User:Halibutt/Archive7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This is but an archive. Please add new comments in new sections on my Talk page. Thanks in advance. Halibutt


Contents

[edit] Your wonderful work

Yours to keep
Yours to keep

I, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk do hereby, and with all due and deserved ceremony, award you, Halibutt The Barnstar of National Merit for your excellent and unending work with regard to the Poland-related articles, and especially for creating all of those beautiful maps. Keep them coming. It is hugely appreciated. Thank you. PS. You can color the Barnstar white-red if you wish :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

BoNM with the Polish colors
BoNM with the Polish colors

Here you go. I, the creator of the award, am glad you received this medal, and I encourage you (and Piotrus) to award others with this who did good articles on any country. But hey, if you would like to give out the Polish colored one, Piotrus, be my guest. Zscout370 (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PL Wikipedia

Witaj, Halibucie!

Przepraszam, że zawrócę Ci głowę sprawami polskiej Wiki - a w dodatku sprawami, od których najwyraźniej postanowiłeś uciec. Nie wiem, czy teraz jest lepiej, czy gorzej. Obawiam się, że gorzej - ponieważ pewne mechanizmy zostały bądź mogą zostać oficjalnie zinstytucjonalizowane. Jeśli nie chcesz mieć z tym nic wspólnego - zrozumiem. Sam mam chwilami dość - a przecież zawsze można "robić swoje", albo po prostu odejść. Osobiście jednak, ponieważ taka już moja natura, postanowiłem troszeczkę powalczyć.

Dyskusja na temat przyszłości Wiki nie zawiązała się wobec wyraźnego braku woli, powstał natomiast kołowrót wokół regulaminu przyznawania uprawnień admina, który może śledzisz.

Dość powiedzieć, że już od pewnego czasu trwa w najlepsz emały cyrk, a część adminów zaczeła "rzucać autorytetem" (Silthor, Taw) a nawet proponować idee typu "rada starszych", autokracja biurokratów itp. przyjemności kompletnie nie związane z duchem projektu. Obecnie najwyraźniej kryterium przyjmowania admina jest nie jego sprawność czy jakość, ale czy jest "znany", a chowa się to pod pozorem zmian regulaminów.

Obecnie trwa głosowanie nad kandydatem wg nowego regulaminu. Zgodnie z obecną restrykcyjną polityką przeforsowaną przez grupę starych administratorów, podszedłem do kandydata krytycznie, znalazłem świeże błędy, i wyraziłem swój sprzeciw.

Konsekwencje z tym związane, argumentacje i kontrargumentacje znaleźć można na stronie głosowania, dyskusjach, liście itd.

Nie wiem czy sprawa ta ma jakieś dla Ciebie znaczenie - nie ma przecież takiego obowiązku. :)

Wiem również, ze połapanie się w tym wszystkim jest bardzo czasochłonne a wręcz niemożliwe. Propozycje na prywatnych stronach adminów (np. żeby zablokować jednego wikipedystę, bo wtedy jego głos jest formalnie nieważny) są conajmniej śliskie... a przejrzenie tego - robota syzyfowa.

IMHO warto chociaż przejrzeć podstawowe strony i listę i wyrobić sobie opinię.

W obecnych warunkach osobiście tracę zaufanie do grupy administratorów - do części z nich straciłem już podczas kryzysu z ostatniego miesiąca obserwując ich zachowania wobec osób oskarżanych o trolling.

Wiem, że jestem typem nieszablonowym i moje podejście do pracy grupowej może być dla wielu niezrozumiałe - wydaje mi się jednak, że nie wszystkie zagrania są mądre i czyste, projekt nie idzie w najlepszym kierunku, a towarzyskość relacji w naturalny sposób odbiera wielu trzeźwy osąd.

Może nie jest naszym zadaniem promowanie "anarchii" - IMHO powinniśmy promować idee otwartości, przejrzystości i anarchiczności, na których powinien opierać się taki projekt. Nie mówiąc już o różnych "kwasach", do których degeneracja może doprowadzać.

Przepraszam za zakłócenie spokoju. :]

Pozdrawiam, Aegis Maelstrom 16:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Polish sources

In nearly two years of editing at Wikipedia on historical and political subjects I have found that most Polish editors and Polish references consistently promote a Polish nationalist agenda, and frequently argue for absurdly romantic, ahistorical and just plain wrong positions. Poles are far from alone in this - Greeks, Turks and Serbs are also pretty bad, but Poles are the worst. I don't blame the Polish editors personally for this, I'm sure they are just repeating what they have been taught in Polish universities and read in Polish history books. I know enough Polish history to understand where the Polish nationalist view of the world comes from, and in some ways I have some sympathy for it, but that doesn't mean it can be allowed to pass without challenge in an English-language encyclopaedia. I'm sorry if you take offence at this. I have no particular anti-Polish bias, just a bias against nationalist-romantic schools of history. Adam 15:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Please don't use the tiresome and juvenile debating tactic of reductio ad absurdum on me. Of course if a Polish source say 2 + 2 = 4 I won't dispute that (although maths is not my field so I might check). But if a Polish source says that (for example) Wroclaw is and eternally has been Polish, I will always check this out in other sources (where I will of course find it not to be true). You should not kid yourself that it is only me that thinks this - see User:Sca's comment at my Talk page. In fact it is people who know (and like) the Poles the most who have the highest awareness of the Polish romantic nationalist tradition and the way it influences Polish historiography. Adam 00:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

On Rokossovsky, if you have his birth certificate, I agree that trumps other sources. On your general rhetorical tropes, I am not discussing the whole Polish nation, I am discussing the Polish Wikipedians I have had many entertaining arguments with over the past two years. One of their characteristics is indeed their belief that they speak for the whole Polish nation, that they are as it were Poland's ambassadors to Wikipedia. But that is of course the problem. It is a historian's job to speak for historical truth, not to vindicate any particular nation's prefered version of history. Polish Wikipedians who insist that Gdansk has always been Polish do a disservice to Poland as well as to history, because they cause others to disbelieve anything any Polish Wikipedian says. As I said earlier, this is not a problem confined to Poles - I have had this exact discussion with Greeks over Macedonia and Cyprus, with Turks over the Armenian Genocide, and with Serbs over Bosnia and Kosovo. I understand where all these national schools of history come from, and (like Sca) I have a lot of sympathy with the experiences that have led Poles (and Greeks etc) to take the views that they do. But that doesn't alter my basic point, which is that historical writing has to try to transcend national mythologies and that many Polish Wikpedians make no effort to do so. Adam 01:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I love this! Some Australian "expert" on history is calling You a nationalistic romantic and is even explaining to You why You are biased: You were educated in Poland and he was educated in Australia! See, that's what You get for being so honest and for always trying to compromise. Chris stages a vote, falsifies it, misinterprets conveniently the false results and then tries to change polish history, but nobody calls him a nationalist. Or a liar. Write me sometimes on my email. Yours truly, Space Cadet 01:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Space Cadet (who I have encountered before) is a prize example of what I am talking about. I don't claim to be an ""expert" on history," by the way. I claim to be a historian, which is a profession one learns like any other (PhD Melbourne University). Also by the way, I enjoyed How to deal with Poles. Adam 01:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Adam! Long time! How do You know what's truth and what's an anti Polish bias? Polish history had been altered for two centuries and many remnants of that still function in the English speaking world. I never said that Gdansk or Wroclaw were always Polish! Warsaw wasn't always Polish either, for that matter. Space Cadet 01:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] German names for Polish cities

Please note that "For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises."

My interpretation (and I believe this to be correct), the vote very specifically requires German equivalents for Polish names even if talking about modern matters.

Please note that I don't have a view over this matter (I specifically said so during the vote), but I am merely enforcing consensus.

I know this sounds silly, but this issue (of adding German names to entirely unrelated articles) was specifically raised during the vote, and the vote was still passed anyway.

--JuntungWu 16:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, you of all people should know that anoymous voters are not allowed to vote, and that voters with very low edit count are also excluded from voting. Please do not change the notice, after all a lot of people looked at it while it was voted on, and only 1 or 2 people complained. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This is common practice. Look at the votes for adminship, deletion, etc, and you will see that voters with few edits are excluded from the count. -- Chris 73 Talk 11:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, on top of the fact that anonymous voters and edits with very few votes are not counted for voting purposes on Wikipedia, you have now violated the Wikipedia:Three revert rule on Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice. I strongly encourage you to revert yourself before this is brought to the attention of WP:3RR. Jayjg (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Jay, it's funny you added this comment when it was apparent that I'm AFK. But if fighting me is more important than solving the (quite serious) issue on the talk page is more important to you, then so be it.
As to the low-edit contributors, you still failed to provide a link to a respective rule or effects of an appropriate voting. Which means that there is most probably no such rule in Wikipedia, and the votes were not counted just because one or other admin supported one of the options. Halibutt 07:38, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Hi Halibutt, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice and have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. If you feel this is unfair or wish to discuss it, please feel free to e-mail me using the link on my user page, and I'll get straight back to you. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:58, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wladislaus III "The Gay" ???

Commons has Władysław Warneńczyk in the Homosexuality category: [1]. There is no reason given. There is nothing in the Wikipedia article about him being homosexual or persecuting homosexuals, so I can't see how he is connected with homosexuality. Maybe it is a joke, or a mistake? Or maybe the artist who painted him is supposed to have been gay? Or is it in connection with one of the Dymitriads, who was accused of homosexuality as a pretext for dethroning him. If so, I can't see why Władysław's portrait is there instead of Fedor's. You know a lot more about Polish history than I do, so I thought I'd ask you before I dispute his being there. --Jpbrenna 00:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures copyright

Zerknij na User_talk:Piotrus#Polish_September_Campaign_-_Pics - niektore z tych obrazkow ty uploadowales. Moglbys podac zrodla itp.? Chcialbym uratowac z nich co sie da do FA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion at talk:Lviv page

Hi Halibutt. I just thought I drop you a note to say that I very much understand that you, who put so much work into Lviv article, have much stake in what is in it. I very much respect your contributions for this and other WP articles I saw. I hope you don't feel bad about our good faith disagreement on the particular issue of "Famous Leopolitans" section. Cheers, Irpen 21:30, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I did not see usage of Polish names for Lithuanian cities outside of Polish sources; seen only Yiddish names at few places (e.g. "Vilna"), but not Polish one. Maybe it just seems so for you that Polish names are widely used because well, they are widely used in Poland, therefore in most of maps and documents you see? Same as Polish names can be useful for someone who has a Polish map, Lithuanian names can be useful for someone who has a Lituanian map or any other kind of source; and because some names differs quite much, it might be hard to understand another name from the name on map; I've myself been guessing Polish names of certain cities quite much before I guessed correctly lol, and if Lithuanian name will be written Wikipedia search will find the article. I wouldn't be adding names for cities where it is clearly similar, e.g. Gdanskas - Gdansk (unless there would be a decition to cross-name all Polish and Lithuanian cities). That is my opinion. DeirYassin 08:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Palenie na stosie

Moze Cie zainteresuje ta historia: Abraham ben Abraham.--Witkacy 18:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Belarus flag (1991) Image

Thats fine if you like the framed version better, but I just wanted to let you know that I crated the version that I am using on Wikipedia and also placed at the Wikimedia Commons. I know there are various names for the various images, but I think Flag of Belarus (1991) is a appropriate flag name, since sooner or later, the Lukashenko flag will be replaced. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of - daty

Cos chyba pomieszales - teraz zachodzą na siebie History of Poland (1320-1505) i History of Poland (1385-1569). Nie wiem jakie daty chciales pozmieniac, ale teraz jest ewidenty problem. Poprzesuwaj jak chcesz i napraw redirecty, plz. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polish Armed Forces rank insignia

Dzieki wpadne tam. Posiadasz moze jakis link do strony na ktorej jest dokladny opis polskich stopni w porownaniu do standartow w NATO? (od szeregowego do marszalka)--Witkacy 16:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Behaviour

Hello-but'ai, nerašinėk savo mėšlo į mano pokalbių skyrių. Supratai? Bendrauk su tokiais, kaip tu - šizofreniniais lenkų fanatikais. Best regards. Zivinbudas 13:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boleslaw Gebert

I plan a doing a biographical page on Boleslaw Gebert, a former national officer of the Polonia Society of International Workers Order in America in the 1930's for the VENONA_project#List_of_Americans_in_Venona_Papers article. Information thus far is scetchy and this is all I have: "Gebert, Boleslaw K., Polish citizen resident U.S. 1912 to 1947 returned to Poland"; "Gebert, Boleslw. Z Tykocina Za Ocean [From Tykocin Beyond the Ocean]. Warszawa: Czytelnik, 1982. Autobiography by Boleslaw Gebert, Polish CPUSA leader in the 1930s and 1940s who returned to Poland after W.W.II." I was curious if you perhaps may be interested in contributing. Thank you. Nobs 16:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jozef Pilsudski1.jpg speedy

Being duplicated on commons is not a speedy criteria; in fact it is specifically ruled out at WP:IFD. I assume that somebody has some elaborate reason for this, but I am not sure what it is and I have not looked it up. Thue | talk 18:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Belarus flag

Sorry aout that. I was in the middle of a Belarus image cleanup and thought that the image was simply a lower-resolution version of the same image (I didn't notice the border). I'm sure it's easy to recreate the image by drawing a border; if you want, I'll do it for you. Let me know. Warmest regards --Neutralitytalk 02:00, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Polish Soldiers

Swietnie wyglada przy Rydzu :) Co do koloru, mozna jeszcze pokombinowac. Rowniez troche mi sie nie podoba przy stopniach morskich zobacz Roman Krzyzelewski. Gdyby juz byly ustalone kolory, moglbym pagony wladowac z odpowiednim tlem (ale jpg), na png nigdy nie robilem, nie wiem jak zastapic tlo. Troche teraz lenia lapie bo slonce smazy, ale w chwili deszczu.. ;)--Witkacy 05:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


Chcialem teraz przerobic GIMP'em na .png, ale wyszla jaka hybryda Image:General Brygady test.png
Niestety mam je wszystkie w jpg. Moze narazie gifem poprobowac Image:General Brygady P.gif, a pozniej jezeli beda problemy z konwertowaniem jpg na png, poprostu jpg z danym kolorem tla jaki bedzie potrzebny wladowac. Co do tego drugiego, to sprawa 10 min - a co do pierwszego, to nie za bardzo mi to wychodzi :)--Witkacy 13:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm chyba problem jest w tym ze u mnie pokazuje bialy obloczek zobacz: Image:Pagonik.jpg

I to mnie wlasnie irytuje, Ty tego bialego czegos nie widzisz?--Witkacy 13:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Co do jednej template (kameleona) dla wszystkich swietny pomysl :) pagony bede wladowywal jak mowiles pod jedna nazwa - tylko problem aureolki trzeba rozwiazac--Witkacy 13:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Wstawilem ten sam pagon (general brygady test png) do kopanskiego: Image:Pagonik1.jpg --Witkacy 13:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


No tak, zainstalowalem firefoxa i obloczek prysl :) Strasznie sie przyzwyczailem do explorera, ale nalezy isc z czasem skoro tak mowisz ;) Tylko narazie jakos wolniej mi chodzi od explorera, moze polecisz mi jakies ustawienia?--Witkacy 14:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Ze wolniej chodzi to chyba wina mojego komputera, ktory juz powinien powoli sie wybrac na rente :) Co do plikow png, poczytalem troche o tym w artykule (i linkach) ktory mi podales i doszedlem do wniosku, ze poki nie wszystkie przegladarki (a szczegolnie explorer ktory jest najczesciej uzywany) nie beda prawidlowo wyswietlac png'ow - narazie lepiej wstawic nie gniotsa, nie lamiotsa jpg z odpowiednim tlem. Narazie wladowac pagon z kazdego rodzaju broni w formacie png, zmyjsterkowac ostateczny wyglad szablonu i kolorow, i na koniec wladowac jpg z odpowiednim tlem. A za jakis czas, jak juz png bedzie prawidlowo wyswietlany przez wszystkie wyszukiwarki, wladowac je jeszcze raz w formacie png. W zasadzie na p-shopie, podobnie szybko mozna zamienic jpg na png, jak kolory tla. Wystarczy skopiowac plik, wybrac nowy z przezroczystym tlem, wkleic, polozyc go na bok, stworzyc nowa plaszczyzne (ktora bedzie pusta), wstawic ja pod plaszczyzne z pagonem, zaczarowanym olowkiem (jak ja to nazywam) kliknac na jeszcze istniejace tlo, kasuj i gotowe do zapisywania w formacie png bez tla :) --Witkacy 21:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Oto trzy pagony do testow : Image:General Brygady test.png Image:Pagon morski.png Image:Pagon lotniczy.png --Witkacy 00:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Dlaczego? Chodzi o wybranie trzech kolorow dla kazdego rodzaju broni, no i stworzenie szablonu kameleona - i jak mowilem, wpierw wstawimy jpg, a za jakis czas zmiana na png.--Witkacy 01:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:PDPoland

Please have a look at Template talk:PDPoland - something is wrong with the formatting, but I can't quite figure out what. --Thorsten1 19:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom - User:Zivinbudas

Popieram, rzeczywiście coś tu trzeba zrobić. Musi zadziałać jakiś mechanizm usuwania takich osobników z Wikipedii. Balcer 23:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Wydaje mi się że warto chyba jeszcze coś powiedzieć o skralnie ekstremalnym podejściu tego osobnika do historii Litwy i jej sąsiadów. Czyli że tu nie chodzi o jakieś niewinne zabawki, a raczej o rozprzestrzenianie wysoce nieprzyjemnej nacjonalistycznej ideologii (w skrócie: Litwa w granicach z przed 1569 jako minimum). Niestety, nie znam się na tych sprawach, więc może rzeczywiście mówienie tylko o wykroczeniach technicznych jest wystarczające. Wtedy jednak społeczność Wikipedystów może nie zrozumieć o co tu się naprawdę rozchodzi.
Czy ten facet w ogóle napisał chociaż jeden artykuł, czy cały jego wkład to mieszanie w innych artykułach? O tym też można by coś niecoś powiedzieć. Balcer 00:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Podoba mi się. Czy dwie osoby wystarczą do wysunięcia tej sprawy, czy powinniśmy szukać jeszcze jakiegoś poparcia? Ciekawy jestem jakie zdanie ma tutaj User:Piotrus. Balcer 00:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Oczywiscie. Najwyzszy czas by sie nim "zajeli".--Witkacy 01:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Popatrz na tego klauna komentarze: [2] i[3] :)--Witkacy 09:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polish wikproject template

With respect, I think you have misunderstood the whole idea of the standard template. The idea is that when you look at a talk page like Talk:Polish-Soviet War, you don't see 5 different banners with 5 different shapes, sizes, and colors. Notice how on that page, the 1st and 3rd match, and the 2nd one seems odd and out of place. →Raul654 05:32, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beretki

To nie moja produkcja, troche zapozyczone, a do jakiej potrzebujesz te miecze? Kolor tej co pokazales jest niebieski #6434FC z czarnymi paskami w pomniejszeniu, ciemniej wyglada mniej wiecej jak #7A67EE. --Witkacy 12:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Znowu u mnie Twoja ma kolor mniej wiecej #5B819C, troche ciemniejszy. Mozna sie pozniej bedzie zastanowic czy je sciemnic, wydaje mi sie ze w szablonie wojaka lepsze sa bardziej wyrazne kolory, wtedy latwiej je rozroznic. U mnie znowu monitor wszystko troche sciemnia. Co do kradzenia, no przestan to pozyczone ;) To jak pare sliwek skosztowac z wielkiego straganu pelnego owocow w sklepie warzywnym ;) Podesle Ci na maila namiary na sklep.--Witkacy 13:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

No nie wiem czy te trudniejsze da sie zrobic w minute, i chodz takie pliki nie podpadaja pod zadne prawa autorskie - bo to tak jak namalowac krzyzyk w kolku i sadzic sie z innymi ktorzy rowniez uzywaja taki obrazek, ze lamia prawa autorskie - napisalem do niego, zobaczymy co odpisze :)--Witkacy 23:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Otrzymalem odpowiedz, niema nic przeciwko.--Witkacy 10:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Na jakiej licencji nie wspomnial, rowniez nic o linkowaniu nie mowil. Licenja niech bedzie jaka jest, chyba ze uwazasz ze inna by byla lepsza.--Witkacy 10:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Mentitle

Your Template:Mentitle has been nominated for deletion at Templates for deletion. BlankVerse ∅ 16:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Hillarious template, by the way. :D — Asbestos | Talk 11:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, the usage of it was a joke, same as this template itself is I guess DeirYassin 15:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great picture that you added to the Warsaw Ghetto. You may want to see what I did with the extra pictures from my article on Lodz Ghetto. I made a whole gallery of images on Commons. There is a link to it at the bottom of the page. Danny 23:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. There are a lot of great public domain pics at www.ushmm.gov. That is what I used to make my gallery. If you are in Poland, you may want to try ZHIKH (sp.), the Jewish organization in Warsaw, which also has lots of pictures. Danny 23:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Yup, that's the group. If you do contact them, see if they are willing to provide copies of materials from the Oyneg Shabbos archives. We can post them on Wikipedia, and especially on Wikisource. I am trying to get the rights to do the same with materials from Vedem that are in Terezin. BTW, I have the book Warszawskie Getto, published in Poland in 1988. Are you telling me that all the pictures in there are public domain? Danny 00:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't really tell. It says: W albumie wykorzystano teksty: Ruty Sakowskiej, Marka Edelmana (Marek Edelman is one of my heroes), Jana Karskiego (Karsky is another hero of mine), Franza Blattera, Marii Kann oraz materialy referatu spraw zydowskich Komendy Glonej Armii Kraiiowej. Danny

It was published by Wydawnyctwo Interpres in 1988. Danny 00:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mapka i varia

Mapka fajna, tylko trzeba legende co jest co, bo nawet mi chwile zajelo zrozumienie, ze to nasze granice - a i tak co do niektorych starszych to nie pamietam kiedy sie zmienily. A mimochodem, to ty jestes wielki lingwista - tyle jezykow :> Ale template babel umieszcza sie (przypadkiem sprawdzalem zanim sam wzialem) na user page, nie talku. Aha, co do tego medalu polskiego, otrzymal go juz ktos? Nie wiem czy nie warto by wprowadzic zasady ze Polak nie moze jej dac Polakowi, zeby nie bylo nieporozumien...bo z jednej strony to kazdy z nas na niego zasluguje, a i Witkacemu, Balcerowi i innym tez by wypadalo dac - no ale wtedy to bedzie taki klubowy, a nie o to chodzi... A ten mentitle jest strasznie LOL, ale dlaczego to zrobiles? Rok temu prawie...troche nie w twoim stylu (choc jak mowie, ubawne wielce :>). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Hej, moze bys zaznaczyl na województwach obszarch Centralny Okreg Przemyslowy do tego artykułu? To nie powinno ci zająć długo :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] As for the map

As for the map you used to draw your own map of Lithuanian claims, I now know what the said map means. It shows the short lived Lithuanian Province, which was established by Germany in July of 1918. It was further subdivided into government precincts (Vilnius, Kaunas and Southern Lithuania - I wrote articles about these four subjects). Territories of Vilnius and Kaunas government precincts remained in Lithuanian claims (territory of Kaunas one was fully controlled by Lithuania also; territory of Vilnius GP only partly), however only north of Southern Lithuania government precinct was claimed as part of Vilnius region after the 1920 peace treaty with Russia (and none of it actually controlled by Lithuania). DeirYassin 21:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 300 dywizjon

Witam. Czy "300 Bomber Command" to nazwa spotykana w jakiejkolwiek literaturze, czy Twoje tłumaczenie? Dywizjon swoją drogą, tłumaczy się także jako "unit" (pod tym względem angielski jest uboższy) - niemniej jednak w Polsce już podczas wojny zaadaptowano "oficjalnie" Squadron jako dywizjon - i nie ma chyba sensu teraz na siłę "prostować" tego w drugą stronę (według mnie, już bardziej uprawnione jest mówienie: eskadra 300). Dodatkowy problem jest w tym, że Bomber Command ma swoje ustalone znaczenie, i Anglicy nie będą rozumieli tego jako dywizjon bombowy, tylko dowództwo lotnictwa bombowego. Można się zresztą upewnić i zasięgnąć opinii jakiś native English speaking Wikipedians. Polskie siły powietrzne podlegały organizacyjnie RAF. Co do ogólnego formatu nazwy, starałem się zachować spójność z tytułami No. 303 (Polish) Squadron RAF (to nie ja wymyśliłem) i brytyjskimi dywizjonami. Pibwl 18:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Myślę, że możnaby się zastanowić nad No. 300 Polish Bomber Squadron, bo z "Land of Masovia" jest trochę za długa i niepraktyczna (zresztą angielskie squadrony nie mają nazw w tytułach) Myślałem też o No.300 Squadron PAF, ale to chyba nienajlepszy pomysł, bo większości nic nie mówi "PAF". Piszesz: jeśli już musi być szwadron - to nie o to chodzi, że to jest "szwadron": po prostu Anglicy jednostkę lotnictwa o tej organizacji nazwali już podczas I wojny 'squadron', i my tą organizację przejęliśmy z całym inwentarzem w 1940, jednakże nie wiedzieć czemu nazywając ją "dywizjonem", chociaż powinniśmy eskadrą (z reguły eskadry z 1939 miały 9-10 samolotów, squadrony - 12 bojowych, więc to to samo). I nie ma sensu tłumaczyć na siłę Anglikom, że u nas to się nazywa inaczej, niż powinno. Pibwl 23:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nie jestem pewien, czy o to Ci chodzi, ale nie mówię, że od Anglików przejęliśmy organizację jednostek naszego lotnictwa jako takich (np.przedwojennych), natomiast na pewno przejęliśmy organizację jednostek Polish Air Force. Po prostu, wzięliśmy jednostkę "typu" Squadron (odpowiadającą nazwą i ilością samolotów eskadrze), ale nazwaliśmy ją "dywizjon". Nie słyszałem o podziale 303 na dwie eskadry po 5 - standardowo "Flights" były po 6. Nazwa ta też zresztą nie odpowiada eskadrze, ale skoro już Squadron nazwaliśmy dywizjonem, to konsekwentnie... No. 300 jest spójne z nazewnictwem artykułów o dywizjonach RAF i myślę, że będzie OK. Pibwl 14:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) (na razie bez odbioru, bo wyjeżdżam na weekend)

[edit] Anti-Semitism in Poland

Can you please take a look at this discussion? --Ttyre 19:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image source

Thank you for uploading Image:Sosabowski Stanislaw3.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you.

[edit] Discution and vote about the Polish and Lithuanian city names

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_conventions/Vote_on_city_naming , tell your opinion on the matter DeirYassin 22:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Szczecin

The double naming was voted on, hence the double naming of Szczecin/Stettin, which should be pretty clear. Please stick to community consensus-- Chris 73 Talk 11:22, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

In addition to that, please follow the naming convention for german nationals and for historic periods as per community vote. I just reverted a bunch of your edits, and corrected a few other ones. You don't have to like the vote, but please stick to it. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 11:30, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Now I think I am slowly understanding what ticks you off. Fine by me, I just changed Germanic language to German language in the articles. Basically I do not care much what type of link (if any) is given with the city name, as long as the double naming is there, as per vote. BTW, you should read the vote again, as it applies not only to Gdansk but to all cities with a shared history. Also, please note that this is not limited to the city name in the article about the city, but also in other articles. Hence the Szczecin (German:Stettin) in Szczecin-Lekno. About your questions: I really lost track in the looong talk page which ones were already answered, and which ones not. Plus, many of your questions base on misttaken assumptions and errors on your side. -- Chris 73 Talk 14:47, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polish names

How does Braunschweig, Hamburg or any of the others fall under the definition of "share a history between Germany and Poland? WP:POINT. Guettarda 15:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It sounds a bit excentric to claim that Polish forces captured Hamburg in WWII. Also, the fact that it has a Polish community is irrelevant since I'm sure the Turkish community is much bigger in Hamburg. Should we start including Turkish names as well? By the same token, since all of Poland was liberated/conquered by the Red Army in 1945, shouldn't we apply the same logic and add Russian names to all Polish cities and towns? Luis rib 16:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your interpretation is overly broad, and I know you know it. There are other ways to deal with this. Guettarda 16:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't an RfC or asking for a ruling by the ArbComm be more like the way to go? This hasn't even made it to the Village pump. AFAIK. You have put yourself in the position of being wrong by violating WP:POINT. This is not terribly constructive. Guettarda 16:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see there's some kind of conflict with Chris 73. Well, that's too bad, but you should discuss the matter with him and other people concerned instead of randomly adding Polish names to German cities. This is, BTW, a fight you'll lose since Germany (unfortunately, of course) invaded Poland many more times than Poland invaded Germany. As far as I have seen, the dispute concerned Szeczin (sorry if the spelling is wrong). Well, Szeczin does have a long tradition as a German city, and would probably fall under the "gdansk vote" recommendation. The same is not true of Warsaw, however. Now if you start to adding Polish names to German cities such as Braunschweig and Hamburg, you will just encourage people also to add German names to Warsaw, Cracow, Lublin, etc. Certainly, that is not your aim... Luis rib 16:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you User:Luis rib and User:Guatterada here; morever, these actions might encourage more revert wars on Polish names added to every Lithuanian city, as well could cause more addings of Lithuanian names to various Polish cities and your actions might be chosen as an explaination for validity of adding Lithuanian names. DeirYassin 16:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
DeirYassin - pls dont try to use the Polish-German problem for yours and User:Zivinbudas absurd claims.--Witkacy 17:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Witkacy, if my claims are absurd then your claims are more absurd. Those are your attempts at introduce Polish nationalism everywhere, including by adding Polish names to every Lithuanian city. Furthermore, you rarely support your claims in talk pages, you only revert and say that any other idea is vandalism. Even at the discution I gave you a link to you said nothing, nor did you say anything under discutions of articles of Lithuanian and Polish cities in question. You also tried to remove portions of text on the events which were already agreed upon to be mentioned from Armia Krajowa article, and started reverting when I got it back; you did not answer to my sayings at your talk page either. In fact, you should not complain about User:Zivinbudas either, as you did most of things he did also, just from the Polish side, except for swearing. And, as I can see from your talk page, I am not the only person who accuses you of nationalism. English wikipedia is international, there is no place for such nationalism here. DeirYassin 17:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thats funny :) Dear DeirYassin pls take a look on your contribution page, Occupation of Baltic States, Armia Krajowa genocide on Lithuanians and only such rubbish that you producing...
"I am not the only person who accuses you of nationalism"
Yes, Rydel also, See Ignacy Domeyko talk for details :)
You are indeed a Lithuanian nationalist like Zivinbudas...--Witkacy 18:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't know how for example an article about Selknam Indians I wrote or about Dike Kokaral are anyhow nationalistic Lithuanian. And I contribute mostly about Lithuania because I know more facts about the place where I live in. And I just looked at your contribution page, in fact, most of your contributions, at least recently, are dumb reverts, done without reaching conclusion in talk page, which is in fact against rules of Wikipedia. And Armia Krajowa killings of Lithuanians is not rubbish, but a thing whch existance I already prooved in talk page of said article. It is only your nationalism what prevents you from seeing world the way it is; the fact that the world does not revolves around Poland and that there are more opinions than just one held by you or some other Poles. And you compare me with Zivinbudas, while I don't have with who to compare you to, because all other Polish contributors on Wikipedia I seen are normal people trying to make Wikipedia better (and that is the reason I contribute also), unlike you - it seems that your goal is to make Wikipedia to reflect the Polish opinion about various things in the world and also delete any other opinions or even proven facts which might discreditate Poles somehow (which you have clearly shown at Armia Krajowa article and your view towards it here). This is not a war, not a contest to prove which nation is better, but rather a cooperative online encyclopedia where there is place for views of everyone and all real facts. DeirYassin 19:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Polish contributors on Wikipedia I seen are normal people trying to make Wikipedia better" no, we are dirty slavic monkeys like your friend User:Zivinbudas said :) And BTW i got only one dispute with you on Armia Krajowa and your absurd genocide claims. With rest of your nationalistic claims you have problems with other users. And most articles that you created have now dispute tags. So please dont waste my time, and stop to play the "love, peace freedom for the world" guy here. good night. :)--Witkacy 21:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Don't be funny, I created maybe over a hundred of articles overally and only like 3 or 4 are disputed, now I won't be counting how much of your articles are disputed because I don't have time for that. And yes, I had discutions with other users, but they proven to be valuable for article and Wikipedia, everybody has different opinions so discution is a natural thing, and NPOV can only be reached when users with different opinions contribute. I respect their opinions and I respect your opinion. The problem I have with you is exactly that although you revert you don't get into discussions or stating your opinion with proves and sources on the respective talk pages - I am still interested in the explaination of your opinion on to which Lithuanian cities Polish names should be mentioned and why so for example; you did countless reverts on the topic, even openly said that my view is "absurd" (which started all this dispute here), but did not explain your viewpoint, unlike other contributors. As I said, claims that AK killed Lithuanians are not absurd and I proven that on Talk:Armia Krajowa, stop living in a bubble where you'd believe that Poles are such a righteous nation that even in the bloodshed of WW2 nobody killed civilians especially when there are proofs which prooves differently. Also, unlike you I do not view to people I discuss to as "enemies" but rather as to other people who tries to make the project better, unless they start to base their claims only on solely nationalism or use wikipedia as battlefield by not explaining their reverts at all. And despite of what is your opinion about my supposed thoughs about Poles, I do not think about the Polish nation in negative way, believe it or not. Good night. DeirYassin 22:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Halibutt, do a sanity check. Also, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Halibutt. -- Chris 73 Talk 16:38, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
I am fully aware of the 3RR, and you will see I haven't reverted any of your additions. Other people did that. Of course, if you keep adding back the Polish name to these cities (example Dresden/Drezno on the Germany page, where I first noticed your inclusion), you might suffer from 3RR yourself. BTW I don't see why it so bad that some Polish cities have a German name in brackets: it just points to the fact that after WWII Poland got a big chunk of Germany, while Germany became smaller than the Holy Roman Empire had ever been. In a sense, it shows a Polish victory. Luis rib 16:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You will, however, have to prove that those cities "share a history between Germany and Poland" , as stated in the Gdansk vote resolutions. The burden of proof lies on the one who makes the change. I wonder how you will proof that for Hamburg or Braunschweig. Claiming that some Polish treasure is in a museum of Braunschweig, or that Hamburg has a large Polish community, hardly sounds like convincing proofs. Even with Dresden, which admittedly is closer to Poland, you will have a tough time proving a common history. Well, I wish you good luck in your endeavours. Luis rib 16:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please cease disrupting Wikipedia. Mackensen (talk) 17:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, your actions do not fall within vote, of which I am well aware. I join within Luis in demanding that you provide proof of this shared Polish-German history, in particular proof that these German cities were ever widely known outside of "Poland" by Polish names. Mackensen (talk) 17:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why you all guys dont protested in the same issue, when User:Chris 73, User:Calton & friends added German names in articles of Polish football clubs, political parties etc....--Witkacy 17:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're the one making the changes. The burden is on you, not me, to provide proof that your actions fall within the guidelines of the vote. The vote was understood, I think, to mean those cities with substantial German-Polish shared history (Gdansk, Szeczin). Mackensen (talk) 17:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note that only the last two votes on Talk:Gdansk/Vote are applicable to other places than Gdansk, and the first of these specifies exactly which towns it applies to, and what you (Halibutt) should do:
The naming of many places in the region that share a history between Germany and Poland are also a source of edit wars. For these places, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.
So it's only for towns in that region (meaning: not Trier, not Mainz). And please, Halibutt, provide (on Talk:Dresden) an English language reference that primarily uses Drezno for Dresden. And the same for Braunschweig (city). etc. Eugene van der Pijll 17:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually I was not aware that Dresden had ever been the capital of Poland. I would greatly appreciate if you could detail that on Dresden, as it would certainly be a very important addition to that page. I am sure that would be much more useful than just adding a Polish name to a page that currently makes no mention of Poland. Luis rib 17:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, you're intentionally misinterpreting the rule and exploiting it only to spread your nationalistic bias. "For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland" Clearly every city does to a degree. You're totally adamantly pedantic here only to get through irrational inclusions.NightBeAsT 17:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My assumption about nationalism missed? Nationalism starts, in my opinion, when you think your country is better than other. You wrote a polish city was the best city in the world and your deep obsession with the country is unusual. You seem to be close to falling into the category "chauvinism", but that's your problem. On topic: what's the matter with this "chris"? Do you have a personal dispute or what? Does he add the German translation for polish cities you think aren't affected by Germany or are you just passing me on? With all due respect, what you're doing is an deliberately obnoxious effort to play on the rule, to use it as an excuse to do mischief, not follow it.NightBeAsT 18:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I came down on Zivinbudas hard because he refused to follow our rules, and because of his incessant nationalism. Trust me, I'll do the same to other people too, on the other side. Adding Polish names to cities like Koblenz, which is on the Rhine, is completely ludicrous. Either you don't really believe it's appropriate, and you're deliberately being silly (in which case WP:POINT applies), or you really believe that it has a substantial Polish connection, in which case, well, words fail me. There is no place on Wikipedia for nationalism - please don't push us on this. Noel (talk) 17:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, you started a revert-war by making changes which, despite your claims, are clearly against community consensus and, for that matter, confound logic itself. You are being deliberately disruptive and I encourage you to stop. Mackensen (talk) 17:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And Mainz, and Aachen... At this rate, Poland's shared history with Germany will surely end up in Madrid. Alai 18:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Dresden for a refutation. I am unconvinced. Mackensen (talk) 18:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally... why are you edit-summary-spamming this text: "rv in accordance with the Talk:Gdansk/Vote (Reverts to confirm with community consensus are excluded from the 3RR rule)", on your first, second, and third revert per article? If you were adding it to a fourth revert, I'd see the pertinence, but as it stands it simply seems to re-inforce the strong WP:POINT impression you're giving, and that you also don't have faith in the correctness of your own interpretation, and hence are (just about) abiding by the 3RR, that you assert doesn't apply. While I don't want to encourage you to break the 3RR, it'd be a much more efficient, and less disruptive, way of testing your hypothesis, than making up to three reverts of dozens of hapless articles. Alai 18:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, none of your reply to me stands up to scrutiny. You more or less admit being disruptive to make a point -- your supposed defence is in essence that you consider the point to be made. And all your edits were reverted on sight, and in my opinion, quite rightly so. Alai 19:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, please stop this childishness. Wouldn't your time be better spent trying to prepare a new vote (which we've already discussed, you'll recall) that would narrow the application of the rule than this absurd attempt to prove a point? john k 19:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will second john on this one. I do not believe your recent wave of edits in articles on German cities accomplishes anything useful at all. In fact, it is counterproductive and simply injects more antagonism into this debate. I also do not like when some users abuse the results of the Gdansk vote, but when you lower yourself to their level, you in effect legitimize their actions. Balcer 19:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cease and desist the senseless inclusion of Polish names for cities which clearly do not share Polish and German history. I will revert all of these (Munich, etc.) "on sight". Under your apparent rubric, every city page anywhere on Wikipedia will need a list of names in 1000 languages. DirectorStratton 00:57, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

My apologies for not logging in, I was using a public computer which was acting up. I have continued to revert Mainz because I find your arguments over its "shared history" status to be weak. Your arguments that it was occupied after World War II, has hits on the English internet (which it doesn't), and has a Polish immigrant population are all less than compelling. Almost every large American city has a large Polish immigrant population, but it would be silly to write the Polish name for every city in the United States. Perhaps there are people abusing the Gdansk settlement on Polish topic pages, but that's doesn't make it right for you to do the same with German pages. DirectorStratton 19:48, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Also, your impressive offensive against every page with a German city name on it makes it look like you are not editing in good faith. DirectorStratton 19:49, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POINT

Knock it off, or you will be blocked from editing. RickK 09:07, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Let me second this.
You may be unhappy with some aspects of the way the current naming rule for cities with shared Polish/German history is being applied, but there's a saying, "Two wrongs don't make a right", and that definitely applies here.
Your edit wars over adding Polish names to cities in the Rhine region of Germany (such as Mainz) which have no significant historical Polish connection is disrupting Wikipedia, as far as I'm concerned; you are clearly violating WP:POINT. Keep on reverting these, and you'll wind up keeping Zivinbudas company.
Please stop making these edits, and debate our naming policy on the appropriate talk pages. One thing I can guarantee is that I am not going to be convinced by a revert war - in fact, I'm more likely to react in a negative way to such tactics. We're all wasting a lot of time on this war you've started, and I am not happy about that. Noel (talk) 18:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See my reply on User talk:Balcer. Balcer 19:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's obvious what I'm talking about. I'm talking about your current vandalism rampage through Wikipedia in order to prove your point. Your point being that the vote on Polish city names didn't go your way, so you're going to disrupt the entire encyclopedia to get your way. This is not going to work. RickK 20:18, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wycieczka na Litwe

Hej. Planuje sobie z Ojecem wycieczke wkrotce na Litwe (Wilno, Kowno, moze Ryga i Talinn). Pewnie autokarem, grupowe zwiedzanie. Byles tam moze? Jesli tak, masz jakies rady, biuro godne polecenia? A jak nie, moze by cie interesowala taka wycieczka tez? Moze spotkamy Zwin-brudasa :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Od 12 sierpnia jestem w USA doktoryzujac sie, wiec wycieczka w pazdzierniku odpada :( Ja tez nie lubie autokarow, ale mimo wszystko przewodnik ma swoje zalety - jak i wady. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your behavior vs. Chris 73's

In the first place, I have not uniformly supported adding in names. You'll note I removed the "German name" from Bialystok. As far as the Szczecin article you refer to, that is clearly covered by the vote. I'm less sure of amber where, if you look at the history, there's some funny business going on. Originally, the sentence about Danzig was right next to a mention of Gdansk, and made sense. You can argue that this is unnecessary, but it is also arguably covered by the vote. What you have been doing very clearly is not, and is very clearly an instance of disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. john k 13:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Rudeness

I have reviewed your explanations before I made the revert and found them wanting. In particular, I disagree that your reverts are "in accordance with the vote". I demand an apology for being called "disruptive". Thanks. Morwen - Talk 15:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Nobody disputes the vote, as far as I can tell. They are disputing your interpretation of the vote, specifically the meaning of "shared history". I think that in order to discuss the matter sensibly with people, you are going to have to stop representing their position as what they consider to a mis-representation of their position, which could be interpreted as a use of strawman debating tactics. It is difficult to have a civilised conservation with people whilst they percieve that you are accusing them of being liars. Morwen - Talk 15:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you can try to re-start debate, politely, taking into account the above advice. Since you are obviously very angry about this issue I shan't intervene any more. Morwen - Talk 15:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've nothing to add to what's been said above. Your interpretation is clearly contested by a wide range of users, and your insistence on pushing it is what creates the disruption. I urge you for a final time to stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Mackensen (talk) 16:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polish party timeline templates

Halibutt: I must say I do not enjoy seeing an editor as committed as you implicate himself in such "intellectually challenged" activities and ultimately even face being blocked from editing (see above) for what looks like petty-minded bickering. To stop you from damaging your standing any further ;-), may I be so bold as to direct your attention to another field - I'm talking about the Polish party timelines Template:PDPoland (poorly named btw) and Template:Polsoc, which you recently modified again shortly after I had redesigned them. In order not to scatter the discussion over too many places, I will post something to Template_talk:PDPoland in a minute. Hope to see you there. --Thorsten1 21:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR block

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violation of the three-revert rule on numerous articles. Proteus (Talk) 21:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have unblocked you, as I don't see evidence you broke that rule, sole accussation is not sufficient. But I warn you - stop this silly revert thing. I thought you knew better then this. Besides, whether you intended POINT or not, you attracted all attention to this problem you could and are just wasting a year of good work and respect you have earned here - and I speak this as a friend and collaborator as well. Powaznie. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And Halibutt has been blocked again. If Piotrus (or anybone else) unblocks him, *I* will reblock him. This behavior is unacceptable. RickK 23:24, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Napraw

Te zachodzące na siebie daty: (History of Poland (1320-1505) History of Poland (1385-1569)) - dalej nie wiem o co ci chodzilo z tymi zmianami? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stańczyk, symbol of Polish history
History of Poland
Chronology

Until 966
966–1385
1385–1569
1569–1795
1795–1918
1918–1939
1939–1945
1945–1989
1989–present
Topics

Culture
Demography (Jews)
Economics
Politics (Monarchs and Presidents)
Military (Wars)
Territorial changes (WWII)
Dalej sie bede tego czepial. Napraw to okresy, prosze. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But! Nie udawaj, ze mnie nie widzisz! Bo sie zly robie :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jak chcesz zrobic to dobrze... eh, moglbys mi napisac ze ci sie nie chcialo/nie mogles. Juz naprawilem sam. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hello, Halibutt

Take a look at Image:Tirpitz.jpg, Image:Bismarck.jpg and Image:Bastico.jpg, and please provide the license for those pics.

Tirpitz is from http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/gallery/themes/gallthemetiraltafjord.html Main page http://www.bismarck-class.dk/

I really don't remember where I got Bismarck. The photo has been on my image file for some time.

Bastico is from http://digilander.libero.it/lacorsainfinita/guerra2/personaggi/bastico.htm

Also, if you add a new pic to an article, there's no need to delete the previous ones (just take a note on how the article on German battleship Tirpitz looks now and how it did after your edits

Look, I'm newbie. Sorry if I did something wrong.

Finally, why did you delete the description for the Image:Schlezwig after skirmish with Hel.jpg and deleted the interwiki link from the respective article?

I was trying edit few things, and I did something wrong. Sorry...

[edit] Correction on the Uprising

I've looked at it carefully, and I figured out that I was wrong about Russia not being invited. My apologies for the mistake...I've corrected it. I was actually more interested in the joke about telling the Russians to watch the ceremony from the other side of the Vistula...

Bourquie 8 Jun 2005, 13:29 mdt

[edit] Prosze

Za walke o sprawiedliwosc i rany ktore poniosles w walce (ban) Image:Odznaka za Rany.gif ;)--Witkacy 23:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Virtuti Militari

Zerknij - mysle, ze ty znasz odpowiedzi na wszystkie watpliwosci z tym zwiazane :) A przynajmniej mozesz podac references z ktorych korzystales. Dzieki!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Code and Idioms

Idioms. While I'd love to learn Polish, I;m stickign to the Romance and Germanic languages for now, I do plan on studying Russian so when/if I expand into Slavic languages Ilet you. In my experience with Spanish and French having knowledge about more than one member of a language family only improves your skills at both. I would like to have the Polish, word for welcome so I can and it to my welcome list, or any other language you know the word welcome for that matter. I've proposed creating wikipedia cultural-exchanges in the past. I'm sure the wikipedians from my cultural region in the United States would be interested in such an endeavor. -JCarriker 11:20, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

¿Verdad? ¡Español es mi tema menor! En probabilidad usted aprendió castellano, pero estoy aprendiendo mexicano, tan está diferencias gramaticas. Mi gramatica no es perfercto pero mi pronunciation es excelente. Cueste lo que cueste, me encanta conocer.
I've decided witam is the one to use on my page, could you provide the comparable words for Czech and the other languages you speak. Gracias. -JCarriker 12:19, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Czy nie czas

...cos zrobic przeciw takim [4] wypowiedziom? Moze powinnismy je wszystkie gdzies zbierac, a rownoczesnie za kazdym razem prostestowac na stronie adminow? Ja jestem za tym by obgadac ten problem w polskiej kanciapie i wspolnie cos wobec takich wypowiedzi ustanowic. (chodzi o wyzywanie Polakow od nacjonalistow) Co o tym sadzisz?--Witkacy 16:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nie chodzi o to "o czym dyskutujemy" tylko jak dyskutujemy. Jezeli czlonek ArbComu mowi ze polscy nacjonalisci chca polskiej nazwy w artykule o Kijowie, rownie dobrze moglbym powiedziec ze niemieccy nazisci wstawiaja niemieckie nazwy do polskich artykulow. Z tym ze to drugie by bylo wziete za obraze, a to pierwsze przyjelo sie jako normalka. W jakim miejscu najlepiej stworzyc "archiwum antypolonizmu"?--Witkacy 18:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Swietne dzieki :)--Witkacy 18:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moze jeszcze dopisac - cos w stylu - ze zebrane materialy beda uzyte w ewantualnych "sprawach" wytoczonych dla poszczegolnych uzytkownikow na Arbitration Committee?--Witkacy 19:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Co do zwinnego podbipiety, nie moga poprostu poczytac sobie na [5]?--Witkacy 20:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Szczecin

Tak jak uważam,że powinna być polska nazwa w Kijowie, tak też myśle, że niemiecka powinna zostać w Szczecinie i dzielnicach ( 60% z nich powstało za Niemców, a Polacy przed '45 stanowili 5% ludności miasta ).Nazwy większości dzielnic są poniemieckie. Pozdrawiam! Vuvar1 17:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suburbs

That sounds promising. Could you give me a link? -- Chris 73 Talk 18:10, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. That solution looks perfectly fine to me. No objections -- Chris 73 Talk 18:18, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hans Memling

Hi Halibutt, I have tried to somehow put together Hans Memling between de/dk/en/sv. In Poland you have a nice piece from him in the National Museum at Gdansk. In en:wiki they speak of art theft, but but I believe the Medici did pay advances. In other words: I don't expect or want any comments on this in my oppinion ridiculus issue. So if you have recovered from your war, which is none on wiki:de as you can recall at the de:wiki:Lübeck  : is it possible to write a polish Bernt Notke and to provide a fair picture of the Gdansk-piece to the cultural community around the Baltic?? --Kresspahl 21:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Sorry, I was working on both artists on the same time.So I mixed it up. Both artists are still present with their famous works around the Baltic Sea. I would like to have a picture/foto of the picture painted by Hans Memling in the Gdansk National Museum. Since I believe that the Medici did n o t pay advances for this picture I think the discussion whether the picture should be given back to anyone (whom?) is ridiculous. But perhaps there is a special polish view on this issue? In this case I would like to know--Kresspahl 07:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Black Book

Nohat sobie poprostu skasowal strone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polish_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Black_Book ale mam ja zapisana.--Witkacy 22:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Admin nie moze sobie poprostu kasowac czego chce prawda?--Witkacy 22:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wstawiamy spowrotem na miejsce czy do wlasnych nickow (jako podstrona) by nikt juz nie mogl skasowac? --Witkacy 23:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moim zdaniem powinien. Zamiast z nami (bylo nas tam trzech) dyskutowac i przedstawiac argumenty lub lamac nasze, zaczal plesc o nacjonalistach. Zreszta jego agresywne zachowanie wobec mojego (milego) zaproszenia na strone i skomentowania calej sprawy, tylko to potwierdza.--Witkacy 23:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dzieki ze ladniej rozwinoles moje wpisy :) Ale znow ktos podal strone na vfd i jak znam zycie zapewne bedzie skasowana. Najlepiej wstawic ja jako podstrone do wlasnego nicka i po problemie.--Witkacy 23:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wstawiamy sprowrotem - jak pisalem Witkacemu, jestem za. Kto konkretnie skasowal? Admin nie ma prawa kasowac przydatnych rzeczy bez glosowania pod odpowiednia sekcja Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jednak wyglada na to jak mowilem, ze pojdzie do kasacji - co do miejsca w namespace, mozemy zostawic u Ciebie, mozemy tez wstawic do mnie (mi to w zasadzie bez roznicy).--Witkacy 20:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wesprzyj nas prosze

Witam, mowia mi Zero. Przez jakis przypadek udalo mi się wywolac zbiorowy protest na polskiej wikipedii.

Zle się tam dzieje, chyba jeszcze gorzej niz za Twoich czasow. Okazalo sie, ze krol jest nagi. Jezeli chcialbys poprzec nasz sprzeciw przeciwko prewencyjnemu blokowaniu uzytkownikow jako substytutowi rozwiazania konfliktow, przeciw blokowaniu bez uzasadnienia artykulow, szablonow i stron uzytkownika, przeciw falszywie rozumianej solidarnosci administratorow. Jezeli masz watpliwosci czy polska wikipedia nie jest miejscem przyjaznym wikipedystom prosze skontaktuj sie ze mna.

Zalezy nam na twoim poparciu gdyz, miales powazny wklad w polska wikipedie.

Zero

O ile w polskiej Wikipedii rzeczywiście dzieje się nienajlepiej, o tyle akurat Zero i spółka bronią obecnie ewidentnego trolla... To, że niektórzy wypowiadający się tutaj porównują Kwietnia do Ciebie uważam raczej za krzywdzące wobec Ciebie. Ausir 11:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Strajk

Widziałem, że zaglądnąłeś do nas- mamy tam mały strajk. Moim zdaniem Ty go rozpocząłeś wcześniej (ZSRS :)),ale większość z nas chce jednak zostać na pl wiki, choś ja sam od maja powoli przechodzę na ang. Pozdrowienia! Vuvar1 15:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Z Twojej wypowiedzi na pl:wiki mozna wywnioskować że en:wiki jest oazą spokoju i demokracji ;) Radomil talk 16:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Survey guidelines fixing

So that the Gdansk/Vote horror never repeats itself :) Please see the proposal at my userspace, it is an updated version of Template_talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice#Constructive_proposal. After I hear (or not) and incorporate comments from you and several other users I know are interested in fixing this, I will officialy move this to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and I would like you to be one of the co-signatures of the proposal. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sluby

Dzieki, wlasnie sie zastanawialem dlaczego Czarniecki jest umieszczony w tak centralnej pozycji na obrazie.--Witkacy 15:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] English request

During your forced leave of abscence I discovered the Polish Collaboration. I was shocked and disapointed to find that at the time the conversation was exclusively in Polish on the English wikipedia. The Collaboration is a public space, and unlike user talk pages should use the language of the host wikipedia or at the least provide a translation of what has is being said. There have been improvement to the page since I raised my concerns. Piotrus and SylwiaS have started using English in there posts to the page. I would like to request that you as well use English on the board to encourage its usage by others. I feel very strongly that if the situation contiues unamended it will only cause more badfaith between the Polish and non-Polish citizens of our community, and such sentiemnts will not be good for Poland's coverage here. Thanks. -JCarriker 16:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] Truce

I have had a Polish friend of mine translate for me all the discussions about me on User talk:Halibutt and User talk:Witkacy. It seems that for the most part you have defended me; for that I am grateful.

I want to be clear that I am not some kind of anti-Polish zealot. I am merely an American, and I harbor neither strong affection nor animosity toward Poles, or for that matter any group of eastern Europeans, like Russians, Ukrainians, Slovenians, or even Germans. We're all just people here.

I do, however, hold animosity towards editors who misbehave and refuse to cooperate. HI find the behavior of both Witkacy and Space Cadet with regard to the Kiev article and the ensuing "Black Book" debacle to not be straightforward or without ulterior motive. It is clear that their actions on Kiev and my talk page were not intended for improving Wikipedia, but as some kind of retaliation for the inclusion of non-Polish city names in prominent locations on Polish cities' articles. While my choice of wording was perhaps impolitic, the truth of the matter is that improving Wikipedia was not the primary motive in their actions.

As for the "Black Book", I understand that perhaps the intention was not bad, the execution was absolutely awful. I hope that the discussion on the VfD has clarified as to exactly why such a page is not really an acceptable thing to have outside of the user namespace (and even in the user namespace it probably will just breed ill-will all around, and not make anything better). Perhaps I was a bit hasty in deleting the article, but as you can tell, the majority of Wikipedians who have voted on the VfD have voted for deletion or userfication.

As for discussions in Polish, I implore you to please not continue to have them on the English wiki. They are only breeding animosity and distrust. I knew that I was being talked about—but because I don't speak English I had no way to know that what was being said was even reasonable. The same goes for the discussions on the Polish Wikipedians' notice board. Please, please, PLEASE keep the discussions in English so that all English Wikipedians can contribute. At the very least, what you can do, as a reasonable Wikipedian, is to reply to Polish comments in English.

Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to make this better.

Nohat 19:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Image for deletion

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Image_copyrights for why. Image:Charge at Wolodarka.jpg (you uploaded) and I am looking for others in the relevant category we may want to save. If you know other, better copyright for them, please change. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daugavpils

Wiesz, to nie moje zdjęcie... :-) Z drugiej strony jestem na 99% przekonany, że podobnie jak większość polskich przedwojennych zdjęć sprzętu, jest public domain, a autor jest pewnie nawet nieznany. Obecnie w każdym razie wydawcy drukując takie zdjęcia raczej nie przejmują się prawami autorskimi, a jedynie posiadaniem jak najlepszej odbitki ;-) Jeśli chcesz, to oczywiście bierz. Pibwl 18:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Licencja na zabijanie ;)

Cześć Halibutt. Mam drobną prośbę - szperam ostatnio w nieużywanych grafikach i wyszperałem pl:Image:Duszniki 2.jpg. Mógłbyś dodać licencję? Z góry dziękuję. Pozdrawiam, TOR 17:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Się czepiasz... :P Dzięki wielkie. Do przeczytania. TOR 09:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Polish Wikipedians' notice board/Black Book

I have moved this page to User:Halibutt/Black Book because there was not clear consensus to delete although there was clear consensus that this page did not belong in the Wikipedia namespace. It had been languishing in un-dealt-with VfD page-land for several days so I took the initiative to do something about it. You are free to do with it as you see fit. It will probably be nominated for deletion again if it is moved back to the Wikipedia namespace, although not by me. This will be my last comment on the matter. Nohat 22:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] August Hlondl

Przniosłem go gdyż: nazywa się Augusdt Hlondl a nie August Cardinal Hlondl (zresztą jak już to Cardinal August Hlondl). Pza tym w nazwach mamy unikać tytulatury. Jest przecież Mieszko I of Poland a nie Duke Mieszko I of Poland albo King Władyslaw II Jagiello. Radomil talk 14:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tyle, że w źródłach przeważa Bernard Law Montgomery a nie Bernard Law i August Hlondl a nie August Kardynał Hlondl Radomil. Jeśli chcesz to przenieś Edwarda Raczyńskiego do Edwarda von Raczyńskiego (sic! miał niemiecki tytuł hrabiowski) talk 14:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A, i książęcą linię Radziwiłłów do von Radziwiłłów (tytuł od Cesarza). Można też, jak chcesz uniknąć germanizmów przenosząc ich np. do Edwarda hrabiego Raczyńskiego czy Antoniego Henryka księcia Radziwiłła Radomil talk 14:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zamiast prowadzić wojnę edycyjną moze zaczniesz dyskutować? Radomil talk 14:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Powody dlaczego August Hlondl:

  1. krótsze - nie komplikować tytułów haseł bez powowdu.
  2. częściej spotykane Radomil talk 14:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On my participation on English Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

Let Russians and Poles have their fun.

--rydel 11:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trakai edit war

I have put my time, research and effort in editing Trakai article page to be as much NPOV as possible, but recent edit war makes me nervous - this article is not a playground for nationalism - whatever form it takes, Lithuanian, Polish or Jewish. From my point of view, removing Polish name Troki for Trakai was a right edit, since Trakai is the name which is printed in modern Polish maps and we already have Polish article for Troki. Reverting back the Polish would make the article more NPOV and make it a target for Lithuanian and Jewish nationalists.

These nonsense wars makes me sick and the first thing I want when I see this is send Wikipedia... well, I wont use Russian words - but it really hard to start contributing again, when people do not make any substantial input on article, but concentrate on their nationalistic point of view.

I am going to change that edit back and leave similar message to other Trakai edit war participants - user:Zivinbudas and user:Witkacy

user:DariusMazeika

You have asked for an expanation of my position - here it goes. Having Polish (outdated) name next to town name makes no sense and put article under unneeded fire - people start concentrate on wrong things, especially when Lithuanian/Polish/Jew national pride feelings are involved, instead of providing new information. There is no rationale in having Troki next to Trakai except littering with national pride/ambitions inspired, but, unfortunately, outdated, irrelevant and national hate promoting information.
I have left an answer on Talk:Trakai - please provide more argumentation on Polish name issue, why having Troki is relevant on ENGLISH wikipedia. DariusMazeika 10:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Zdelb.jpg

Image deletion warning The image Image:Zdelb.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

[edit] Check your facts on Trakai - there are errors

See Talk:Trakai page for details. The mass genocide of Karaims (and, most probably Poles) has not took the place in Trakai - this is official and confirmed by Karaims representitive. It can be the case, that more facts are inacurrate & exagerated. DariusMazeika 28 June 2005 08:53 (UTC)