Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board/Archive 10

Is this category for Poles of Lithuanian origins, like Czesław Miłosz, or for Polish minority in Lithuanian Republic?Xx236 (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second, I believe, but that and relevant categories could use some cleanup.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a uniform format for people associated with Polish Universities? Eg, in Category:Jagiellonian University, there is Category:Alumni of Jagiellonian University (though I think this would be better called Category:Jagiellonian University alumni), but no Category:Jagiellonian University faculty. On the other hand, Category:University of Warsaw has what I would expect in terms of faculty/alumni (for the longest of times, even that was not good, but it finally got fixed a couple of months ago). As for Warsaw University of Technology, it's a mess: no Category:Warsaw University of Technology, no cat for faculty (no one notable there since 1826?), only the poorly named Category:Alumni of Warsaw University of Technology, with a single alumnus (!). Also, Category:Academics by university in Poland has only one subcategory (U. Warsaw)! At any rate, I could go on, but let me stop. This is a bit frustrating, since I run all the time into articles where I would like to fit in such cats -- for some countries, this is very well done, for others, much less so (see Category:People by university, Category:People by educational institution, Category:Academics by university, Category:Alumni by university or college for more on this). I'm willing to help if there is interest in this, but I figure I'd better ask, first. Turgidson (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to German Wiki 95% of the local population has Polish roots. M.K. removes this information. I bet he can find the number in Lithuanian sources, but he prefers to be consor. Is it true that Wikipedia is unreliable? Wow!Xx236 (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German wiki, or any wiki, is not a reliable source per WP:RS. Find a reliable source and it will stay, but unreferenced wiki cruft cannot be defended.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lt:Medininkų seniūnija informs: 3,2% lietuvių, 93,2% lenkų, 2,9% rusų No source. Now I'm not allowed to quote the apparently statistical office data but I have the right to quote less reliable data from a newspaper. What about removing all Lithuanian Wikipedia unsourced articles?Xx236 (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to edit Lithuanian Wikipeidia, I suggest discussing it there; this is for English Wikipedia discussion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have to be so nice?Xx236 (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According the "Атлас Литовской ССР",1981 map at p.129, Medininkai had (using 1979 census data) 500 - 1000 population and approx.10% Lithuanians, 10% Belorussians, the rest - Poles. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created an article on Testament of Bolesław III Krzywousty, and worked on some of articles form that period. How should we translate dzielnica? Currently we have two articles on Duchy, and two on Province:

• Duchy of Greater Poland
• Duchy of Masovia
• Silesian Province
• Seniorate Province

The latter is also reffered to as Senioral Province or Duchy of Cracow/Kraków; I don't think it is called 'Senioral Duchy'? Silesian Province is known as Duchy of Silesia (disambig). We still need an article on Sandomierz Duchy/Province. Sigh. A mess. As usual :) Help and comments appreciated! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the term Duchy of Sandomierz (Ksiestwo Sandomierskie) is the most popular. IMHO use either Province or Land of Sandomierz, as Ziemia Sandomierska seems to be frequently used. Tymek (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Land (ziemia) has a different meaning, I believe. Ziemia sandomierska is not the same thing as dzielnica sandomierska (although they may be close).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A scan of GB indicates to me that "Silesian Province" is an ambiguous term phrasing that often refers to the Prussian provinces of Silesia, Lower Silesia, and Upper Silesia. "Duchy of Silesia", which is about the same information as "Silesian Province", is used more commonly in English.[1] I think it would be best to merge Duchy of Silesia and Silesian Province. Duchy of Silesia is currently an overlinked disambig page anyway, and the different concepts can be described at a merged page. Olessi (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Should we move current DoS to Dos (disambiguation)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current DoS dab page does not conform to MOS:DAB. I think it would be best to merge "Silesian Province" (info about the medieval duchy) into "Duchy of Silesia" (the most common common phrasing in English). "Duchies of Silesia", including "Duchy of Upper and Lower Silesia", would be explained and linked to from "Duchy of Silesia". I don't see the need for a separate disambiguation page at all, actually. If necessary, the latter articles can be mentioned at the top of the merged article through WP:TMG. Olessi (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do so? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll try to take a look at everything tonight or tomorrow. Olessi (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be much appreciated; can you also take a look at related #Czech Silesia below? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please observe the move history of Duchy of Opava and Nicholas I, Duke of Opava. Henq (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Duchies of Silesia, and discussion pages of various Duchies affected by RM silliness. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an article about Poland's worst airline disaster LOT Polish Airlines Flight 5055 any input will be appreciated. The article also can highlight the "quality" of goods produced in the USSR (and the small value of life in the USSR). Mieciu K (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. If you could expand it more, it could be DYKed! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Causes_of_World_War_II#Polish_pre-war_massacres_of_Germans Interested editors are welcomed to voice their opinion --Molobo (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. Such extreme revisionist/denialism attitude suprizes me even after years of dealing crackpot theories on Wiki. I'd suggest asking User:Kirill Lokshin for input, he may now if there are applicable policies to deal with such lunacy.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just try to stay calm and assume good faith, people from other countries often have little or no knowledge about the history of Poland during WWII and it's also our job to change that. The simplest answer to that question is that if there were any real or made up massacres than we would have already written Wikipedia articles about them. Mieciu K (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read the lengthy talk quoted above in detail, but do you state that "any real or made up massacres" related to interbellum Poland are either already covered by en-Wiki articles, or have not occurred (no matter who did it, Gleiwitz-style)? If there is already one or more article, please point me to it. How about documenting Staged or alleged Polish_pre-war_massacres_of_Germans, or similar, starting with the Gleiwitz incident, adding some of the documented German commando acts in late August, plus whatever the Nazis claimed around the time? -- Matthead  DisOuß   14:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article - Operation Himmler - although it is indeed in need of expansion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know we do not have any reliable sources to write Wikipedia articles about pre-war massacres of ethnic German by Poles. There are no tabu subjects in today's Poland so someone would already try to write a book about those events if they had been real. Of course due to the political atmosphere of that time numerous acts of violance against ethnic Germans or their property have probably taken place but such events can hardly be called massacres. Mieciu K (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that 1939 in the name is POV. Xx236 (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Polish POV is Government Delegate's Office at Home,Okręgowa Delegatura Rządu Wilno [2].Xx236 (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I don't understand what you are saying. Perhaps you should post a detailed explanation in Polish, too? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and German and Soviet annexations of 1939. The title does.Xx236 (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accept these events either, but after Sept 1939 Wilno Voivodeship, just like any other voivodeship, ceased to exist, whether we like it or not. Tymek (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De facto ceased to exist. Mieciu K (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6,000,000 Jews were also killed De facto, which deosn't prove that the murder was legal.Xx236 (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the fact it wasn't legal doesn't change the fact that they died.--Kotniski (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish state existed until it was replaced by the Communist puppet, accepted by superpowers. If the state existed it decided about its administrational division. Xx236 (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to create this article. Can anyone provide sources? Appleseed (Talk) 15:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing ATM but I would love to read it and see it DYKed once it is ready! PS. See also to Extraordinary rendition by the United States and National missile defense, perhaps? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this image, there are no US bases in Poland, but Poland does provide use of its military facilities to the US. Appleseed (Talk) 18:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a related topic, there is a pl wiki article that could be used as a basis for List of military facilities of the Soviet Union in Poland.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Country Poland, Austria - rather Nazi Germany or Germany, AustriaXx236 (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting unit, help is much appreciated. 49th Hutsul Rifle Regiment Tymek (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a very useful template that I believe can be put to good use on articles regarding Polish and Central and Eastern European history. User:Russavia/Template:Notpropaganda --Molobo (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks nice but I fear it could be added to hundreds of articles which in my opinion is not the best way to go. - Darwinek (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the same can be said – not only about the subject of European history, but also – about the entire world history, at one point or another. --Poeticbent talk 18:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article whitewashes Gustav Ucicky. they quietly sabotaged virtually every effort from Berlin to generate Nazi propaganda, making serious dramas Heimkehr (1941) was also honored at the Venice festival. Xx236 (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should anyone wish to comment, it has been proposed here to move "Tadeusz Kościuszko" to "Thaddeus Kosciuszko." Nihil novi (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch; I hope we have nibbed this in its infancy. There are controversial if debatable moves, and there is... that :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have suggested that due to territorial changes an article about formerly German city should be split into two-one for pre-1945 situation, one article treating the city as entiraly post-1945 creation. I believe such thing could lead to similiar treatment of Wrocław, Gdańsk, Szczecin, being cut into two into Wrocław for post-1945 city and Breslau before 1945. Naturally the outcome of such decision would influence articles about Poland. The discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kaliningrad#Some_more_additions_to_name_K.C3.B6nigsberg

Interested editors are welcomed to share their opinion.--Molobo (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested, the proposal is not about two entirely different cities, but about the application of summary style. No one has proposed changes to how cities in Poland are treated, and proposals on different articles should be discussed on their own merit anyway. Olessi (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olessi it is obvious that this precedence would influence both discussions and Polish related articles since the situation of this city is similar if not identical to the ones in Poland.--Molobo (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is discussing "a precedent" (except for you, evidently). There's now an RfC on this, so no need to continue beating the sensationalism drum here, either. Sciurinæ (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Kaliningrad will be split then logic dictates Polish cities like Wrocław, Szczecin, Gdańsk should be split also, thus such a move will be a precedent, upon further changes to other articles would be supported. After all the situation is identical.--Molobo (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about Wilno/Vilnius, Kassa/Koszyce? Xx236 (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a series of almost laughable vandalisms ([3], [4]) reminescent of this troll, several Polish-Lithuanian articles are being vandalized. Please keep watching the article(s) and revert vandalism if spotted. He has so far vandalized Polish minority in Lithuania and Vilnius district municipality; he is using various IPs meaning it is possible I have not uncovered all of his edits.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have translated of the famous/infamous "do not fight the bolsheviks" quote I am wondering if "Soviets" and "bolsheviks" should be capitalised in this quote? Mieciu K (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess they should. I've made the necessary changes.--Kotniski (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While on the subject of this article, shouldn't it be moved to Soviet invasion of Poland, and the latter to Soviet invasion of Poland (disambiguation)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "it" the quote or the article? Mieciu K (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presume P. means the article. But I'm not sure why - are the events of 1939 on a different scale of notability than those of 1920?--Kotniski (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WikiProject Poland. I and others under wikiProject:European Union am trying to sort out the European Parliament articles before the June 2009 elections. I have created stub articles for the 13 constituencies in Poland, but I am unsure if they have the correct names. This situation has arisen because the relevant legislation ("The Act of 23 January 2004 on Elections to the European Parliament") doesn't give the constituencies formal names: instead, it gives each of them a number, description, and location of the Constituency Electoral Commission (e.g. "Constituency No 2 - covers the territory of the Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodeship, the location of the Constituency Electoral Commission is Bydgoszcz").

There seem to be three commonly-used options as follows:

Option 1: call them by the names of the Voivodships whose borders they follow

• The names: 1) Pomorskie, 2) Kujawsko-Pomorskie, 3) Podlaskie and Warminsko-Mazurskie, 4) City of Warszawa, 5) Mazowieckie, 6) Lodzkie, 7) Wielkopolskie, 8) Lubelskie, 9) Podkarpacie, 10) Malopolskie and Swietokrzyskie, 11) Slaskie, 12) Dolnoslaskie and Opolskie, 13) Lubuskie and Zachodnio-Pomorskie
• Who calls them this? Polish National Election Commission [5], European Parliament Election Website [6], parts of pl.wikipedia [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and so on

Option 2: call them by the names of the location of their Constituency Electoral Commission

• The names: 1) Gdansk, 2) Bydgoszcz, 3) Olsztyn, 4) Warszawa, 5) Warszawa II, 6) Lodz, 7) Poznan, 8) Lublin, 9) Rzeszow, 10) Krakow, 11) Katowice, 12) Wroclaw, 13) Gorzow Wielkopolski
• Who calls them this? Electoral Geography [13], other parts of pl wikipedia [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], and so on

Option 3: call them by their numbers

• The names: 1) Constituency No 1, 2) Constituency No 2, 3) Constituency No 3, 4) Constituency No 4, 5) Constituency No 5, 6) Constituency No 6, 7) Constituency No 7, 8) Constituency No 8, 9) Constituency No 9, 10) Constituency No 10, 11) Constituency No 11, 12) Constituency No 12, 13) Constituency No 13
• Who calls them this? The Act of 23rd January 2004 on Elections to the European Parliament [19]

The articles are currently listed under their voivodeship names (see Template:European_Parliament_constituencies_2004-2009, albeit under the English transliterations, i.e. "Lower Silesian and Opole" instead of "Dolnoslaskie and Opolskie")

So my questions to you are:

• What are the names by which the European Parliament constituencies in Poland are generally or officially known?
• Do you have a reliable secondary source referring to them as such?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter, Kind Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for a long question. Well, I think generally media and public tend to use the first variant, it is the regional ones. For correct naming, I would propose to use the English names as used at Voivodeships of Poland, they are generally established by consensus here. Second variant seems also quite logic and good. One way or another, it is up to WikiProject European Union members to decide. By the way, I am from the Czech Republic, any problems with names for constituencies in the Czech Rep.? No? Haa, just kidding. We use one electoral district, whole country = no problem. - Darwinek (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I run a bot that adds geographical coordinates to articles that do not already have them, based on cross-referencing Wikipedia dump data with the U.S. government's GEONET Names Server data, applying multiple sanity checks to try to prevent false positives. Recently, it hasn't been doing very well with Polish locations, since they seem to have particularly large numbers of cases where two places in Poland have the same name.

Does anyone have a good source of machine-readable GFDL-compatible geodata for Polish locations? If so, please leave me a note on my talk page. -- The Anome (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't inform about Polish minority and my editions were removed, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vilnius being allegedly a better place for them. That article is based however mostly on 1913 data. Would someone be so kind to contribute adding some 20 century data?Xx236 (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a stupid question, but I figure I will ask anyway. In with fire and sword, was Helena Kurcewiczówna technically Polish? I only ask because in my English copy, she is identified as Ruthenian. Should her article identify her as Polish? Ostap 01:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She was the daughter of a Knyaz Wasyl Kurcewicz and an unknown woman, and I think Sienkiewicz thought of her as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Ruthenian origin. IMHO she was a Ruthenian, who later became Polonised. By the way, Izabella Scorupco, who played her in the movie is blond, and real Helena from the book was dark-haired. Tymek (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ostap 20:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to kindly ask your opinion on this view expressed by EconomistBR. He uses pretty strong words (sometimes close to NPA violation) to describe his revert of my map (which I, after explaining my reasons, restored). Still, I am assuming he's doing it in good faith and thus I would like to ask your opinion on the justness of his action (irrespective of the tone he uses, which probably is somewhat less typical than in regular Wikiconversations). Any comment on the sense of keeping or deleting the CIA categories (and a map) are most appreciated in this request for comment. Pundit|utter 21:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to inform, there is a Request for Move on Talk:Casimir I of Poland. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have mostly finished work on Polish culture during World War II. I will now stub and expand Polish culture in the Interbellum; if you have any suggestions (should the name be changed?) or sources I could use, let me know. Then I plan to work on the 1945-1989 culture, see my comment at Talk:Culture_of_Poland#Culture_in_People.27s_Republic_of_Poland and consider commenting there. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proszę admina o sprawdzenie zawartości tego usuniętego pliku, czy nie ma tam podanego źródła zdjęcia. Być może problem polegał na złym doborze tagu licencji. A.J. (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell there was no source and no license. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if anyone here knows anything about the grandmother of the worldfamous ballerina Marie Taglioni? She was in fact Polish. Her name was Mariane Sophie Stebnowska (another version of her name was Maria Sofia Stempkosta), and she was an opera singer. She married Christoffer Christian Karsten and became the mother of the Swedish ballerina Sophie Karsten and grandmother of Marie Taglioni. She lived 1753-1848 and was from 1782 employed at the Royal Swedish Opera. There does not seem to be any information about her in Swedish wiki about her past before she arived in Sweden, but perhaps she was known in Poland in the 1770s? Perhaps she deserves her article here on English wiki? There does not seem to be any articles at all about Polish actors or singers from the 18th century here. --85.226.235.206 (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sv:Sophie StebnowskaXx236 (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Stempkosta isn't Polish, rather Stempkoska or Stempkowska.Xx236 (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked through the Polish Biographical Dictionary; there is no entry under "Karsten" (family name) neither any variant of maiden name (Ste..., Stę...). Picus viridis (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the trouble to look, I have wondered about that, and Swedish wiki says nothing about her life before marriage. Perhaps she can be found somewhere else eventually. I'll make a link of the name in case there is ever made an article of it. --Aciram (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request this article to fill in a red link in {{Postalhistorybycountry}}. Editor(s) who could DYK it would certainly be eligible for an award. Any takers? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should they be merged? {{Polish elections}} and {{Elections in Poland}}. Perhaps we could split them into historical (pre-89) and modern (post-89)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd keep the first one and not bother with a split (unless the navbox becomes uncomfortably big, which won't be for a few years yet).--Kotniski (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am for the first one, it is a standard template for all countries. - Darwinek (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falanga didn't exist during WWII, neither did the ONR.Xx236 (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct the template. It misinforms.Xx236 (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Falanga and ONR. If I'm wrong - please correct.Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking about restarting Polish Collaboration of the Month. Would anybody be interested in this?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, count me in. Tymek (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning a series of articles about pre-1939 Polish fortifications, both in the east and the west. I started with the Sarny Fortified Area, and help is welcome. Perhaps somebody could make the Category Polish Interbellum Fortifications? Tymek (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category should be probably "Forts in Poland", in line with other similar categories. - Darwinek (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But then Sarny and many other places would not be included. Besides, in 1920s and 1930s Poland constructed several objects of this kind that IMHO deserve a special category. Tymek (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing a program which automatially generates IPA phonetic representation for Polish words, for use in articles on towns, people etc. If anyone considers themselves knowledgeable on this matter, I'd be grateful if you could have a look at the examples at this user page and let me know if you think there are any errors creeping in. Thanks, --Kotniski (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, I'm also building a couple of templates which may prove useful ({{IPA-pl}} and {{Audio-IPA-pl}}). I left a note about them at Template talk:IPA.--Kotniski (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian chauvinists are at it again, turning Polish mathematician Stefan Banach into a Ukrainian. Nihil novi (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deja vu, an anon again. And again he is calling us chauvinists and nationalists. Obviously, any nationality would be proud to have Banach as their own, but this is ridiculous. Tymek (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian chauvinists? Lets see, you have a single anonymous IP address from the US and you are now talking about Ukrainian chauvinists? Of course Banach is Polish. Please lose the anti-Ukrainian sentiment, or at least learn to conceal it better. Ostap 00:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. A not very active anon fanatic who may or may be a (singular) Ukrainian chauvinist is no need to create such an alarming threat here. Peace, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But he is definitely Polish. Ukrainian wikipedia also lists him as only a Polish mathematician. Given the old comments on the talk page (if its the same editor), he looks more like a Polonophobe than a Ukrainian chauvinist. Ostap 01:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on Ostap. Nihil Novi was visibly upset, I am sure this is not about anti-Ukrainian sentiment. It just makes you angry when you see something like this. Tymek (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also makes me angry. Vandal anon's are a plague, but what can we do? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone has pertinent information to introduce on the subject, at "Frédéric Chopin" User:Mrglass123 has changed the composer from "Polish" to "Polish-French," citing Encyclopaedia Britannica and an alleged French passport. (This is very much at variance with the view of the Polish Wikipedia.) Nihil novi (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is also at odds with fr wiki. For some reason I recall debates over Piłsudski nationality, which interestingly never touched Lithuanian Wikipedia, neither. How did this saying go about 'being more holy than a Pope'? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points. Thanks for looking into the matter.

By the way, the poor-quality photo of the supposed "French passport," at some website, bears an imprint, something like "Passeport à Etrangère," "valid for one year," which sounds less like a French passport than some kind of residence permit for a "foreigner," valid for a year. Nihil novi (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The party has now moved (for now) from Marshal Piłsudski's to Fryderyk's, with (who else?) our friend Daniel in attendance! Much fun to be had! All are invited. Nihil novi (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this board is still on my watchlist, I feel invited. Who will play the piano? -- Matthead  Discuß   01:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am just wondering where the party people will move now. Any bets, guys? I would say, that after Pilsudski, Szopen and Sklodowska the time has come for Adam Mickiewicz. Tymek (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you imagine what the good old "traveling circus" could make of that "Belarusian poet who wrote in Polish about Lithuania"? Nihil novi (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You never know, but perhaps someone might check Czeslaw Milosz now and then. Tymek (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The government of Belarus doesn't respect the constitution. AN article about the constitution should inform about it. The same all Soviet/Communist constitutions. A constitution isn't a fiction book to be described because of the quality of the text.Xx236 (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are able to expand the article with text on violations, it will be welcomed. Mind citing sources. - Darwinek (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xx, why don't take your complaints to article talk pages instead of trying to "mobilize" users? Or best yet, improve articles yourself with the properly sourced and neutrally phrased info. --Irpen 20:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My I ask you not adress me here? I don't like you. Xx236 (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1936 Soviet Constitution was one of the most liberal in the world. That doesn't mean Soviet Union was. Nonetheless remember that article's have their scops and government's violations should not be discussed extensively in articles about their constitutions.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I studied Law I can say saomething about constitiutions in general: Constitiutions of non-democratic countries at first glance may seem as liberal as the constitiutions of democratic countries. They differ in two major points:

• The constitiution of non-democratic countries emphesise the obligations of it's citizens when the constitiutions of democratic countries puts the rights of their citizens first.
• The constitiution of non-democratic countries usually has little or no independent institiutions with real power (like Trybunał Konstytucyjny in Poland) which can force policymakers to respect the constitiution. Mieciu K (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, the idea of creating such portals is to exchange ideas, remarks as well as complaints. Therefore, your inflammatory comment was not necessary. Tymek (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tymek, I agree that the exchange of ideas is good. However, what is indeed inflammatory, is to use this board to try mobilize users. This board used to even have a special nice frame on top courteously entitled "Articles in need of attention" or something like that. If I remember correctly, the last straw that broke the camel's back and lead to its removal was when one experienced editor filled this box with "Article 1, Article 2 as well as any article edited by Ghirla". That was blunt enough to perplex one of the board's members who removed the box, hopefully for good. By asking to cut down on "mobilizations" I am trying to achieve calm rather than inflame matters. Inflaming of national announcement boards was tried elsewhere and not by me. If you want details, we can discuss it elsewhere. --Irpen 20:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke to the original poster about this issue on the talk page of the article. As the main writer of it, I just wanted to focus on the document itself and the changes done to it. There are violations of all Constitutions, so I do not see why Belarus has to be that special case. My personal opinion is that any violations against the Polish minority in Belarus (which I know exists, I do not dispute that) should be at another article. I believe there is an article about the Polish minority in Belarus on here. Any thoughts are welcome here or at my talk page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New stub has been created: {{Poland-artist-stub}}.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another fascinating subject from interbellum Poland. As I am not an expert in this field, help is appreciated, look at Gwiazda Polski. Tymek (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in leaving your thoughts on the notability of this Poland-related article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marika Michalowska. Thank you.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In particular, if anyone could comment on whether or not Laif Magazine is a major music publication in Poland which might be considered a reliable source, that would be quite helpful. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

There appear to be several users with an anti-German slant who are trying to tint a large number of articles in this way. See for example the edit histories of Former eastern territories of Germany and Expulsion of Germans after World War II, especially user Molobo's edits. Most of his changes introduce vocabulary with an anti-German bias and an unbalanced presentation that paints German actions intentionally "evil". (You will also notice my own edits where I try to undo some of that, without much success as Molobo undoes my undos). I don't want to start an edit war with this person, but rather hope that a majority of users will help watch him so that he doesn't have a chance of spreading his POV. I've also notified the German users notice board here where there was a discussion about this problem earlier. Everyone is invited to continue the discussion there.

Note that I'm not trying to push an anti-Polish POV in return. If someone wanted to introduce one, I'd try to stop that too. I believe wikipedia should not judge historical conflicts at all, neither expressively nor subtly. I hope wikipedia authors can achieve this by working together across nations. The German-Polish conficts are in the past and we don't need to fight them here once again. Anorak2 (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried discussing it with user Molobo directly? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right, I'm also quite sure that a little direct discussion with Molobo will help, I can back you up if nessesary.--Jacurek (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other people have addressed the issue in the past, it doesn't seem to have helped. Anorak2 (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anorak, could you specify Molobo's edits you dislike? I do not see anything nationalistic in them. Conflicts are hopefully in the past, but this does not mean that we have to forget about what happened. Tymek (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II&diff=193119673&oldid=193001787 (a block of several edits, all by Molobo). I draw your attention to

• the change of forced migration into migration
• the comparison to movements of Czechs, Hungarians etc.
• the wording German aggression

all of which appear to justify the expulsions by either belittling the events or blaming Germans as a nation, thus POV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II&diff=193115326&oldid=19311459 I draw your attention to the wording especially as most of those areas were part of Poland before being Germanised. This phrase appears to justify the ceding of territory, i.e. it takes sides. Also, while it's undisputably true that the territories were Polish or Slavonic at several points in time, it's likewhise true that they were also Germanic or German at several points in time. It's impossible to determine "who was first". Cherrypicking one of those many points in time to "justify" territorial claims (of whichever side) is, well, heavy POV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II&diff=193119300&oldid=193115326 I draw your attention to the wording just like other private property regardless of ethnic background. Once again this phrase appears to justify the expropriation of the expellees' property, thus is takes sides. Also the claim that there was no difference between epropriation of German expellees' real estate and "regular" communist nationalisations is unsourced (and actually untrue AFAIK). The unsourced claim was apparently inserted for the sole purpose of justifying the expropriation, thus is once again heavy POV. Anorak2 (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we remember the past in an NPOV way like Molobo does, we will be OK. Space Cadet (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess reality just seems to have a pro-Polish bias. That's really too bad. Ostap 19:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like this are unhelpful, if I may say so. If a subject is controversial, then it's wikipedia's job to present it as controversial and describe the viewpoint of all parties involved without judging which one is "more right". Anorak2 (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is the first problematic Molobo's edit, presented by Anorak: as part of a postwar ethnic cleansing process also involving Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, and Russians. The policy had been agreed to by the Allies during the war as a way to stop further German agression.. Anorak, we are not creating Wikipedia for ourselves, we are doing this for English speakers from all over the world. Without this phrase: also involving Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, and Russians a reader, say in Indonesia, may come to the conclusion that Germans were the only nationality, which suffered from expulsions after WW2. It gives a broader perspective, it is helpful and honestly, I do not see any pro-Polish POV there. As for: the policy had been agreed to by the Allies during the war as a way to stop further German agression - wasn't this the purpose of expulsions? If I am wrong, correct me. More to come, if you wish Tymek (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any postwar "ethnic cleansing" concerning Czech nation. This part of aforementioned statement seems very controversial. - Darwinek (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A number of German citizens from Silesia declared Czech nationality after the war. They went to Czechoslovakia, not to Germany. Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! I've been doing some WikiHomework, and Space Cadet, Ostap, Tymek, and Molobo are quite the tag team when it comes to trying to pushing a twisted, chauvinistic nationalism into Wikipedia articles. When anyone calls them on it, they all scream bloody murder, claim to be completely unbiased, revert every edit that takes out their blatant POV, and then give each other medals of merit for work on articles relating to their "beloved" country. I'd say ignore them as the trolls they are, but they make everyone waste time trying to keep Wikipedia even remotely credible. Ubudoda (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, now go and do your mathematics homework. Everybody has their POV, the problem is that some people will never admit it. Beloved country - I love Poland and I am not ashamed of it. BTW I never got a medal from these editors. And yes, we are a team, we eat all those who dislike Poland and Ukraine Tymek (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smacznego (bon appetit). Dr. Dan (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here dislikes Poland (or Ukraine, what do they have to do with it anyway?). Removing a pro-X POV is not anti-X. Since you are a team, your mutual assertions of neutrality are worth nothing. Anorak2 (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes pro-X POV happens to be NPOV. That's all I want on WIKI - truth, logic, common sense and neutrality. Space Cadet (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes pro-X POV happens to be NPOV. No. NPOV is not pro or anti anything. It just reports what happened, without the slightest, teensiest, most ephemeral hint of approvement or rejection. This goes down to the most minute choice of vocabulary. Besides your all edits don't just transport a pro-Polish POV sometimes, but most of the time.

That's all I want on WIKI - truth, logic, common sense and neutrality. Several people have expressed doubts about this.

Besides Tymek said above And yes, we are a team, we eat all those who dislike Poland and Ukraine. This is essentally admitting that you as a group are prepared to remove facts that you perceive as "anti-Polish" (even though that isn't the case, but trying to convince you of this will be difficult). Anorak2 (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is sarcasm a foreign language to you? Is a little irony really too much for you to handle? Several people that you talk about might be POV pushers themselves. Space Cadet (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm is saying the opposite of what you really mean. It didn't look like that.

I oppose all POVs, including anti-Polish. The fact that the latter exists (it does) is no excuse for a pro-Polish one (it also exists). You don't achieve NPOV by mixing all kinds of biases, but by removing all, that is by addressing each bias individually. Anorak2 (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check this: [20] and this: [21], and this [22] and this [23] and many others and stop constantly accusing me of anti-German bias. Space Cadet (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also add, that Tymek's wording was very unfortunate. I myself, at least, have never eaten anyone disliking Poland or Ukraine, and I even bite only occasionally. But seriously, I believe that most of us here have a sound understanding of POV, and POV, just like nationalism, does not have any particular fatherland. Pundit|utter 18:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was unfortunate, it was just a humorous answer to unreasonable accusations. Space Cadet (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was quite an unfortunate and revealing remark, and it's regrettable that a greater number of people haven't made that clearer to Tymek. Sure it was humorous (which is why I humorously wished him a hearty smaczenego), but "many a truth has been said in jest". I also found it weird to see him trying to forge "an alliance" between Poland and Ukraine (shades of Miedzymorze?) giving the nature of many negative contributions from the Polish "team" concerning Ukraine. Especially regarding WWII. Really, no one dislikes Poland or Ukraine, and I hope no one dislikes all of the other countries involved in these disputes. So can we drop cabal, and just call it the team? And Space Cadet, all of your examples concerning German cities, are historically accurate (maybe Heinrich George is an exception, but even 1945-46 is probably a gray area regarding Szczecin in English). I'm beginning to feel that while truth and neutrality are possibly obtainable in the future, the logic and especially common sense parts may not be. Those abilities are usually not something that can be improved upon, if they are lacking to begin with. Good day. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Heinrich George actually isn't an exception. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Dan, thanks for your hilarious reply (smacznego). Now, I am not trying to forge any alliances, User Ostap, mentioned by Ubudoda/Anorak/Anorak2, and branded by him a chauvinist, is Ukrainian. Simple as that. Tymek (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took exception to Ostap's assertion reality just seems to have a pro-Polish bias. Someone who says that displays a complete lack of understanding what NPOV means. If you all agree with that statement, which I think you do, we are at the core of the problem: Lack of understanding what NPOV is, thus inability to write NPOV and inability to understand the criticism. I found the same in other cases where I met groups of POV-writers, and explaining to them why they're doing wrong is nerve wrecking :-/

Besides please note I'm not identical with user Anorak. I chose the name Anorak2 because "Anorak" was already taken. Anorak2 (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AK is on GA review. Changes have been requested here. Please help improve the article; if there are no editors willing to invest their time, this important article will lose its GA status.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone with a good accent and access to appropriate recording ware who would feel like recording the Polish names of the voivodeships (województwo świętokrzyskie and so on) for upload? I mean in 16 separate .ogg files, of course.--Kotniski (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Pawiak.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 217.149.199.35 (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The traveling circus has now chosen Czeslaw Milosz, who according to one gentleman, was a Lithuanian poet of Polish culture (what a nonsense, never heard of such a phrase). Tymek (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Jozef Pilsudski (see Talk). Dr. Dan (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Britannica identifies him as a "Polish-American" author, not Lithuanian. Ostap 20:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EB refers to Pilsudski as a Polish-Lithuanian, but Polish Wikipedians object to that designation in his case.Dr. Dan (talk)

I have no interest in this topic Tymek, but please do not use this noticeboard in this way; doing this has in the past brought a lot of suspicion and ill-will into the community project. In addition to this, please remember WP:CANVASS and WP:MULTI. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVASSUnder certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions. Now we have editors who are changing the Czeslaw Milosz article in a way that does not improve the contents and furthermore, these changes are inflammatory. Therefore, I do not see anything wrong about the topic I started. Tymek (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are addressing this noticeboard in the spirit of partisanship, and referring to other people as "the traveling circus". Using this noticeboard as a rallying point for content-disputes has in the past brought a bad reputation, and creates nationality-based bad feeling on wikipedia. Remember wikipedia relies on a spirit of good-will and co-operation, and comments such as this and this do not help. I hope more experienced users on this noticeboard will back me up here! Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tymek's tone might and should have been better. But the topic is relevant. Unless anybody believes this noticeboard is a nationalist canvassing ground, it stands to reason that any discussion advertised here will be brought to the attention of mostly neutral and reasonable editors, whose influence on it will be positive and moderating. Let's assume good faith and be nice to each other, shall we? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for that Piotrus. There's probably no way to stop nationality based content-disputes involving a Polish topic being brought here, but in those circumstances we can secure the maximum of good faith by avoiding terms like traveling circus and Ukrainian chauvinists being used when users do bring them here. You, Piotrus, know more than anyone how much harm this can do (and for what good?), so I hope that you will give less experienced users such as Tymek and Nihil Novi guidance on the matter. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody loves a good traveling circus. They are usually quite entertaining. Ostap 00:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have had my lesson. Next time, when I see somebody making inflammatory, baseless edits to such articles as Czeslaw Milosz, I will just follow the advice given here and I will stay as far from these edits as possible. I will not inform anybody about it, and thousands of possible readers will get the wrong info. What you see is what you get. And those who make such edits will obviously be praised for their efforts. Therefore, let us make Czeslaw Milosz a Lithuanian poet of Polish culture, and let us make Wikipedia the only source of such information in this beautiful world. Why not? Regards. Tymek (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tymek, regarding...what a nonsense (sic), have never heard of such a phrase... Let me assure you that the longer you live, the more you will both hear and learn many other things that you are not aware of. You must have missed Norman Davies', "Pilsudski considered himself a Lithuanian of Polish culture"...Dr. Dan (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it you, Dr Dan, who wrote elsewhere we don't have to stick to the topic although it helps? This topic is about Milosz, not Pilsudski. Anyway, thank you for enlightening me. Apart from some POV-pushers, nobody else doubts Milosz's having been Polish. Tymek (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the topic is the phrase, ...Lithuanian of Polish culture... If this finally enlightens you, you are welcome. As for, nobody else doubts Milosz's having been Polish, maybe you need to read more of Milosz's own remarks on the subject. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I enlighten you this time. The topic is Czeslaw Milosz, in case you missed it. Anyway, I always thought that Wikipedia is all about reliable knowledge, not about POVish, pseudorevolutionary ideas of some users. Tymek (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's make it even more clearer then and focus like a laser. Is it about Milosz, Polish-Lithuanian, or Polish culture that you have a problem with? The phrase that Milosz or Pilsudski were Lithuanians of Polish culture, may not be to your liking, and whether or not you have knowledge of such a concept, is neither here nor there. Their statements regarding their heritage are as relevant as Jan Dzierzon's are about his. Or does that only apply in Dzierzon's case? Dr. Dan (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interupt, but do you have any other sources that say he was a Lithuanian of Polish culture? Ostap 00:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I recall, Miłosz very often described his hometown and the regions currently being located on the territory of Lithuania. I do not, however, remember him saying that he was Lithuanian, although he had good Lithuanian friends and maintained the links with the country. He also was writing exclusively in Polish and English, afaik. But Dr. Dan, you are more than welcome to bring the reliable resources and I'm sure they'll be appreciated, as they will widen our knowledge of this great poet, whose Lithuanian origins are commonly known. Pundit|utter 01:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of you gentlemen are interrupting as I am not sure if Tymek is ready at the moment to deal with the issue by himself. While I'm preparing some info for you, do you also care to get some additional info regarding Pilsudski's heritage too? If as I contend, both men, JS and CM, stated as much regarding their Lithuanian heritage, would that be a different argument than the Dzierzon case? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something to read temporarily [24] Dr. Dan (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Dan, I lost you here. Why should I deal with this issue? In what way? He was Polish, I do not have to prove anything, just bother yourself to open any encyclopedia. Tymek (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tymek, earlier I offered to discuss this with you at your own talk page. You declined to do so. Now we are at a portal that has a much wider audience. Although I am not offended by your "travelling circus" remark, your input here is compromised. Besides the issues are not directed for you to determine alone, in any case. No one wants you to prove anything. You are not required to "deal with this issue". In what way? In no way. Right now I'm "bothering" with the article on this encyclopedia. I hope this has become clearer to you now and you are no longer "lost". Dr. Dan (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see in what way does the letter by Kazimierz Tarnowski have anything to do with Czeslaw Milosz's self perception or identity. He was a Polish citizen, a Polish author, and was raised in a Polish community living in the then Polish territory. His great sentiment and appreciation for the region, expressed e.g. in "Dolina Issy" does not have much to do with being Lithuanian. Similarly, in spite of the many sentiments and nostalgia that Günter Grass expresses towards Danzig, it is rather unusual to call him Polish (and same it goes e.g. with Max Born and many other notable people. I am far from going national about Miłosz, but common reason would call for bringing some solid sources (preferably statements by him) for this unusual claim (considering his citizenship, language and often expressed Polish nationality). Pundit|utter 03:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was something to read "temporarily" while I'm putting some other things together. And you can also scroll the link forwards and back to other interesting information. As for (Milosz)...he was a Polish citizen, etc., I think he later became a U.S. citizen, and spent most of his adult life in the United States. Anyway I hope Tymek enjoyed Pilsudski's remark at the Rudziński's home that was included in the link, ..."I, Sir, am not a Pole, because I am a Lithuanian!"...February, 1915. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pilsudski's other purported quote was actually somewhat dismaying, ..."(Poland) is the "hariba" of Europe." Perhaps he never spoke these words. In any case, Hiraba: Arabic for "waging war against society." Assassins. Fire setters. Well poisoners. Assassins, who kill not for military but political purposes... Hariba was once, in Islam, counted as among the gravest possible sins -- a war against God. It includes the killing of the resident and the wayfarer -- noncombatants, that is.Dr. Dan (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, perhaps he meant that Poland is Haribo of Europe, after all everybody enjoys some sweet jelly bear now and then. Or perhaps he never said Haribo. Anyway, this discussion is getting ridiculous. From Milosz to Pilsudski to Dzierzon and finally to Arab assassins. What else do you have in stock to convince us that Milosz was not Polish? Tymek (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is from 1915, Tymek, the candy company was founded in 1920. Then again it has been argued by some that JP had a unique Nostradamistic ability to foresee the future. As for connecting the dots between Milosz, Pilsudski, Dzierzon and their origins to this discussion, just read the articles and their talk pages. Take your time. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica, which I think is sort of an authority, calls him (Milosz) a Polish-American. Ostap 03:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this discussion is now including Pilsudski, can I remind you that when Britannica called Pilsudski a Polish-Lithuanian, it didn't have much "authority" in that case. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because cherrypicking is not our policy. If 9 times out of 10 Britannica calls him Polish, and once, Polish-Lithuanian, claiming that "Britannica calls him Polish-Lithuanian" is not very honest, now, is it? The same thing applies to Miłosz. End of story.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think anybody objects to mentioning Miłosz's American passport, right? Pundit|utter 05:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that indeed there was less cherry picking going on, or that we could at least get some Kirschwasser out of it, while it's going on. Anyway, now that I've got your attention let's not have a rush to judgement and give this a little time to develop. No, not end of story. Honestly, honest? I can go to bed with a smile, or even a little laugh. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC) p.s. It seems only French passports are suspect around here see Chopin (talk).[reply]

Has anyone factored into the question of Józef Piłsudski's and Czesław Miłosz's "Lithuaniannness," sheer human perversity? When an individual wishes for some reason to set himself apart from his fellows—particularly if he is upset with them—he will sometimes advert to his (at times, merely supposed) foreign background. Among Germans, Friedrich Nietzsche famously did this, in claiming Polish origin: see "Friedrich Nietzsche" and "Radwan coat of arms." In Miłosz's case, the claim of Lithuanianness partly also involved a desire to emulate his compatriot and fellow-poet Adam Mickiewicz (to whom Miłosz devoted a course at Berkeley). Nihil novi (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All things considered, it would be less difficult for Milosz to emulate Mickiewicz, than say Julian Tuwim. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miłosz isn't beloved among Radio Maryja followers. Some of them manifested against his burial in Skałka. He wrote Polish, not Lithuanian, and preferred Kraków, but there is also a number of his pro-Lithuanian statements. A comparison of the Polish Wikipedia article and the English one is helpful. Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia Gem has been found by me. [25]

Among other things-number of Catholics increased by annexation of Western Ukraine in 1939 :) Was Bialystok Western Ukraine ? ;] Another example : In the 1920s, genuine cultural concessions were granted to the nationalities. Communist elites of various nationalities were permitted to flourish and to have considerable self-government.

Almost no information on discrimination of Catholics in Soviet Union.

Naturally there is no single word on Polish catholics in Soviet Union which I presume were among the largest number of Roman Catholics in SU after 1939. Before the war, in Soviet held Ukraine circa 500.000 Poles lived and there is a considerable number of sources recording discrimination against religious activity.

In short, the article needs serious NPOV. I hope people will help.

--Molobo (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest crossposting to that article's talk.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an opinion that such name were incorrect. University of Königsberg and University of Wrocław are labelled as Defunct universities and colleges in Germany. Either both categories are wrong or both are right. Xx236 (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lviv isn't in Poland. How can it go in that category? Go ahead and remove the Polish universities from the German category also. It makes no sense. Ostap 17:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There is a difference between Polish and in Poland. We should create an appropriate category: Category:Defunct Polish universities and colleges for that purpose (and for other countries in the same fashion).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Lwów was in Poland. A name of a category is frequently too short to describe all options, if you want to make it more precise, you can do it in the Category article. It make no sense is your POV.
• Be bold and do the edition yourself. Wikipedia is aa common project, there are no Polish or Ukrainian articles, to be edited only by own nationalists.Xx236 (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lemberg was also in Austria. And for a time, Lvov was in Russia. So what? That it makes no sense is not a POV. The name of the category is Defunct universities and colleges in Poland . Like it or not, Lviv is NOT in Poland, therefore it makes as much sense to be in this category as "Defunct universities and colleges in New Zealand" another country Lviv is NOT in. I don't know what you mean about the "be bold" stuff. Ostap 18:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC) You want me to do something: Go ahead and remove the Polish universities from the German category also. It's a standard answer in such situations. Xx236 (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And Warsaw was in Russia and Germany; that doesn't make Warsaw University a former Russian or German one. The 'in country' categories apply to 'present' locations, not some past ones. Lwów University was Polish once but it is certainly no longer in Poland (or Polish).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is it defined that in means present? A number of authors had another opinion.
• Warsaw University was more or less Russian during many years and istn't one any more, so yes, former, not recent.

Xx236 (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Xx236 (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dominant trade is in grain and seeds. I have visited the town but no grain found. Xx236 (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famine?? Not the harvest season ?? 85.214.22.8 (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather call it ignorance, when 1910-1911 text is used to describe 21st century reality.Xx236 (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the image to the right at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates . Bewareofdog 19:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying us.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this poster and I wondered if SPD demanded 1914 post-war ? I did heard that organisations of transfered Germans did make such claims but from the looks of this SPD did also ? [26] --Molobo (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is very unlikely. Where did you get this poster? Ubudoda (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article suggest that Valaška (pl:Ciupaga) belongs to Slovak culture only, please correct that. 13:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Other than this fascinating article needs expansion, I've noted some errors and confusing items on the accompanying template at Talk:Polish_Secret_State#Not_totally_inclusive. Comments appreciated (I suggest commenting at the linked article's talk page, not here.)! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please reference the Górki set index article? It is currently a dump of Polish place names, and it was attempted to be overridden with a redirect to Gorki without preserving much from the current list. I'd hate to lose a what is a potentially useful list just because it is in a sorry state. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is again being retroactively granted variously Ukrainian, or dual Polish and Ukrainian, nationality. Nihil novi (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kac completed his Ph.D. in mathematics at Ivan Franko Lviv National Ukrainian University - I love it.Xx236 (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As we see, some people are clearly jealous of Banach. This problem comes and goes in intervals. Tymek (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex reverted it to an acceptable version. Dealing with anon vandals is simple: revert. End of story.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anon lost all credibility when he claimed that Banach was of this "Ukrainian religion". Ostap 21:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone feels in the mood for an edit war or two (or possibly trying to reason politely with this guy), check out his recent contributions, pushing what he regards as "established English names" for Polish cities.--Kotniski (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know in many aspects the different editors from West Slavic nations have not seen eye to eye, and the community has suffered due to childish naming disputes that usually deteriorate into edit wars. That's why, in the interest of common West Slavic participation on Wikipedia I have proposed a West Slavic WikiProject, that would aim and try to bridge the gaps between us and strive for fair representation of West Slavic interests, be they Polish, Czech, Slovak or Sorbian on the English Wikipedia, as well as effective multilateral debates on a multitude of contentious articles. So, just have a look and voice your support if you want. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 23:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, you have my support on it. Tymek (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it falls within the purview of this WikiProject, I thought I should advise of a new debate to move the article about Sněžka-Śnieżka. As participants in the associated project with the great interest and knowledge in the specific political and cultural ramifications of this Czech/Polish mountain debate, your views would be especially welcome. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 05:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS is in need of Polish-speaking volunteers, specifically for handling the backlog of image permissions tickets. Volunteers must be at least 16 years old (and be willing to provide proof of identity), courteous, skilled at resolving disputes, friendly even in the face of hostility, sensitive to the needs of those outside Wikipedia, and have exemplary discretion. Interested parties should apply at m:OTRS/volunteering. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A worthy cause. If I wasn't doing a hundred other things, I'd love to help; since I am I can only endorse Howcheng request - please, volunteers, step forward! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should like to inform the honourable editors of the Poland-related notice board that I am seriously considering moving Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, a featured article, in order to replace the hyphen in this state's name with an en dash. If you wish to comment, please do so in the relevant thread here. I have also notified the Baltic States notice board. Waltham, The Duke of 23:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A newly created article on Median Europe is proposed for deletion - comments appreciated. Pundit|utter 14:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should foray be moved to zajazd? Please comment at Talk:Foray.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alojzy Ehrlich, legendary Polish-Jewish table tennis player, more info about this personality is welcome. Tymek (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

his sermons, interwove spiritual exhortations with political messages - I don't like the phrase, Popiełuszko wasn't a politician. I have also removed the CIA reference from the text, because Popiełuszko wasn't a CIA tool.Xx236 (talk) 12:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current RFE/RL article is very general.Xx236 (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I just did a re-write of Congress Poland, could someone have a proof-read? I added no references or text, just took what was there and improved the English, and given my lack of knowledge of Polish history it's possible I made errors in chronology or cast. Thanks, WLU (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems very marginal idea or a hoax. Anyway if somebody wants to comment : It was once proposed that the Duke be made King of Poland, in a move to restore the Polish monarchy much as the Greek monarchy had been restored using imported Royals. In August 1937, the Duke and his wife visited Poland and were well-received. However, due to the invasion of Poland in World War II, the plan was called off.

Supposedly from Picknett, Prince, Prior & Brydon, pp. 142–143. --Molobo (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a curiosity, I am myself very interested in the 1930s, so many interesting and so many unusual things were happening back then in our country. Tymek (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably a crazy idea by the monarchists. I couldn't find anything regarding it during a quick look on Google Print, I suggest tagging as dubious and eventually removing it from mainspace articles per WP:V.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in 1939 but during Second World War, not king od Poland but monarchic Central European Federation. Proposed by Sikorski and Herman Lieberman, not monarchists, rejected by Benes. The sources I found though aren't very reliable and I will continue to look for more serious ones.--Molobo (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an interesting post by Gene here. Please comment on whether you think that in English language, Wańkowicz should come before or after (for excample) Lewis W. Wannamaker. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wańkowicz comes before Wannamaker in English alphabetical order (i.e. different from Polish). We ignore diacritics when ordering.--Kotniski (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... I myself would sort him after (regular letters precede those with tittles) but this is just my personal opinion and I am not really knowledgeable about the subject.Pundit|utter 19:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A third part of this set (Image:Mundurwl6.jpg, Image:Oficer_Marynarka.jpg) for Polish airman) was deleted long time ago and cannot be restored, perhaps somebody could find it and reupload it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those with a geographic bent: "Template:Age of Enlightenment" now places Poland in Eastern rather than Central Europe (apparently in deference to Cold Warriors' bipolar preferences). See also "Template talk:Age of Enlightenment." Germany ("Holy Roman Empire") is in Central Europe, according to this template, Poland is in Eastern. Nihil novi (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's really insane overkill to try to build this matter up into a nationalistic melodrama. It's just a clumsy geographical division in a template with clumsier geographical/cultural divisions than this. I put it in there simply because of the logic of the existing divisions, and 1) it's more common in English to describe as "in Eastern Europe" than in "Central Europe" and 2) Eastern Europe on the template had a smaller population. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is childlish, but at the same time annoying. User Lokyz keeps deleting Polish names of such places as Varena and Lentvaris, yet at the same time he insists on keeping a Lithuanian name of Sejny. Double standards, isn't it? My opinion is simple - keep Lithuanian names of Augustow, Sejny or Suwalki (even Bialystok), but also keep Polish names of places as Varena. I am awaiting your opinion. Tymek (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both versions should be used with the due respect to respective minorities. Both countries are in the European Union, for Christ sake and both signed European Charter of Minority and Regional Languages. - Darwinek (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new naming convention for places in Slovakia is being discussed at User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment#Proposed_naming_convention. Your input will be greatly appreciated. Since these new rules might be later regarded as a precedent by non-involved editors (remember the Danzig/Gdansk case?), I think you will find this ongoing discussion and poll interesting. Tankred (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Battle of Kostiuchnówka and also relevant to Poland: Forced labor in Germany during World War II and Minority Treaties. They were all submitted to WP:GA recently and reviewers have posted comments on talk. Help addressing the comments/issues pointed out is much needed! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is such language allowed in this Wikipedia? It's about November Uprising and January Uprising in Lithuania: Oh, and don't forget the five pub fights, an insult about the Tzar's favourite horse, and the shooting of a Russian Partridge in a Lithuanian Pear Tree! Xx236 (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who said it? Space Cadet (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quote this not as a personal, but ideological problem. I believe that such language is unacceptable and the nationality/name of the author doesn't change anything. Xx236 (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think we should split List of Poles into many lists. The list is too big. I would like to know what other users think. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I was always in favor of deleting this and similar lists, but I think I am in minority on that. In any case, this and similar articles were and are a mess - and if you think splitting will help, go ahead.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, there are countries (including "allies" of Poland) where many people disparage Poles and Poland. It helps to have a list of prominent Poles to which the ignorant can be directed, where they will discover that Poland actually has made some contributions to world science and culture. As Poeticbent points out, there is a List of Czechs, List of French people, List of Greeks, List of Hungarians, List of Italians, etc. Why should there not be a central List of Poles? The List of Poles, in fact, is superior to the ones named above, because it is illustrated.

Certainly, set up specific individual lists as well, for those seeking more focused or more complete information. But why delete an article that is useful and that is not yet truly unwieldy? Nihil novi (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nihil! Good to hear from you! I don't think List of Poles should be deleted. I think we need specific individual lists. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of prominent Poles would be a better name. List of Poles suggest everybody. Further, I once suggested that such list should be limited only to people who can be referenced to a publication like encyclopedia. Two lists to mention: User:Piotrus/List of Poles and User:Visor/Lists of articles/Biographies from Internetowa encyklopedia PWN, plus the lists of Poles from WIEM and Interia Encyklopedia should be used to determine who should be on that list - and who shouldn't. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that "List of Poles" already is a list of prominent Poles. All except three have articles on Wikipedia. Any non-prominent person (let's say, an individual without a Wikipedia article) who slips in can easily be deleted. Nihil novi (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the Huta Pieniacka massacre article, input of all contributors is welcomed. Tymek (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Banach is now described by an anonymous editor, in the article lead, as "an eminent European Ukrainian mathematician... a founder... of the Lwów School of Mathematics at Ivan Franko Lviv National Ukrainian University..." Help! Nihil novi (talk) 07:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banach was Polish. He was born in Kraków. We can ignore the claim of that IP. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.rp.pl/artykul/124647.html

When exatly was Vilnius ethnically Lithuanian, if 60% is the highest number in history?Xx236 (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a few hundred years ago, before the polonization of Grand Duchy. PS. This article should probably be linked from Polish minority in Lithuania and Polish-Lithuanian relations.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not, the city used to be Lithuanian-Ruthenian.Xx236 (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was illustrating a different article and found this image. Since Polish Wedding is an article about a movie and I could not decide for which of Polish culture and Polish folk related articles is best to use it, I am bringing it here. Perhaps someone will start an article about Polish wedding traditions one day. Happy edits, --Irpen 20:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have created Category:WikiProject Poland participants. Feel free to add this category on your user page. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone take over at Stefan Banach? I've already passed my daily quota of reverts. (I've also asked for a block or semi-protection at AN/I and requests for protection.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal blocked. Please report any possible block evasions or comebacks. - Darwinek (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give your support or opposition at the Central Europe talk page, since we are looking for a single definition for it.

This issue is related to Poland since it determines where it is located in Europe. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 17:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all that participated and gave their opinion on Proposal II.

Proposal II was approved, 13 editors supported it and 5 editors opposed it. Proposal II is now in effect and it redefined Central Europe. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Proposal II for the definition of "Central Europe" has been adopted. If so, how would this best be implemented on sites such as "Template:Age of Enlightenment," where Poland still appears in the section on "Eastern Europe"? Nihil novi (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor issue: please comment on which layout is better (and help expand the list).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the following subsection to the article on The Black Madonna of Czestochowa. As unbelievable as it may seem its all true. Might be cool for "Did you know", right?

In Vodou, it is believed that a common depiction of Erzulie has its roots in copies of the icon of the Black Madonna of Częstochowa, brought to Haiti by Polish soldiers fighting on both sides of the Haitian Revolution from 1802 onwards.^[1] In her Petro nation aspect as Erzulie Dantor she is often depicted as a scarred and buxom woman, holding a child protectively in one hand and a knife in the other. She is a warrior and particularly a fierce protector of women and children. In Santeria, this image is referred to as Santa Barbara Africana. --Orestek (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting, alas WP:DYK features only newly created or significantly expanded articles. That said, it is high time to update dyks for Portal:Poland.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who is interested, the same anonymous contributor is again giving his interpretation of Stefan Banach's life and work. Nihil novi (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ASAP. Either that or block the IP again for a longer time. It might not be technically vandalism, since he seems to genuinely believe what he's saying, but it's pointless us wasting our time battling with this guy every week or so. Kotniski (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fill the request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection? I am afraid if I were to semi the article, some may accuse me of abusing the admin tools (as I am Polish and I'd be protecting the Polish POV version...).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Translations paragraph because it contained only Ukrainian ones. Either many languaguages or none.Xx236 (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More opinions needed: see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2008/04#komendant.cal.pl. If you agree with me that the case should be reopened, please start a new reqiest at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm trying to compile a list of notable references to support a Wikipedia article concerning a video editor. Two I have are in Polish - if there are any Polish speakers that could help by reading the articles this would be appreciated. The articles are here: Clesh#References If you believe from each article the video editor is notable please leave some form of brief comment about each article in the form of a summary above the document in link in the references section (as has been done with the other documents in there). Many thanks, mk (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed these two references, since they seem barely relevant in fact.--Kotniski (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An example: If you wish to play more mind games with this outrageous ... bias, go for it, and you will get a tsunami of references to ...

For me such stament is a blackmail - if you write about it, we (?) will write about other subjects, you won't like. Or maybe a conspiracy - let's not discuss our subjects. Bot are rather organized crime activities than editing.Xx236 (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed Bili Sarny detention centre for deletion at Afd here. At present this seems to be an invention of a Ukrainian nationalist website, though if anyone has any real information about the existence or non-existence of the place it would be welcome.--Kotniski (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the new article on Fear - Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz: "The ongoing difficulty many Poles continue to have in confronting the facts of Polish wartime and post war violence against Polish Jews is witnessed daily in the attacks on wikipedia pages discussing the pogroms and murders of Jews carried out by Poles.". Lovely, isn't it? The book is notable, but the article needs some major rewriting to move away from rant style :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this Wikipedia isn't a forum for posting jokes. How to stop such a thread and remove unrelated comments? Xx236 (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TALK for the relevant guideline; can you be more specific and link the joke thread that concerns you? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC) I haven't succeeded.Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of years ago I spent hours adding in diacritics to links of Polish cities. Now I see the lack of accents problem is back in a big way. May I please, please remind people (and I really shouldn't be the one doing this): it's Toruń not Torun, Poznań not Poznan, Wrocław not Wroclaw, Łódź not Lodz, and on and on. Thank you. Biruitorul (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, for bringing this up. I think it is ridiculous that people, especially Poles themselves, seem to think that Polish diacritics can be overlooked. They can not be overlooked as diacritics in Polish form an integral component of the letter and they are not mere accents. Especially the letters ł and ż! Omitting the stroke on the ł or the dot on the ż, you might as well omit the z in the digraphs cz, rz, and sz and write Warsawa, Scecin, and Bydgosc. Horrible!--Poltecatl (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should List of mayors of Gdańsk be split off from List of mayors of Danzig, as was recently done? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This category needs to be populated, I guess... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps deleted, since it would include a large majority of Polish people and not be very informative.--Kotniski (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also in favour of deletion. Such categories make sense for countries like the Czech Republic where most of people are Atheist, not for country which is a symbol of ardent Roman Catholicism. - Darwinek (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree with deletion; it is only logical it should exist. It makes sense to categorize people by religion just as it makes sense to categorize them by ethnicity or profession. Category:Polish people by religion is useful - even if over 90% of Poles will fall into the Category:Polish Catholics. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see that the usefulness would be enough to justify the work involved, i.e. going round virtually every Polish person with an article, finding evidence that they are/were Catholic, and ending up with a category which looks not much different from a category of all Polish people.--Kotniski (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Nihil novi (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the consensus here leans towards elimination of this category. CFD? - Darwinek (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[27] Should events taken place in Toruń be known by the Germanised name version of the city ?

Your choice.--Molobo (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not "choose" nor "vote" on facts. Wikipedia reflects scholarly sources. And these are by far in favour of Thorn in history use. -- Matthead  Discuß   15:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far none have been presented.--Molobo (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my proposal [28] --Molobo (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Giant Mountains. -- Matthead  Discuß   15:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be serious, too generic.--Molobo (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am serious, Molobo, and so is the name Giant Mountains, which happens to be English. And you better sign, especially when you make such remarks. -- Matthead  Discuß   20:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why use a German or English name for a mountain range that is shared exclusively by Poland and the Czech Republic? Sounds like linguistic imperialism. Nihil novi (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Matthead proposed to delete name Karkonosze and replace it with translation of German term Risenberge-Giant Mountains. Vote is under way. You are free to place your opinion: [29] --Molobo (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since user Matthead insists on calling Fryderyk Scherfke and Ernest Wilimowski victims of explusion, I am awaiting opinions of editors on this subject - see here [30]. Both Wilimowski and Scherfke were drafted into the Wehrmacht and ended up in western Germany in 1945. Nobody expelled them from Katowice and Poznan. Tymek (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dukes of Pomerania Radomil talk 17:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I'm asking for Your participation in this discussion Radomil talk 15:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do Poles drive around in the daytime with their headlights on? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC) (currently in Gdansk)[reply]

Not only Poles, a number of nations in the EU. Daytime running lamp needs help. Xx236 (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the law.--Kotniski (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? How amazing. I've been to ten other European countries and I've never seen it before. What purpose does it serve, other than dazzling oncoming drivers? In Australia you'd probably be stopped by the police and told to turn them off. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose they think it prevents accidents by making vehicles more visible. If you get used to having the lights on all the time, you won't forget to switch them on when it gets foggy or semi-dark, maybe. And of course the fines are a useful source of revenue;)--Kotniski (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In CA and NY it's the law. Space Cadet (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It very much increases the visibility of cars on the road. Otherwise, they tend to blend into the background. Many modern cars on both sides of the Atlantic are now produced with daylights always on (even in the US, where it is not obligatory, and also where headlights are straight, while in Europe they are slightly directed to the right edge of the road, not to dazzle the other drivers). I'm in CA now and I don't think it is obligatory :> but many drivers do have headlights on, it is just for safety Pundit|utter 17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a Gdansk pedestrian, I can tell you it does no such thing. It just adds to the general visual overload of city traffic. (Plus of course they are all driving on the wrong side of the road, hence I have been nearly run over three times today.) Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aussies drive on the wrong side of the road, you are supposed to conform to our system of driving. ;) - Darwinek (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say Poles drive on the right side of the road, and Brits and Aussies drive on the correct side.--Kotniski (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh oh, I smell a conflict here. - Darwinek (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we won't pursue this topic :)

On a more important question: I have now been to Szczecin and Gdansk, walking around with old German street maps looking for interesting old buildings (my hobby). Later I will go to Wroclaw as well. It seems to me that Gdansk has done a much more thorough job of removing all relics of German Danzig than Szczecin has done of removing all relics of German Stettin. Is this correct? Is this because Stettin was a German city longer than Danzig was? It is because Poles feel more patriotic about Gdansk than about Szczecin? (Nevertheless I did find a few German inscriptions in Gdansk, such as on the old Polizei Praesidium building.) Also, please see the question about Gdansk I have asked at Talk:Gdansk, which no-one has tried to answer yet. Djenkuye. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the subject, if you don't mind, are you making pictures of all the relics, old buildings and stuff? It's my hobby too. Space Cadet (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. I am going to do a "Germany's lost cities" section of my website when I get home. Yesterday I went to KZ Stutthof. Now I am sitting in Olsztyn for two hours (thanks to Polish railways) on my way to see the Wolf's Lair. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your question. Gdańsk was culturally and politically far more important city than Szczecin, so basically there was more landmarks there. Gdańsk is also internationally more known, local authorities felt that and took needed steps to renovate landmarks to attract more tourists. However, this trend seems to be appearing slowly in other historic cities in Poland. Tourism is a good source of money, ya know. - Darwinek (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but the decision to rebuild the Gdansk Old Town as it was before 1772 rather than as it was in 1939 was taken immediately after the war, long before tourism was a consideration. This was a political decision, to erase 160 years of German history from the city, or at least from its historic heart. Stettin was a much more German city than Danzig, so its German heritage was harder to erase. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gdansk is different from Wroclaw and Szczecin since it was part of Poland for quite a long time and therefore plays a much larger role in the Polish consciousness. Gdansk looked familiar, Prussian Stettin and Prussian/Austrian/Bohemian Breslau looked much more foreign. I think this process of Polonization was different in every town. There were a few publications in recent years which started to research this topic. In Germany it was "Wiedergewonnene Geschichte. Zur Aneignung von Vergangenheit in den Zwischenräumen Mitteleuropas" (Recovered history. Adoption of the past in the interstices of Middle Europe, ISBN 3-447-05297-X) or, especially about Wroclaw, "Die fremde Stadt" (The foreign town, ISBN 3-88680-795-9). If you can read German there is also quite a good summary about what's happened in Wroclaw between 1945 and 1990 (Polish author btw.):

http://www.dpg-brandenburg.de/nr17/breslau.htm

If you come to Wroclaw you will see some German relics. After 1990 things have definitively turned for the better. For instance, on some of the Gründerzeit shopping centers you will see newly restored German names, something which probably is only possible in Poland with it's great tradition in reconstruction.

PS: if you are in the area: the German town of Görlitz, which was once part of Prussian Silesia, is one of the most beautiful cities in Germany and just 2:30h away. Karasek (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to Wrocław, I'd recommend Davies' Microcosm: Portrait of a Central European City.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those comments, which confirm what I thought about the special place of Gdansk as compared to other cities which became Polish in 1945. I will be in Wroclaw in about two weeks. Thanks to the Polish railways, I had an unexpected night in Olsztyn / Allenstein and found a number of obviously German-built buildings there. It is obvious that this part of Poland (formerly East Prussia) is doing well out of German tourism and there are German signs all over the place, such as on cemeteries where Germans go to look for family graves. Yesterday I was at Ketrzyn / Rastenburg and was very impressed by the presentation of the Wolfsschanze site. It was well worth standing for five hours in a packed and very late train! Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have created {{Polish diaspora}} template. Please add any further or new articles to the list. - Darwinek (talk) 10:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those who may have missed it, voting continues on User Meathead's proposal to move the article on the "Karkonosze" Mountains to the more generic title, "Great Mountains," and on User Molobo's counter-proposal to move "Karkonosze" to "Karkonosze/Krkonoše." You may vote at [31]. Nihil novi (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otolemur crassicaudatus has requested that a plot summary be added to the article on Pharaoh (the film). I have not seen the entire movie and therefore do not feel competent to do it. Any takers? Nihil novi (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the template "WikiProject Poland" could be added by a member. Squash Racket (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't hesitate and add this template where you feel it is appropriate.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone direct me to an online map of central Warsaw with the street names as they were during the communist era? (I visited the Palace of Culture today. It is not nearly as ugly as I had expected. The statues of the handsome proletarians are rather cute :) ) Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pl:Zmiany nazw ulic i placów w Warszawie, tables inform about changes, if you prefer maps, see Trasbus link.Xx236 (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. So Warsaw never had Ul Marksa, Lenina, Stalina, Oktobera Revolutsia, Rosa Luksemburga, Boleslava Bieruta etc etc? That's very surprising. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pl:Zmiany_nazw_ulic_i_placów_w_Warszawie#Wola. Al. Rewolucji Październikowej = October Revolution Avenue. Jacek Kendysz 18:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plac Defilad was to be allegedly Plac Stalina, but Stalin died.Xx236 (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised there has never been a Rosa Luxemburg street in Warsaw. There are several in Germany, but she was born in Poland after all. On the other hand she was Jewish... Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a big RL Factory there. Soviet opinion about RL was changing, RL not always being orthodox. She acted in Germany, so she wasn't a Polish revolutionary. Xx236 (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this there used to be a Róży Luksemburg street in the Rembertów district of Warsaw.--Kotniski (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and there were (are) many others all over Poland.--Kotniski (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today I am in Poznan. Everywhere people are flying the red-and-white Polish colours, the yellow-and-white, which I assume is the Papal flag, and the pale-blue-and-white. What is this? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the city colours, see [32]. - Darwinek (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have seen that flag, but the one people are flying from their apartments is a plain pale-blue-and-white bi-colour, and not that shade of blue. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thosa are not city colours. You're just visiting Poznań during Corpus Christi feast (or in its octave). Red&white are Polish flags, yellow&white are papal flag and white&blue are marian flags Radomil talk 19:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. Flag of Poznań is used very rare. It looks like that . You can also occasionaly see older version (coat of arms are encircled by gold line, and sheat is blue, not white) Radomil talk 19:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dziękuję, Radomil. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long are you in Poznan for, Mr T? Anyone up for an impromptu (and probably extremely small) wikigathering?--Kotniski (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would have to be tomorrow morning. I'm on a lunch-time train to Wroclaw. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the big Polish wikipedian gathering is just finishing in Rabka ([33]).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong side of Poland for us, unfortunately. Name a time and place, Mr T; I'll be there, maybe Radomil will join us?--Kotniski (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it will have to be conducted in English, since my Polish vocabulary has expanded from nil to about six words since I have been here. I'm staying at the Polonez. You're welcome to join me for morning tea. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I shall. Any particular time or means of recognition?--Kotniski (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Kotniski. I'll be in Warsaw probably in August, so we can meet. If you'd be near Silesia we can always meet in Cieszyn. - Darwinek (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to be in Katowice more often than Warsaw, so maybe see you in Cieszyn some time.--Kotniski (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, let me know when you'll plan to visit Cieszyn. - Darwinek (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cafe is on floor A (between 1 and 2). How does 10.30 suit you? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See you tomorrow then. Others are doubtless welcome too.--Kotniski (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be the guy in black reading a big book about World War II. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving Poznań on 10:15 and I'll be back after 17:00, so not this time... Radomil talk 20:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Within WikiProject Companies I am trying to establish guidelines for all Lists of companies by country, the implementation of which would hopefully ensure a minimum quality standard and level of consistency across all of these related but currently disparate articles. The ultimate goal is the improvement of these articles to Featured List status. As a WikiProject that currently has one of these lists within your scope, I would really appreciate your feedback! You can find the draft guidelines here. Thanks for your help as we look to build consensus and improve Wikipedia! - Richc80 (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics/Draft/List of basic Poland topics.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Piotrus for the notice, the list is indeed interesting. If only I had more time to write. Greetings. Tymek (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Italy called "Włochy" in Polish? What is the derivation of this word? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC) (now in Krakow)[reply]

[34] suggests relation to Wallachia. It is confirmed by [35] and [36]. I am sure somebody else can help and translate more. PS. I will be briefly in Poznań on late Saturday/early Sunday (family trip).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's a proposal for another of the fast-becoming-traditional Poznań minigatherings, I'll be free from about midday on Sunday.--Kotniski (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably that's not going to work. On Sat evening if anybody's in the area, you can try hotel Royal (Marcina 71?) and ask for room 21. -- Piotrus on IP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.3.136.230 (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Italy is nowhere near Wallachia, but applying the w/g rule gives Gallachia, suggesting that the Poles (as Slavs) saw Italy as part of the Latin or Gallic world, related to the French (although the French use "Galles" to refer to Celts, not Latins). I suppose that makes sense. I still can't find out why the Czechs call Austria "Rakousko". Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a castle on the historical borders of Austria and Czech lands, it is nowadays named Raabs an der Thaya. However, it was called back then Ratgoz and Bohemian merchants screwed up its name to Rakús or Rakous, and here we go, then they named after it surrounding lands and later on whole land. - Darwinek (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today I leave Poland after three very enjoyable weeks and far too many pirogi. Jenkuye to all. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also in old-Polsih simmilar name was used. Even today, Polish queen, Elisabeth of Austria, is known as "Elżbieta Rakuszanka" (or as "mother of kings") Radomil talk 15:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lately I was busy moving some of the images from Category:Pre-1994 Poland images to Commons. It seems like the remaining 100 images left do not have any sources to support their claim that they were published in Poland in years 1926-1994, since all that had it are already moved. I would propose changing them to FairUse template and to retire PD-Polish template. --Jarekt (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm interested in witch trials, and think that every country should be represented in the subject. As for Poland, it's hard to find anything about this on the net. If there is anyone here interested in the subject, I think it would be most interesting to have a Polish with trial represented here on wikipedia. Most countrys are alredy represented. I have heard about only two cases; two old women burned in 1793, and Barbara Zdunk, executed in 1811. These where mentioned on the net with very few words. Does anyone here know more about these cases? or any other? I would be grateful just for a stub or a name to google. --Aciram (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply and bibliography here; if somebody would like to write an article - I am a bit busy now - it would be appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

In recent days I've made a new template on polish Wikipedia for linking to articles published by culture.pl service (pl:szablon:culture). This is rich and interesting source on polish culture and the articles there are also available in few other languages including english, so I thought you may be interested in creating english version of the template (probably as "template:culture.pl") and using it in appropriate places. -- kocio (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. There are over a 100 pages linking to culture.pl from en wikipedia.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jak to jest po polsku - bo nie ma interwiki do pl wikipedii? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Może Pomorze Gdańskie po prostu? Pomerelia seems to be equivalent to de:Pommerellen, which in turn links to pl:Pomorze Gdańskie; and at pl:Pomorze Gdańskie it gives Pommerellen as the German equivalent.--Kotniski (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or Pomorze Wschodnie, see Eastern Pomerania. I don't have full confidence in interwikis, or unreferenced Polish Wikipedia articles...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody here who seems to know what he's talking about suggests it's either Pomorze Gdańskie or Prusy Królewskie. The former seems more accurate to me. Anyway, I don't think we're going to find anything better.--Kotniski (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Irpen claims Russia fought at the Battle of Grunwald[37]. Last time I heard this was during Soviet occupation and I recall it was widely fabricated myth by Soviet propaganda. Can anybody look into this. Wikipedia should be free from Soviet propaganda in my personal view. Although it can mentioned how Soviet histography tried to present Russians as leading the battle. --Molobo (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo, you should really read books on the subject rather than try to recruit users to help you "outrevert". On a side note, that such frequent use of this board is still being tolerated does not contribute to the improvement of the editing climate here but this is up to its main participants, I guess. --Irpen 00:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, you shouldn't consider every request for improvement of an article to be 'outreverting'. Please have good faith and relax from Wikipedia if it stresses you. I am asking fellow editors to fill out the article for vital information about Soviet propaganda. With so many great minds here interested in Soviet occupation of Poland I won't be surprised if many sources will be presented ! Best regards to you Irpen.

--Molobo (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was amazed by this being a surprise and thought for a moment that verifying of this info indeed requires a visit to the library for some out of print book or something. But apparently, the most recent book specifically devoted to the subject (by Turnbull, "Tannenberg 1410: Disaster for the Teutonic Knights", ISBN 9781841765617, published by Osprey) says right on its cover:

"In June 1410 King Wladislaw Jagiello of Poland invaded the Order’s territory with a powerful allied army including all the enemies of the Teutonic Knights – Poles, Lithuanians, Russians, Bohemians, Hungarians, Tartars and Cossacks."

So much of Soviet propaganda, HTH, --Irpen 01:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A usual Western generalisation towards Ruthanians under Lithuanian vassalisation. Anyway care to explain why the text where nothing is about Novgorod was used by you to source claim that Novgorod took place in the battle ? I see nothing of the sorts in the text provided. As to Ruthanians-no doubt some were in Polish-Lithuanian army just like Hungarians and Bohemians-yet we do not name Czech Republic or Hungary as part of the battle.--Molobo (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo, you are in no position to argue with Turnbull. But I will add a quote of another Soviet propagandist, Johann von Posilge who in 1418(!) wrote about the gathering of "Tartars, Russians, Lithuanians and Samogitians against Christendom" by Jogaila. Hope this helps. --Irpen 01:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are using a source from 1418 ? It's even worse then your usage of XIX century sources from Imperial Russia, i'm afraid. Of course the sources claims are complete false since Jagiełło was Catholic ruler of Catholic country. And of course I doubt dear Johann wrote in English.--Molobo (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Molobo, I am quoting the Chronicler through the modern source given above. Turnbull quotes Posilge, I simply reproduced the quote from Turnbull's book. Speaking of Novgorod, the Turnbull specifically noted the Lithuanian-Pskov-Novgorod alliance. --Irpen 01:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are using secondery source and showing it as primary ? Sorry but that doesn't seem very honest thing to do. Also outdated middle ages documents shouldn't be presented as source of undisputable facts. As to claim Grunwald was won by Pskov-Novgorod alliance, that is indeed very interesting Irpen, although my history teacher in the 80s also read similar passages from soviet-dictated history books. Of course laughing together with the class(shows how weak the Soviet stronghold was in reality in occupied countries btw).--Molobo (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo, I did not quote the source (chronicle) in the article. When I do, I always note the intermediate source, if there is any, in the references section. This was a talk page discussion. I gave the name of the secondary source, a book, above. You now argue with Posilge? Good luck. Now, I am happy to hear about your teachers. Unfortunately, to this date you refused to name books you read on the subject. I asked you before and received no answer. Anyway, this is a moot point. Removal of sourced info, spinning it in various ways and trying to recruit editors for the edit war is what concerns me most in your actions. --Irpen 01:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing false information, removing sources that say nothing about what they should source and asking fellow editors to improve the article is nothing to be concerned about. Using documents from 1418 as base for Wikipedia articles is of course something to worry about, as is usage of XIX century history books published in Imperial Russia as source for Wikipedia articles.--Molobo (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For crying out loud, Molobo. 1418 source was not used as "base for WP articles." It was not added to the article. I quoted it on the talk to demonstrate you the sensibility of your claim about Soviet propaganda (Soviet took the time machine and wrote a Prussian Chronicle.) More, I quoted a book (a modern one) published by the most respectable publisher. More, the book sources exactly what it is used to reference. --Irpen 01:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, this is not a place for this discussion. Please take it to Talk:Battle of Grunwald.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with raising the issues one has with articles at their talks. And this is the problem of this board which persists for years. Several editors (I spare the names) come here and help nothing but inflaming matters in the articles in question. There was a box on top specifically for this purpose that was thankfully removed by Balcer. Starting the threads like this one above are not functionally different from that former box. To add an insult to an injury, no only the OP called for the article's attention, he names names.

I don't see other portal's notice boards so extensively used this way. Let's stop it here as well to help improve the editing climate. --Irpen 20:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, extra heavy harassing during those days called for a somewhat different approach, and this was far from the only board where users of various nationalities aired their grievances.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you did not mean to say what it seems to say above. In any case, it would be best if this board's misuse would stop. --Irpen 22:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It won't stop unless it is stopped. -- Matthead  Discuß   23:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is to be done when misguided, misinformed editors persist in nonsensical ventures such as trying to turn Józef Piłsudski into a Lithuanian, Stefan Banach into a Ukrainian, Fryderyk Chopin and Maria Skłodowska-Curie into French people, and Nicolaus Copernicus into a German — and find ready audiences of equally misinformed readers? Nihil novi (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comparisons drawn above are not all equal in the first place. When a trolling IP attacks Banach article, there is little to do than to ask for more eyeballs. But comparing IP's trolling with restoring the sourced info removed by Molobo is completely outrageous. It would be best to promote more cooperation than ethnic teaming like done by the OP above as well as several threads started here by another editor. It is exceptionally rare to find such calls for arms at the Ukrainian or Russian portals. --Irpen 01:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is "OP"? Nihil novi (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OP: Original Poster (internet newsgroups and message boards). --Irpen 02:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this afd. Renata (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is relevant, please list in in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland and related sorts.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read about withdrawing Polish units in 1939 being ambushed by Ukrainian insurgents (possibly Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists) does anybody know how widespread and notable those attacks were? Should we add OUN to the Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) Military Conflict Infobox? Mieciu K (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already asked this question to a Ukrainian user, do not remember who. I know the Ukrainians in mid-September 1939 captured the town of Stryj for a few hours, but were chased away by the Polish Army units. Alas, I have no more info on it. Tymek (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me back in December. Sorry, it seems I never did get any research done, or get back to you. I don't think the OUN should be added as part of the Soviet invasion however. Ostap 04:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a problem Ostap. Greetings. Tymek (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mateusz Sołtanowicz (no google/gprint hits), Piotr Sołtanowicz (few google/no gprint hits), Józef Sołtanowicz (no hits), Jan Sołtanowicz (few google hits/no gphits), Bolesław Sołtanowicz (similar). What do you think? All work of a single User:Potocki, who has created little else. I'd think at least the poets would get some gprint hits... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to AFD'em as there are no reliable and verifiable sources. Visor (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded Polish culture during World War II and nominated it for Wikipedia:Featured article status. Please take a minute to read the article and comment in the promotion vote. Please help address the issues as they come up, I may not have time to address them all myself. The article has a large amount of red links; please help translate missing articles from pl wikipedia.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help address points raised by the reviewers. The article has a large amount of red links; please help translate missing articles from pl wikipedia. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are discussions going on about what should be the guidelines on the use or non-use of diacritics in foreign words. It started with an attempt to remove diacritics from the names of tennis players; there is now a proposal on clarifying the guidelines to approve the use of diacritics in general - see WP:UD for the proposal and WT:UD for the discussion. --Kotniski (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My original proposal (which failed to gain consensus) has now been much improved (in my opinion) by AjaxSmack. Please take a look and comment.--Kotniski (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to move some to subcategory peace treaties, and they in turn need to be divided into proper peace treaties and armistices. Volunteers to do this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Piotrus talkpage by User:Piotrus.

Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Berkunt (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should include inline citations in the article. I think that's the major problem. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The humoruous essay at meta:Poles are evil, that has survived for years, is in dire danger from the new generation of righteous politically correct people who want to prove Poles are not evil. Consider commenting.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That nomination is an epic misunderstanding. Everybody rally your socks to the rescue and prove we're evil! </yes-this-is-a-joke-obviously> Миша13 21:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a humoruous essay. I think I read it six months ago. No need to delete it. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is happening with this user? Is there any way we others can express our disapproval of the block? Ostap 02:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive431#Molobo. I expressed my opposition there. If you disagree with this block, I'd suggest posting there, as well as at User_talk:Moreschi#User:Molobo. I have much respect for Moreschi, but I believe here he has made a profound mistake: a user was permblocked for borderline 3RR violation and few other single reverts around the same time, after a single warning. This is simply draconian and unfair.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my response here and here. To vary his own words, I have much respect for Piotruś, but I believe he is making a profound mistake by unconditionally supporting Molobo. "a user was permblocked for borderline 3RR violation and few other single reverts around the same time, after a single warning. This is simply draconian and unfair." You're misrepresenting things here. Molobo was blocked due to his age-old track record of blocks and a long history of heavily biased editing. He's been getting away with this behavior for longer than anyone I can remember. Take a random blocked user account and compare their block history with Molobo's - you're in for a surprise. People get blocked indefinitely after a fraction of that. "Zero tolerance" is wrong, but so is unlimited tolerance. I know you probably feel you have to defend your country against some anti-Polish conspiracy. Rest assured that your "my country right or wrong" approach is achieving precisely the opposite. Serdecznie dziękuję za waszą uwagę. --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not supporting him unconditionally. He is not a paragon of virtue among Wikiedians, but I don't think he has done anything so out-of-line to deserve a permban. I can think of quite a few editors similarly or even more biased, and revert warring at least as much as him - and usually they are not blocked. I'd support a more strict policy that would block them (and Molobo), but until it is implemented across Wikipedia it looks to me like Molobo had just the bad luck of acting like many other Wikipedians do (for better and worse, likely worse) and falling across a few admins in a bad mood and willing to use a ban hammer, bending our policies and making "an example" - which is not going to scare the other problematic editors, but rather encourage some of them (involved in reporting and criticizing Molobo this time), as they "managed to get one of their opponents blocked". Perhaps the best way to deal with this would be for ArbCom to review his situation, and editors he interacts with (it takes more than one editor to edit war...). A right solution would be either to ban nobody or quite a few disruptive editors - they all should be treated similarly, and it's unfair to single only one editor, no more problematic than quite a few others.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was very saddened to have found out about Molobo's block. In such moments, one feels like dropping the project. He is a little hot-headed (like most users he used to deal with), but nevertheless he is a very productive contributor and I am still hoping the decision will be changed. Tymek (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not plan to interfere with Piotrus' attempt to get Molobo unblocked again that goes on at the host of pages, but the remark above prompted me to ask a very specific question. Tymek, you called Molobo "a very productive contributor" above. Could you point out to the content this productive contributor wrote? I do not mean moving stuff around pasting chunks from one article to another or from external sites into article or talk pages. I also do not count massive rabid reverts (as well as his being useful when someone else "runs out his revert quota".) I also do not mean filling talk pages with annoying repetitive screams. I mean genuinely valuable new content written by this "productive user". Could you prod us to any examples? Because I don't remember of any. --Irpen 21:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[38]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see links to articles he reverted a lot from the above hack. I see none where he wrote anything meaningful. Could I have missed anything? --Irpen 23:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like this.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, no diffs to Molobo's actually writing some "valuable content"? I thought so. --Irpen 23:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, what do you mean by "valuable content"? Perhaps you could illustrate this idea with examples of articles you have created or significantly expanded? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to turn tables, Piotrus? OK, from the recent times I can offer an example of Kiev Governorate I have rewritten from scratch after your "creation" of this piece replete with factual errors [39]. Anything Molobo wrote? --Irpen 00:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Polish children by Nazi Germany, for example, is an interesting article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I considered Molobo a valuable editor. Piotrus, you linked above to that ANI page. Is there any better way? Has he himself requested to be unblocked? Does he even know he is blocked? Ostap 23:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He knows, but from what he told me he is considering abandoning the project, as he sees the block as unfair, and he doubts that he has any chance for a fair hearing :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one prevents you from appealing this to ArbCom. But beware that his current ban has a better chance of being conditionally lifted in, say, several months and replaced with yet umpteenth "last chance" (not that I see any chance that he may change), while the ArbCom ban (which I see as the likely outcome of such appeal) would stay forever and would also apply to all of his reincarnations. Also, I would not be surprised if the Arbcom would want to look at who were possibly enabling and facilitating Molobo's disruptive activities. --Irpen 00:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, I am not going to waste my time. Just look at his edits, anyway, whatever I would present to prove my point, you would disagree, so it makes no sense. Tymek (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I am not supporting him unconditionally." I admit I don't have the time to follow your exchanges on a regular basis, so I can't possibly be sure about this. All I can say is that I've seen you support him often, while I've never seen you disagree with him or fail to support him. You're welcome to point me to incidents where you actually opposed him, and I'll be happy to revoke my statement. "He is not a paragon of virtue among Wikiedians". The problem is not that he isn't a "paragon of virtue". The problem is that he is the opposite. "but I don't think he has done anything so out-of-line to deserve a permban." Then I'd be curious to learn what kind of punishment he does deserve in your opinion, with his record of previous bans? "I can think of quite a few editors similarly or even more biased, and revert warring at least as much as him - and usually they are not blocked. I'd support a more strict policy that would block them (and Molobo) [...]" Right now, I can't of any editors more biased than Molobo (except Space Cadet perhaps), although I'm sure there must have been quite a few. However, that's all totally off the point. In fact, you're using the oldest argument of people trying to evade sanctions, both on and off Wikipedia. "What, you're deleting an article about my school? Why don't you delete [random other school] first?" I'm sure you know well enough that two wrongs don't make a right. And you know that we can only take down one troll at a time, too. Rest assured that when other people behave the same way as Molobo has been behaving for years now, I'll argue exactly the same way. But right now we're discussing Molobo, and nothing others did can justify letting him off the hook. --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo used to break 3RR and got a series of blocks for that. In 2004-2005. Nothing in his recent behavior justified the venom he is attracting. If you disagree with me, provide diffs to the recent disruptive edits by Molobo. He is not edit warring more than many other users, yet while he gets the blame, his edit warring opponents get of score free. Such hypocrisy is not something I support.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drogi Piotruśku, let's get a few things straight here! "Molobo used to break 3RR and got a series of blocks for that. In 2004-2005." Molobo didn't even arrive on Wikipedia until 12 July 2005. He ran into trouble almost immediately and was first blocked, for 24 hrs, on 5 October 2005. This was the start of a series of bans, culminating in a year-long ban from 24 June 2006 until 24 June 2007. Apparently he got his act together for a while (as far as violating technical rules is concerned, that is) and wasn't blocked again until 7 June 2008, this time for 72 hrs due to his long history of blocks. This didn't stop him from edit-warring, though. On 12 June, Khoikhoi blocked him for one week, reason given: "resumed edit warring (across multiple pages) immediately after three-day block, 3RR violation on Strategic bombing during World War II, no signs of effort to stop edit warring". So your statement above is wrong on all counts. As for your other point ("He is not edit warring more than many other users"), I think I've made it clear enough that this isn't a valid argument.

However, as annoying as Molobo's constant violation of formal rules is, it's not the worst about him. I'm not wasting your time or mine with individual disruptive diffs (although there's no shortage of them), because the real problem is the całokształt of his contributions. He's not here to build an encyclopedia of neutral information; he clearly feels he is on some political mission. Virtually all of his edits carry some political message or at least connotation. There may be very few exceptions where the message isn't obvious on first sight, but seen in context it surely is. This is mainly directed against Germany and other neighbors of Poland. However, in Polish domestic affairs he demonstrates a clearly right-wing position, too. You can't make me believe you haven't been noticing this, so there's just two conclusions: Either you secretly share Molobo's political POV, or you don't, but feel obliged to protect him due to some "my country right or wrong" attitude. Either alternative is casting a dubious light on your own input, as impressive and respectable as it otherwise is. (The only excuse would be that you feel that Poland deserves more respect than she gets. Rest assured that Molobo's wheeling and dealings here don't contribute to that goal, just like the paranoid Kaczyński government's behavior hasn't contributed to that goal internationally.) It's a shame that Molobo couldn't get sanctioned because of his endecja-style hate-mongering alone - IMHO, misusing Wikipedia as a political playground is worse than violating technical rules. But even just looking at the technical things, a long-term or permanent ban has been overdue. BTW, you haven't answered the question what punishment you would consider appropriate for Molobo yourself. --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo's both block in the recent weeks are dubious (look at the diffs yourself), and his permban is too high for those violations. I don't endorse his POV, and I would gladly see him - and his fellow revert warriors - on 1RR - but nobody deserves to be perbanned after two dubious 3RR blocks, and his name smeared of sockpuppetry after a single, accidental edit as an IP.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's your POV that Molobo is right-wing. The same he is left-wing. Your opinion about Kaczyński government is your POV, don't do your propaganda here.Xx236 (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It's your POV that Molobo is right-wing". The concept "right-wing" is defined well enough, it's not merely a matter of personal preference to call something or somebody right-wing. Hate-speech, misrepresenting other nations etc. are all covered by the definition of right-wing. In Polish politics, attacking people because of (real or imagined) collaboration with the communist regime is a typical right-wing behavior. This is an undisputed fact and has nothing to do with POV. My opinion about the Kaczyński government is my POV alright, but you can be sure that it converges with that of the vast majority of people outside Poland, and even more people in Poland. Apart from that, this is a talk page, not an article, so we're entitled to voice opinions here. I'm pretty sure that anyone who cares to read this page has already formed an opinion about the twins, so the amount of damage "propaganda" can do is limited. The only reason I mentioned them in the first place was to illustrate that hot-headed behavior for some cause can in fact achieve the opposite of what was intended, which (hopefully) brings us back to Molobo. --Thorsten1 (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, no one cares about your opinions of what you believe to be Molobo's politic preferences. Second, read the article on Right wing, you seem to know nothing about this. Hate speech? Oh, please... Ostap 22:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hate speach - ever read Lenin's or Stalin's speaches? Xx236 (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the statute of limitations should apply here. If after having been banned for a year, Molobo came back, behaved himself for a year or so, misbehaved again, banned for 24 hours, then for a week - then the next logical step should be a month, three months, a year ... . Not banned indefinitely out of the blue, because someone dug out old bones from the closet. Besides, permban is for fraud and sockpuppetry, not for minor misdemeanors as 3RRs. Go to the Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz article and you'll find out some guys with trendy POV got away with even 10RR and countless other violations. And this is not my POV speaking. On the issue of the Kaczyński twins I am with User Thorsten1. These clowns made from Poland a laughingstock throughout European Union. Can't understand why 10 million Polish-Americans are still with them. But that's probably American propaganda at work thanks to our media. When an American goes to Europe, every European keeps telling him that he's been brainwashed. And guess what, I didn't believe that several years ago yet, but now I think they might be right. greg park avenue (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading comments by user Thorsten, I cannot really believe my eyes. So, using you logic, Molobo deserves the ban because he is right-wing and supports the Kaczynski bros government? It is laughable but at the same time sad. For the record - like millions of Poles, I also support President Lech Kaczynski. And now I guess, I should be expecting a ban in the near future. Tymek (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe this dicussion on Molobo turned into a bashing of Kaczynski and America. Ostap 00:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know who Molobo supports, and he doesn't deserve the ban, at least not this ban, but what I was saying some people who support New York Times views get away with minor Wikipedia violations, while the others who don't, usually got punished. Not that I for it - it's just reality. For the record: I am Lech Wałęsa guy and never supported Kaczyński twins who took apart the Solidarity movement from the inside paving the way to indroduce the Martial Law in Poland back in 1981. Don't you guys see they're the SB Fifth Column? And nothing has changed, they're trying to do that again, this time within the Polish government. greg park avenue (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, please stick to the topic. This is about Molobo, not Walesa or the Kaczynski bros. Tymek (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A summary reply to keep things readable.

@Ostap R: "no one cares about your opinions of what you believe to be Molobo's politic preferences." This isn't a matter of opinion or belief, Molobo's political preferences are blatantly clear from his edits. But that's not really the problem. The real problem is that he is promoting his politics with his edits, compromising NPOV on a regular basis. The fact that he keeps violating formal rules while doing so is just the straw that breaks the camel's back. As for the rest of your statement, I'm not going to dignify this with a reply.

@Xx236: Not sure what you want to say here. If it's something along the lines of "Molobo doesn't deserve any punishment because Stalin or Lenin were worse", you're wasting your time. Neither Lenin nor Stalin have ever edited Wikipedia, so the comparison is utterly flawed. Even if they had, for the umpteenth time: two (or more) wrongs don't make a right.

@Greg: Just like in real life, if you maxed out a sentence and continue to offend, there's a much steeper curve to the next punishments. Repeat offenders are always punished more severely, even if they have served their previous sentence. That said, it's open to debate if a less severe punishment than a permanent ban would have been justified. That's exactly why I challenged Piotruś to say what punishment he would consider appropriate... (The gist of his argument seemed to be that Molobo should get away with anything because others are getting away with similar offenses.) "you'll find out some guys with trendy POV got away with even 10RR and countless other violations." Sure, but for the umpteenth-plus-one time: two (or more) wrongs don't make a right. If I get caught jaywalking, I can't defend myself by saying that millions of people have been doing it without being punished. As much as I agree with you about the rest of your statement, I also agree with Ostap R that it doesn't belong here. We have enough on our hands with Molobo, no need to talk Kaczyński. The only reason I mentioned them at all was to demonstrate that a hot-headed and stubborn attitude is likely to achieve the opposite of one's intentions. Now I realize I better hadn't mentioned them because people tend to go right off topic at the sight of their name and also seem to lose their reading skills, as Tymek's statement below demonstrates.

@Tymek: "After reading comments by user Thorsten, I cannot really believe my eyes." And you better don't believe them, because I neither said nor implied any of the following: "So, using you logic, Molobo deserves the ban because he is right-wing and supports the Kaczynski bros government." I don't know if Molobo wears mohair berets, supports the Kaczyńskis, the Giertychs or whoever. As I said in the paragraph above, and am happy to repeat especially for you, the only reason I mentioned the Kaczyńskis was to demonstrate that a hot-headed and stubborn attitude is likely to achieve the opposite of one's intentions. If Molobo deserves a ban for other things than his countless technical offences, it's not his politics, but the fact that he lets his politics inform his edits and leaves behind POV stumbling-blocks wherever he turns up. "For the record - like millions of Poles, I also support President Lech Kaczynski." I'm not surprised to learn that. "And now I guess, I should be expecting a ban in the near future". Certainly not. But you would deserve one if you contaminated the article namespace with pro-Kaczyński spin-doctoring and/or kept breaking technical rules.

@Piotruś: "Molobo's both block in the recent weeks are dubious (look at the diffs yourself)". I have, and I don't see anything dubious. "and his permban is too high for those violations." A valid argument, but it begs the question which punishment you would consider appropriate? None at all? Proszę się nie gniewać, but I'm still curious to read your answer. I'm relieved to hear that you don't endorse his POV; it just begs the question why you engage so much in pettifogging on his behalf. --Thorsten1 (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Thorsten1 - you missed my most important argument statute of limitations. In the year 2005 Wikipedia was young and the editors inexperienced including administrators. We might strike the first offences and penalties based just on this and on good faith assumption, taking also in account, Molobo was clean after that for prolonged period of time. I suggest this:

1. Make an appeal to User Moreshi to reconsider the penalty phase and lower it to one month or 4 times his last block period. I know no admin will admit he was that wrong and let him walk free and even go that low, but maybe we may settle for something more adequate like three months.

2. Make an offer to User Molobo:

A. Plea guilty for 3RR (even if it's bordrline)

B. Promise to stay away from User Matthead and other Users with whom he made most political exchanges (even if they post on his User Talk Page)

C. Promise to never make more than one revert (even if two are allowed).

Sounds like an idea, huh? greg park avenue (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your matter-of-factly suggestions, Greg. I don't quite agree with them, though. I didn't miss your "statute of limitations" argument, I just don't agree with it. And in 2005 Wikipedia was "young" and nobody knew what they were doing? Come on. AGF is fine, but once you know that someone isn't acting in good faith, it's no longer helpful. Molobo may have been "clean" for some time as far as 3RR violations are concerned. As I mentioned above, however, even if this is what got him blocked, it's just the tip of the iceberg. His POV violations go on and on, and I see absolutely no improvement since he first appeared in mid-2005. I don't want Molobo to "plea guilty" to anything, to refrain from reverting, or to stay away from certain users. I want his blatant POV editing to stop - but I've given up all hope it ever will. --Thorsten1 (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In one word no deal! then. Please reconsider, Thorsten. POV on the top of few 3RRs is a very weak defense, even with adjective "blatant", which is a POV also. POV is not a reason to delete the article, save for the capital punishment of a User who is with us almost from the beginning. Wonder what Jimbo would say to that? Until last year, he intervened many times in such (POV) cases; last time I recall, in the matter of an article I was involved with - Anna Halman - moved later to the School violence. Statute of limitations will appeal to him I guess, but we don't need to go that far up, or even to ArbCom, do we? Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In one word no deal! then." I'm hardly in any position to bargain about Molobo's punishment or probation terms. However, I'm not making a secret of it that I'm so disillusioned about him that, personally, I wouldn't care to lift a finger in his defense. "POV is not a reason to delete the article, save for the capital punishment of a User who is with us almost from the beginning." POV may indeed be a reason to delete an article, if the very essence of an article is POV. (Think Microsoft world-domination conspiracy.) And no one will be able argue against the observation that the bulk of Molobo's editing is politically motivated and an inherent violation of NPOV. That he's been on Wikipedia for a relatively long time is not a reason to cut him any slack. If anything, there is a case for the opposite, because the time he spent here is proportional to the damage he's done, and his long history shows that he's not improving in any way. "Wonder what Jimbo would say to that?" That's an appeal to authority (and a speculative one at that), not a valid argument. But since you mention him, I suspect Jimbo would strongly disapprove of Molobo's politically motivated editing. After all, he kind of invented NPOV. "but we don't need to go that far up, or even to ArbCom, do we?" Surely not as far as I'm concerned, because regardless of all this, Wikipedia and the community of Polish editors is better off without Molobo. --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deals are made with the DA (District of Attorney, or Devil's Advocate, whatever you like), not with the judge (User:Moreschi in this case). Now we ain't got nothing to go to him to bargain for. Go to his user page and see he is a sworn POV-pushers hunter. Shame, he had no courage, though, to say that when announcing a verdict. Making another motion would be pure waste of time, just as this discussion is, since it's evident you have already made your mind. greg park avenue (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think I'm entitled to make my mind when I choose as much as anyone. And I was in no way involved in Moreschi's decision or the events leading up to it. I'm just one of the dozens (if not more) editors that Molobo has alienated, and glad to see him gone (hopefully) for good. --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thorsten: the first 3RR consisted in fact of three reverts and one move. I'd happily see Molobo and his opponents (it takes more than one to go over 3RR...) on 1RR restriction, for example. They should all learn to create more constructive content, and war less.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotruś, you keep discussing this on a purely technical level. This isn't doing justice to the matter, whose crux isn't that Molobo keeps breaking petty rules, but why he keeps breaking them. The underlying problem is his POV editing, which is incompatible with the idea of Wikipedia. It's not like you can do what you want here unless you don't break 3RR or any other formal rules. You said you don't endorse his POV, and I have no reason to doubt that, but it's still hard to believe when at the same time you're trying so hard to pettifog him out by nitpicking on technicalities. If you really don't, please think again. You might just come to the conclusion that Molobo is affecting a goal that I guess is as close to your heart as anyone else's here, namely to improve the quality of Poland-related information and its perceived overall reliability. But I'm getting tired of repeating this. --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not done so, could you provide some examples of Molobo's non-neutral POV-pushing? Nihil novi (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I could. In fact, it would be more difficult to find any where Molobo is not POV-pushing. However, the fact you're even asking speaks volumes, so I'm not going to waste my time. Instead, you may want to ask Piotruś, who said he doesn't endorse Molobo's POV, either. BTW, what is your username supposed to imply? Nic o nas bez nas? No sanctions against anyone without the unanimous support of all Polish Wikipedians? ;) --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My username "nihil novi" comes from "nihil novi sub sole," "nothing new under the sun" — as in the use, by some persons, of ad hominem remarks to divert attention from the vacuity of their arguments. Nihil novi (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the origins of your username? Mine, for the record, is explained on my talkpage ;p --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking about User:Nihil novi, obviously, who chose to make a political slogan his username. Since you're asking, my username is from here. --Thorsten1 (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Norse for "big phallus"? Shall we get back to substantive, instead of ad-hominem, arguments? Nihil novi (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You're confusing "ad hominem" with "ad nominem": I wasn't asking anything about you as a person, but strictly about the meaning of your chosen name. Yours is a historical political statement with certain implications. I was wondering if and how these relate to the issue at hand. Your slightly hysterical response about phalluses clearly shows that I was on to something here. Or even bang on target, who knows. Anyway, thanks for confirming my suspicion. --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming my interpretation of the origin of your username! Really, when will you grow out of your sophomoric drivel? A mature person discusses the subject at hand, not the origin of his interlocutor's name. It is the person without valid arguments that reaches for ad hominem distractions, as you did above. Nihil novi (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A mature person discusses the subject at hand, not the origin of his interlocutor's name." A mature person wouldn't make phallic allusions. Also, a mature person can't help but notice that, in this case, there is an interesting connection between the subject at hand and the message conveyed by the interlocutor's "name" (which is really a political statement). I'm sure you would have second thoughts as well if, in a discussion about gun control, you encountered someone calling themselves, say, User:The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, wouldn't you? Anyway, sorry if I hurt your feelings by asking about the intended meaning of your username. --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misinterpreted the origin of my username as being the subject of the article, "Nihil novi"; when I explained that my username came from the Biblical phrase, "nihil novi sub sole" ("there is nothing new under the sun"), you persisted in pushing your original POV. By way of illustrating the inappropriateness of your doing so, I placed a fanciful spin on the origin of your username. I propose that we call it quits and avoid such pointless and discourteous discussions in the future. Nihil novi (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You misinterpreted the origin of my username as being the subject of the article, "Nihil novi...". In Polish contexts, as you well know, the phrase "nihil novi" is much more likely to end in "nisi commune consensu" than in "sub sole". Combine that with the opinion you're representing here and I think my "misinterpretation" is a forgivable lapse, if it was one at all - methinks the lady did protest a bit too much. "By way of illustrating the inappropriateness of your doing so, I placed a fanciful spin on the origin of your username." I'm impressed. How pretentious can it get? ;) "I propose that we call it quits and avoid such pointless and discourteous discussions in the future." Finally something I can agree with. --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the above discussion, the impression I get is that 3RR has been used as a specimen charge, in order to block someone who certain admins feel probably ought to be blocked, though they can't quite justify why. In fact that's the second time I've seen that happen recently. In neither case do I shed any tears over the blockee, but is that really the inteded purpose of 3RR? It seems at best a lazy way of going about things.--Kotniski (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I totally regret that Molobo was convicted for technical offenses although the contents of his edits was way more offensive. It's probably to do with the fact that people generally hesitate to sanction national POV pushers when they know they'll face the heat from their compatriots afterwards. Also, counting 3RR violations (quantity) is much more time-consuming than arguing over POVs (quality). Conversely, this means that, with any luck, you can go on pushing POVs for years as long as you're careful no to violate 3RR. :( --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thorsten, could you do me a favor and - as Nihil novi asked above - show evidence of this Polish POV pushing by Molobo? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you're asking this, as above you declared you don't endorse his POV. See my answer to Nihil Novi above. --Thorsten1 (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each of us has some point of view; none of us is required to endorse another's. Nihil novi (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said: I don't endorse the POV you accuse him of having. But does he has it, really, or is it a "common knowledge" that nobody has tried to prove? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I should have said: I don't endorse the POV you accuse him of having." What a mind-boggling cop-out... Sorry, but this smacks of sophistry. --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sophistry? Sophistry would if I were to accuse you of, let's say, pro-Hawaiian POV, fail to provide any refs but keep repeating it everywhere. I am sure that there would be many editors who would note that they don't support your pro-Hawaiian POV... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pointless to continue this exchange with someone who evidently made his mind. User:Moreschi also ignores any common sense motions. See his stand on POV-pushers on his user page. But I think he would accept a plea of guilty (not of 3RR but of POV-pushing) and a commitment to avoid that in the future by User Molobo, if Molobo decided to enter it on his talk page. See his today's decision regarding User:Ottava Rima. greg park avenue (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotruś: That's utter nonsense. When you want to find out about Molobo's POV-pushing, you really get spoilt for choice here - and you bloody well know it, no matter how impudently you pretend not to.

@Greg: Yes, I formed my opinion about Molobo about three years ago and he has given me no opportunity whatsoever to change it. I've also seen him eat crow with phony rhetoric before falling back into his old behavior. He had last chances galore. --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You already said that thousand times. You don't have to respond to every comment, especially when you don't address the issues I have directed at User Piotrus without "ś". It only darkens the picture. Now I must repeat myself again. What I was saying, was, if Molobo takes an approach similar to the one taken here: User_talk:Ottava_Rima#Unblock, meaning pleading guilty to the POV pushing, even if he wasn't charged with it, and commiting himself to less tendencious editing, then even User Piotrus can shorten his block back to one week, because what he was charged with is a minor violation. The same thing what User DGG has done in the above mentioned case. greg park avenue (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You don't have to respond to every comment, especially when you don't address the issues I have directed at User Piotrus without "ś"." I know I don't have to, but I think I'm allowed to nonetheless (especially when the comment I was replying to was on me). After all, you keep repeating your wikilawyering ideas, too. And since when is Piotruś spelled without "ś", I wonder? Finally, for the umpteenth time, Molobo's pleading guilty and promising things wouldn't be worth the keyboard it's typed on. We've been through all that before. --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the big deal with pleading guilty to the charges which were never filed, just because the blockin admin didn't even have balls to do it? It would be more insult to him and other admins like that (hope, there are not too many of them in English Wikipedia) than all the Polish side POV-pushing Molobo has ever done. And in no time Molobo would be back in the editor's seat. greg park avenue (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Comments appreciated. Also related: Talk:Regions of Poland, Talk:Administrative division of Polish territories after partitions. Next, we will probably hear an argument that there was no Poland at al :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've been there, Pioturs, haven't we? Apparently, you still act the same way. It is not helping to build a harmonious editing climate.

And, yes. PLC was not Poland. PLC was Poland-Lithuania as its name says. Kingdom of Poland was Poland indeed and it was part of PLC, not the whole of it. --Irpen 17:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have been there and I hoped you've changed your behavior. Alas, it appears I was wrong.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I hoped so too. Formerly, you called for attention to any article Ghirla edited. Now you do so to any article I edited as if we are vandals. You did not change your behavior indeed. And still, no explanation why Lithuania "was Poland". --Irpen 17:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article on admin. divions of the PLC contains the relevant information on the admin. divisions of what was Poland at that time, so whatever arcane point you may be making by removing it from the navigation template, you're not helping users find their way around the encyclopedia .--Kotniski (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NCCN, if English literature refers to PLC as Poland, as it commonly do, in some cases so can we (to get a shorter, more common name). Please note that I have stated my support for an alternate name that includes Lithuania in it. However your attempts to remove any mentions that those territories were related to Poland and removal/censorship of useful content ([40], [41], [42]) are not constructive.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, your opinion that PLC and Poland is one and the same is noted. I hope you will not replace Poland by Commonwealth from now on in articles about the Polish westwards aggressions or anti-Polish uprisings of oppressed population, like for example here. Whenever Poland was a perpetrator, you removed Poland and replaced it by Commonwealth. I am glad to hear that you changed your mind. --Irpen 18:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way that the article on the Holy Roman Empire is on the templates Template:History of Germany, Template:History of Austria and Template:History of the Netherlands, why should an article on the subdivisions of the PLC not be on templates about subdivisions of Poland (or indeed subdivisions of Lithuania or Belarus?) The articles are relevant in both cases, even if the geographical areas covers are not exactly coterminous - the important issue is that they overlapped and had significant influence. Knepflerle (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very much so; just as Kievan Rus is on histories of Russia and Ukraine. Many more similar examples can be given.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If PLC wasn't Poląnd why do we have Polish-Muscovite war?Xx236 (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]