Yat-sen for featured article removal. Since you originally supported the nomination, your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Sun Yat-sen. --Jiang 08:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Głos

Zaiste. Chodzi o to, że w ramach obywatelskiego nieposłuszeństwa używam do głosowania szablonu z commons, którego na wiki nikt nie pozwala stworzyć. Halibutt 13:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Jest to jakiś pomysł, ale raczej zostanę przy moim cichym proteście. Zadałem kilku najgłośniejszym przeciwnikom tego szablonu pytanie dlaczego zabrania się jego używania i nie uzyskałem odpowiedzi. Ale nie chcę niczego promować, bo zaraz odezwałby się jakiś życzliwy admin że za pomocą tego linku obchodzę wyniki głosowania czy robię inne przykre rzeczy. Dlatego zostanę przy użyciu zwykłego linku, nawet jeśli nie działa. Na całe szczęście nikt jeszcze na wiki nie zabrania linkowania do nieistniejących stron. Ale dzięki za sugestię. Halibutt 21:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

:Sitta europaea wildlife

There is one of my most recent photos nominated in Featured picture candidates. I'd appreciate your opinion. pl:Wikipedysta:Jojo. PS. You can also vote on pl:Wikipedia:Grafika_na_medal_-_propozycje#Kowalik.2F_00:15.2C_1_lis_2005_.28CEST.29

PMW

I responded at my own talk but I am not sure you saw it, soI duplicate my responce. --Irpen

If I should revert this or not. Ghirlandajo comment, unsuprisingly, is not helpful. What do you think? In other news, I have been thinking about making our EENoticeboard more active. One thing that would be useful would be a listing of pages with disputes involving our editors (like currently Międzymorze, and maybe others I might be interested in but am not aware of). We can also have a list of past discussions with a summary of a compromise reached (like on Domeyko and Polish-Soviet War). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

While I disagree with a comment in the edit summary, I am not so clear about the phrase itself as I've said at the article's talk. Ghirlandajo's change about what the day means in Russia now is certainly correct. We are only talking about the phrase regarding the Polish interpretation of that and I am not clear of it. Did you mean that it is interpreted as such in Poland now because the events it is connected to what happened at the time of the Polish intervention? Or do you mean that in today's climate the relationships are so strained that, that, therefore, it is interpreted as such? Since it was not clear to me, the phrase probably needs changed in any case (that is if it's kept, of course).
I am all for the EE board revival despite there was a Polish editor who at some article (I forgot which one) argued whether the PL is EE on the first place. The braoder attention to PSW and PMW would certainly help. Some discussions are still not resolved (like the Volodarka one which was decided by a vote tally when the result 3:1 was not statistically significant, it's not 30:10, but I just got tired of that)
As for Miedzymorze, this is a serious issue too. While "imperilism" name isn't neutral, much of this article is about expansionism rather than just the Miedzymorze, and this would benefit from discussions.
What's your take on the Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Geographic names discussion. I think we are close to a good proposal (the last version). Regards, --Irpen 02:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Tnx for copying the responce to my talk page, I don't check other people's talk pages for replies. I meant that today's relationship are so strained that this festivity in Moscow was viewed by many Polish commentators as a Putin government message to Polish government ('we don't like you'). I wonder how it was viewed by Russian commentators? It certainly was (for a few days) hotly debated in Poland (IIRC). As for Poland being in CE/EE, I think many would say it is in CE - while I think that the correct answer is that it is in both, and serves as a bridge. If you could add the links of those discussions to our board, it would surely increase its usefulness. I will check the discussion soon, tnx for the note. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

As I explained at PMW talk, the reasons why this date was chosen was different from what Polish media was saying as you quoted them. Russians wanted a holiday in early November to replace the Nov 7 and there are no other holidays in autumn at all. The emphasized in Russia meaning of this date is also not polonophobic but rather what Ghirlandajo has put into the article "...society willingly united to preserve the Russian statehood when its demise seemed inevitable, even though there was neither Tsar nor Patriarch to guide them."

If Polish media found anti-Polonism in the date pick, it is just another indications that two nations have some attitude problems and Russian media are no less eager to play up the Russophobia in Poland. In any case, I would probably have left the old phrase out. --Irpen 18:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I found the talk page when PL's being an EE was being questioned. It is here: Talk:Russophobia#Russophobia_in_Poland.2C_Baltic_States.2C_Eastern_Europe._NPOV, --Irpen 18:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I took another look on the map in the warbox. Why is that some so moany cities have Polish names instead of English ones, but Warsaw is Warsaw (an English name). --Irpen 06:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

name for the article

Perhaps you noticed from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618) that there is no agreement yet that the current name of the article (PM) is optimal as opposed to Russo-Polish, for example. I am not sure you are aware that there is also a lively discussion at Portal:Russia/Russia-related_Wikipedia_notice_board#Polish_invasion_of_Russia. I thought you would be interested to read the feedback there too. The fact that the M-word is viewed annoying for many of the Russian community, this has to be considered in the name debate. Personally, I think that a good English name for that's time country is Muscovite Russia. So, since this is still Russia (even if Muscovite) the Russo-Polish war seems reasonable (as pointed out in the dicsusion, it is so called at Phillips & Axelrod Encyclopedia of Wars). OTOH, if it is called PMW in most of the English L historiography we should keep the name then. --Irpen 03:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Warmia

Talk:Warmia-Masuria - pomocy! :) Halibutt 20:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Znaki narodowe

Czy w artykule o historii Żydów w Polsce używamy znaków diakrytycznych w nazwach własnych czy nie ? W tej chwili jest trochę niekonsekwentnie. Chętnie bym je widział, ale też nie chcę wywoływać niepotrzebnie jakiegoś wilka z lasu. --Lysy (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Titles

Thanks for your question about alternative titles for the indeed, in English, uncommunicative titles, June of Poznan, March 1968 events, and Coastal cities events. I've placed suggestions on the respective articles' discussion pages.

A Pole can find information on these events elsewhere, anyone else would never think to look under the current titles. And, as you've remarked, links may be provided from other potential titles someone might look under.

Please let me know of any further questions or counter-proposals. logologist 00:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey, I nominated myself for Adminship -- would you mind voting (if you are in favor, of course, otherwise you can skip) --Goodoldpolonius2 04:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

PSW

Do you have a Davies' "White Eagle, Red Star" in English? If so, could you comment at Template talk:Campaignbox Polish-Bolshevik War? Thanks, --Irpen 21:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Piotr

Based on your advice I registered an account. I didn't think I'd be editing Wikipedia so much, but I guess it is kind of addictive. Thanks for the encouragement!

60-80 tysięcy Rosjan zamordowanych w Berezie Kartuskiej

To tylko jedna z propozycji jakie informacje umieścić w artykule Russophobia jakie umieszczono na Talk Page. Polecam uwadze ten artykuł. --Molobo 14:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't be afraid

Hi. Piotr. Don't be afraid. I usually don't log in because I don't like to and my computer log me off so often that I am bored of logging in. So usually I sign explicitly my post without logging in. Cheers. Vb 12:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Indiana University project

Piotr - Things have gone okay. My girlfriend is actually the instructor, I'm just the Niki's ambassador (so to say). The students were given their articles and few did a very good job of finding additional information and verifying information in the articles. Despite being warned, one student found a wikipedia mirror and claimed that since another site copied Wikipedia's content that meant it must be true. Impressionable youth :) The students have been offered extra-credit (about a third of a letter grade) to add their citations and information to the articles. This isn't due until Thanksgiving, and from what I can tell none of them have done it yet. She plans to do the same assignment next semester, and it sounds like a few other instructors might try it as well. I'll keep you updated and Korryn and I thank you for your interest! --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The copyright issue is why we didn't require the students to submit their work, but only provided extra credit. Our hope was that since the material they were submitting to wikipedia was not ever turned in, we wouldn't have to confront the "who owns students' assignments" concern. Although to be honest, I don't think this later issue is such a big deal. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 16:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured Picture
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Przysiega Kosciuszki.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Congratulations Raven4x4x 09:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Nowina Coat of Arms

I wonder if you can add some information to this article. Emax, who created this article and added a nice picture and headings, has not been active on Wikipedia since February in which time this article has remained uncompleted. --Spondoolicks 15:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Good grief! I didn't realise this was just the tip of the iceberg! --Spondoolicks 15:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I reworked the template tag. Also, I expanded the article on Nowina Coat of Arms. :) Halibutt 21:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Giewont

Hi! I was looking though Wikipedia:Translation into English and noticed that you listed the Giewont article as needing translation. I have done this and added links to all the pictures on the Polish article. What do you think? I would love to hear from you! Brisvegas 04:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

German nobility

Hi Piotrus. I created a stub German nobility for you, based on de:Adel, which was the closest I could find on the German Wiki. It has a large section on German nobility, some parts of which i translated. Please check the stub, since my nobility-related vocabulary is not so good. Also, I think there is no German Noticeboard on the En Wiki. Strange. Anyway, happy editing! -- Chris 73 Talk 12:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Moldavian Magnate Wars

Nice to meet you, Piotrus and glad to be of assistance. I'm Romanian, and I reached your article while working on articles for Moldavian princes. Funny thing is that our historians don't refer to this as a particular series of events (other than in generic terms), so I was quite surprised at first. But it makes perfect sense that it should be an article on its own. I'll see what else can needs tuning up. Thanks for the confidence. Dahn 16:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: "As I wrote on Talk:Moldavian Magnate Wars, I did invent the name of this article, and I am not entirely happy with it (besides, Wikipedia policy is NOT to invent names). How are those events reffered to in Romanian sources? The problem is that they don't really have a name in Polish sources, there are various terms like Moldavian war, Moldavian campaingn, or southern politics of the Commonwealth (sic!), reffering to various events described in our article." It's the same kind of thing over here. But I guess you can't go with "Polish campaigns in Moldavia, since you would have to expand your article to cover everything from Alexandru cel Bun to Sobieski, and it will be a mammouth of a story. I think the one you have now is a good working title. If Polish sources refer to it as a period on its own, then you didn't really invent it. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Dahn 17:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not "according to a play" that Razvan was a Gypsy. It is a story that was originated in his time that was consacreted through a XIXth century play. It may even be true: Razvan is considered a name reserved for Gypsies of the period. I'll nuance it. Dahn 17:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I left some messages for you on the talk page for the article. Dahn 18:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I might have a reference for you: Gheorghe I. Brătianu, "Sfatul domnesc şi Adunarea Stărilor în Principatele Române", Bucharest, 1995. It deals mainly with Moldavia's and Wallachia's institutional evolution (which I should start work on, given that the articles for Romania are usually disastrous and biased) and mentions the wars in passing (it's a very detailed analysis and, although I've just briefly looked through the description of this period, I remember it being dealt with satisfactorly). The book is quite lenghty, and the author is prestigious (they still don't have an article for him on Wiki, which doesn't do him justice - although he was also a noted politician and the member of a very important family). I've used the book in the Vasile Lupu article and others.Dahn 10:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for the award, Piotrus. I'll wear it with pride. Dahn 19:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: Regarding the George Ioan Bratianu (I know the proper spelling is Brătianu, but Amazon doesn't) book, you may want to add it to the reference section of the articles you used the info from it in (consider using Wikipedia:Footnotes to references specific paragraphs), and to the 'further reading' section to other articles you think it is relevant. Unfortunately I don't speak romanian (I assume that's the language he is using) and can't read his books myself (Amazon link I cite above indicates he has not been translated). In other words, it's up to you and to other editors speaking the relevant language to translate the relevant info into English and share with rest of the world (I have been doing much of this with Polish sources). What I meant to say was that I have read the book, and (although the scope of the book is limited to Moldavia) I found it consistent with the article. I have read it a while back in its entierty, and so I can't find particular quotes, at least not anytime soon (I do not have it at home). The thing is, you could cite it among other references (I am planning to add a bit to your article about "Consequences in Moldavia", but I can only do it after I've covered all of the corresponding rules in Modavia, especially for the Movilă family). I mentioned the book because I've reviewed details in your article while noticing that they are reffered to succintly by Brătianu. I have been adding him as a reference for many articles in Wiki (see Matei Basarab or Vasile Lupu). I wouldn't have given it a thought that you should start learning Romanian just to read this, sorry I didn't explain myself properly the first time. Dahn 22:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Pulkownik

Do I take this that you object to Pulkownik info being a part of the Polkovnik article? --Irpen 03:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Mansfeld in the Polish-Swedish War

You had inquired during the summer if the Mansfeld of the P-S War was the Mansfeld from the 30 Years War. I have found nothing that indicates they are the same person. This Swedish link does mention a "Feltmarschalken Gref Philip af Mansfeld" in a 1634 campaign; it is possible that it is the officer from before, although the age difference makes it improbable. You might be interested in this link, but I do not know in what context "Fryderyk Joachim Mansfeld" is used as I do not speak Polish. It could be a good lead, however. Olessi 04:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Dunamunde

I had to double check it. Dunamunde (Russian official name in 1893-1917: Ust-Dvinsk) is a fortress in Latvia, 13 miles from Riga, commanding the mouth of the Daugava. The first monastery on the spot was founded by Teutonic Knights in 1201. For pictures click here. Brockhaus-Efron: [8]. --Ghirlandajo 15:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

As promised, I wrote the article in question. Check Daugavgriva. --Ghirlandajo 10:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Cultural evolution.PNG

Actually, in the right-hand diagram, they are meant to represent three separate cultures. The idea is that unilinealists often look at contemporary hunter-gatherers in the Kalahari or horticulturalists in New Guinea, and from their lifestyles try to reconstruct cultures that existed on opposite sides of the world thousands of years ago. Multilinealists are somewhat more skeptical of drawing these broad connections, doubting that every culture is at a "stage" in a grand scheme of progress, and hence emphasize the unique evolutionary trends of different cultures.--Pharos 03:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocking

Just doing my duty Piotrus. I wonder why you had not done it, but you are always unilaterally supportive of his actions. As for notifying him, I forgot about it, since I knew that he was extremely well aware of the situation, and I did leave a message on the 3RR page, which you probably knew. Since, you have unilaterally unblocked him, I will block him once more.--Wiglaf 07:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Response

Could you please respond here? Dmcdevit·t 09:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Page Expulsion Germans

Hi
You are correct this page needs to be upgraded and the sources cited. The events of 1945-46 need better treatment. Contemporary polemics by Poles and Germans seem to the main topic. This seems to me to be another Hatfield-McCoy feud. Can we get these guys to agree to a truce and just get the facts? The page needs to be cleaned up.--Berndd11222 11:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

My Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618) vote

In answer to your question, I'm not quite ready to change my vote. It is a good thing for a featured article to have a few red links, because it may encourage people to create those articles, but it looks bad to have too many, especially in the same template or sentence. I see that the number of red links in this article has been cut in half due to removing some and creating articles for others (I even created bare stubs for Sergey Miloradovich and Avraamy Palitsyn), but there are still more than 25, which is too many in my opinion. Please give another go at de-linking some and creating others (especially where there are several red links clustered together), and I may well change my vote to support. NatusRoma 18:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Nominacja na admina

Dziekuję za sugestię. Myślałem o tym od czasu do czasu, ale jednak wydaje mi się że mój dotychczasowy wkład w Wikipedię jest zbyt mały bym się kwalifikował. Jeśli chodzi o różne wojenki, oczywiście starałem się nie brać w nich udziału, jednak pomimo tego nie zawsze mi się to udawało, więc coś by się na mnie chyba znalazło, że tak powiem. Balcer 18:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

RFA and Block wars

You may not have noticed, but I was at Halibutt's RFA, and asked a question of him. Actually, I don't think most of the opposers are opposing because of lack of trust in his judgment, and not bias (it's not like this crapbucket). I'm afraid I wouldn't support either right now, but not going to pile-on either, I think he geets the message. So I don't think I'll vote now.

About block warring, I've responded at ANI as well. Let me just say that unilateral unblocking in this case is a big step. It means you think the other admin was acting in bad faith, and you accused them of "admin abuse." If that is so, then it is not something you can deal with on your own. Going to ANI would have been the minimum, filing an RFC or something along those lines is even more appropriate. People who abuse admin tools shouldn't have them. Period. But along those same lines, people who have admin tools, got them for a reason, and not one to be so easily belittled. Accusing another admin of bad faith in blocking is not something that should be done in the unblock summary field, but before the unblock. These are the most trusted members of our community, and an unblocking without community approval (when the community has not deemed their actions in bad faith) is in nearly all cases just as bad. And four times without bringing it up is egregious. If you are serious about this being admin abuse, then by all means put it before the community at RFC or somewhere, see if there is consensus to have their adminship removed or restricted. And don't ever take unblocking so lightly again. Dmcdevit·t 22:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI:
  1. 00:10, November 16, 2005 Piotrus unblocked User:Molobo (unfairly blocked, abuse of admin rights)
    • 23:19, November 15, 2005 Wiglaf blocked "User:Molobo" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR)
  2. 03:32, October 31, 2005 Piotrus unblocked User:Molobo (block without reason, abuse of admin powers)
    • 01:40, October 31, 2005 Wiglaf blocked "User:Molobo" with an expiry time of 6 hours (reading up on policies)
    • 00:57, October 31, 2005 Wiglaf blocked "User:Molobo" with an expiry time of 24 hours (to have time to review Wikipedia policies)
  3. 23:26, October 18, 2005 Piotrus unblocked User:Molobo (blocked for single small edit, this block is an abuse of admin rights)
    • 18:31, October 18, 2005 Chris 73 blocked "User:Molobo" with an expiry time of 48 hours (disrupting Wikipedia, repeated offender)
  4. 13:17, October 5, 2005 Piotrus unblocked User:Molobo (1) disruption of Wikipedia is not a policy, and I see no disruption in his action, 2) users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict)
    • 04:58, October 5, 2005 Chris 73 blocked "User:Molobo" with an expiry time of 24 hours (disruption of Wikipedia, see user talk)
      • That's four. 2 after Chris 73, 2 after Wiglaf. But if it had been three I would have said the same thing. Once is bad enough, and it should have been addressed after once. So I'm serious about taking action. If you seriously think they abused admin powers, file an RFC to put the issue to the community (and if you don't think they abused their powers, and unblocked anyway, then you should ponder your own abuse...) Incidentally, I think you should be subject to the same scrutiny. I dont think we should allow nothing to come of this (which is not to say I want everyone punished, but that they need to know it is wrong, even if it is just lots of people expressing lots of outrage at their actions). Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Re German Expulsion Page

Hi:
I have printed out the page and all the discussion pages and plan read them this weekend along with the Wikipedia material on the German & French sites in order to get a better understanding on the various opinions. Also I will be considering the material on Hallibutt. I will be drinking my favorite beverage, strong black coffee without sugar.
--Berndd11222 00:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/i/o/User_talk%7EPiotrus_Archive_6_eb00.html"