Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board/Archive 7

How is it, does "Wilhelm" or "Joachim" have a Polish version? Or are they just Wilhelm and Joachim in Polish too? Marrtel 16:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim is perfectly correct in Polish (e.g. Joachim Lelewel). William in Polish would be Wilhelm, but is not frequent. --Lysy^talk 18:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Tell is pl:Wilhelm Tell :) Rare, but it's not translated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Union of Krewo -> Act of Kreva. User:Henq has already made the move. Appleseed (Talk) 02:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The move has been premature, with the WP:RM pending and I've reverted it. Henq performed a number of similar renames on other articles, not caring to see if there's any consensus to support these controversial moves. --Lysy^talk 21:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: July 8 decision was "No consensus". --Elonka 17:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it is a proper article title? By the way, please do somethiung with Minister of National Defence (Poland). `'mikka (t) 01:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Radosław.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also suggested a {{Poland-culture-stub}} above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And let's not forget the split of geo-stub which is on our 'to do list' (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography_of_Poland#.7B.7BPoland-geo-stub.7D.7D_split).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New one proposed, above the previous ones: Poland-battle-stub. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we have {{Poland-battle-stub}} now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JP has been nominated for a FA. Please comment and improve the article. Good job, everyone!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at Talk:Karkonosze.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll closed. No consensus, default to no move. --Elonka 16:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Regional notice boards#A uniform naming scheme. Zocky | picture popups 00:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want something done... :> Here you go:

• {{Poland-struct-stub}}/Category:Polish buildings and structures stubs

For voivodeships I used the names those articles currently have. Although the current mix of Polish and English names is annoying at best, I don't particulary care if the stub is renamed, but please try to use the same name as that of the main voivodship article and get consensus on talk.

• (refactored) See: Category:Poland geography stubs for the latest list

Some of those are same as city stubs. I suggest we either rename them later with a bot, or simply use something like Łódż-city-stub if we decide we need city stubs (note Warsaw already has one).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the above list with the English names. I see that there's one mistake which will need an RM (Masovia should be Masovian). The "Podlachian" may also be debatable. I'm happy with the others though. Do they work for everyone else as well? --Elonka 15:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podlachian is very bizarre, I have never heard it before. As for others, they seem ok to me, although I now in the past there were problems with the correct spelling of 'Kuyavian'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now please help depopulate the giant Category:Poland geography stubs :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to still be a tangle with categories, since some of the new ones that were created (see Category:Subdivisions of Poland and Category:Voivodships of Poland), used Polish names instead of English ones. Many of the stubs have similar problems. My recommendation is that we ASAP create a set of stubs that use the English names. Also, if anyone wants to move Polish geography articles to the new categories, my recommendation is to stick with the English-name categories for now, since the Polish ones are probably all going to have to be changed. And when that happens, each and every article or subcategory in those categories, is going to have to be individually edited to switch it to the new English name category. Or in other words, it's probably not worth populating those categories right now, since that will just increase the cleanup that needs to happen later. --Elonka 21:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would be great if we can reach the decision on correct naming soon. The Poland-geo-stub category needs to be depopulated soon, it's rather unwieldy now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If categories are renamed, the articles will be moved to the new categories by bots, so there is no need to worry too much about using the "wrong" name now - it will waste mostly bot time, not human time. Kusma (討論) 12:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The naming here is a minor issue, the giant Poland-geo-stub which needed depopulation is the primary casue of concern for us.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to go with a formal CFR request for each one? Or, since they're new and relatively unpopulated, can we just create the new ones and then redirect the old ones? --Elonka 15:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe one CFR request for all will do. But perhaps it would be wise to wait for succesfull RfM from voivodship to voivodeship first too make sure there is indeed consensus for this. On the other hand since we do seem to have consensus for Polish voivodeships at least, I think we can do the CFR ASAP. You will probably also want to request update to this CFR (which I'll support).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on moving forward on the Polish categories now. The Voivodship article itself is probably a special case, since the term applies to the administrative units in multiple countries, not just Poland, so the Serbians and/or Romanians may have a legitimate claim that "Voivodship" is more common for their own translations. But as far as Polish Voivodeships go, I'd say that the consensus is clear. In terms of the CFR, how about you initiate it (it'll have more weight since you created the initial categories), and then I'll support it? --Elonka 15:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Update) Everything's renamed, new stub types & categories have been created as needed. Everything's a "go" as far as attacking Category:Poland geography stubs. I'll dig in too, as soon as I'm done with the paperwork on the stub/category renamings.  :) --Elonka 22:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to announce that after months of discussion (and after removing all of the sockpuppet votes), we finally have a consensus on naming Polish Geography articles. Details are at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland, but for a quick-reference:

The question of Province / Palatinate / Voivodship / Voivodeship

• The preferred term is Voivodeship

The question of whether to use English/Latinized or Polish names

• The consensus is to use English / Latinized names

The format of X of Y or Y X (Voivodeship of Silesia, or Silesian Voivodeship)

• The consensus is to use Y X: Silesian Voivodeship

When translating or updating related articles, please try to use the consensus spellings. And thanks to everyone who helped with the discussion! --Elonka 15:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to raise the issule of English / Latinized names. While I generally support that idea (UE and all), I think we must be careful not to cross the line and forcibly invent an English name. Silesia, Masovia, Greater Poland, Lesser Poland, Pomerania - I think all of those are uncontroversial. But I hope nobody will try to translate 'Łódź' into Boat or 'Świętokrzyskie' into 'Holy Cross'?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misza13, one of the editors who declared himself to be close observers of this noticeboard, is now running for an admin. Although I personally had little opportunity to interact with Misza13, he looks like a reasonable editor, and I think some of you may be interested in voicing your opinion on his RfA page.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With 132 support votes and only 1 vote oppose, Misza13 successfuly became an administrator. Congratulations! Jacek Kendysz 10:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  15:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An official request on renaming all the "Voivodship" categories to "Voivodeship" has been submitted, at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 16#Category:Voivodships of Poland to Category:Voivodeships of Poland. There appears to be some controversy, even though the issue was debated for months, and there appeared to have been a clear consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland. Anyone with an opinion on the matter is invited to participate. --Elonka 23:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(nudge) To date, there are exactly two votes on this issue: One support, and one oppose, with a repeat of the arguments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland#Voivodeship. I would like to see more people participate, if possible. Whether you support it, or oppose it, I don't really care at this point -- I'd just like to verify what the community's opinion is. I *thought* we had consensus at the WikiProject, but if the consensus does not carry through to other renaming polls on Wikipedia, meaning that only one opposer and one supporter bother to even participate, it doesn't do much good. So please, can people pop in to the Category renaming poll, and offer an opinion? Thanks. --Elonka 15:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to bring to your attention that there's kind of a mess with the Cossack/Kozacy article as far as Polish cossacks and cavalry go.

"In the main article there's only: Less well-known are the Polish Cossacks (Kozacy) and the Tatar Cossacks (Nağaybäklär).

The name 'Cossacks' was also given to a kind of light cavalry in the army of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth."

Kozacy redirects back to Cossack.

Since it's not my cup of tea I thought that maybe someone of you could decide what to do with it. A new article or a redirect to Polish cavalry?--SylwiaS | talk 15:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a new article, eventually, to describe the 'Cossack cavalry in PLC'. It was a form of light cavalry, composed often (but not always!) of Cossacks.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a debate at Talk:Podlachian Voivodeship about what is the proper English/Latinized name for the area (leading contenders are Podlachia and Podlasie). Interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion. --Elonka 17:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stankiewicz, Andrzej, "Prezydent jak mułła", Rzeczpospolita, 19 July 2006. (Title in English means: President is like mullah) Discuss English Wikipedia article on Lech Kaczyński, Polish president, mostly attention given to so called "potatoe war". Perhaps someone would like to talk with the Communications committee about a reply to the author? Mieciu K 01:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx for the link. I wonder if Halibutt would like to comment on this article...? :) Some comments: the text about Kaczyński's reaction being similar to Muslim extremist was entered by DePortau (talk · contribs) who has done no other edits and removed 14 minutes later ([1], [2]). Reczpospolita article states: Kiedy "Rzeczpospolita" zainteresowała się stroną prezentującą polskiego prezydenta, zapis ten usunięto. (When "Rzeczpospolita" took interest in the page about Polish president, the entry was removed). I find it somewhat strange that Rzeczpospolita would catch the entry in this short period, and even more strange what do they mean by their 'interest': I don't think Sandstein (talk · contribs), a Swiss Wikipedian, is Rzeczpospolita contact... The article further confuses Wikipedia with Wikiquote ([3]) and seems to misunderstand the role of administrators (who according to article verify and approve articles). All in all, just another article by some journalist who doesn't understand what Wikipedia is but sees it as an occasion to take some cheap potshots and create a small scandal. And as always, the only thing they will succeed is in drawing more editors to Wikipedia :) On a related note, yes, the article needs to be expanded, NPOVed and kept an eye on, so if anybody feels like writing something about Mr. Kaczyński, please do so. Last but not least: Miecu, I am not familair with the Communications committee; why do you think they should be contacted? I'd thing that perhaps some users active on pl wikipedia would draft a response...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is written on top of the Wikipedia:Press coverage article where I found a link to the Rzeczpospolita article:
IF THERE ARE ERRORS IN AN ARTICLE, please post the matter to the Wikimedia Communications Committee's talk page. This way, the Wikimedia Foundation can send an official letter to the editor, or request for a correction.
Another mistake/misundrstunding is that the author mistakes links (odnośniki) with references (przypisy) and complains that the first 3 of the latter are releated to the "potatoe wars" (they were listed automaticly). He also says that the english wikipedia is much more closely monitored (?) than the polish wikipedia, I would disagree en wiki is just larger and more active, we don't (yet) use bots to look for vandals on pl wiki just because we don't need them. Mieciu K 09:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I noted our discussion at meta:Talk:Communications committee and pl:Wikipedia:Wikipedia w mediach. Let's see what comes out of it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is something outraging. The guy found a niche where he thought noone will be able to check him, and he invented himself a story without double-checking... I'll take that somewhere, though my position would be much better if the Foundation responded officially. I'm basically noone there, or rather almost noone. Anyway, I'll investigate the matter. //Halibutt 02:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to support you as an administrator, so you can say you have full support of one :)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Piotr for noticing my starting activity :) As for this discussion of Rzeczpospolita artcicle I find that you were mistaken about dePorteau role. Please see edit on 17:36, 11 July 2006 by 80.139.1.1; rewriten by Sandstein just before dePortau on July, 16th (and reverted after). This does not exclude a newspaper's action. BTW, I do agree that the wiki article could be expanded, NPOVed, and maybe kept an eye on. --Beaumont 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Russian editors are mass supporting this (quite good) article. Unfortunately I am afraid it is not comprehensive (mentions his participation in PSW in only one, passing reference) and somewhat POVed (see my comments at the FAC page). Perhaps some of you would like to help fix this article or add other comments and votes to the FAC page?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, isn't this (referring to "Russian editors") what you were accusing other people of, stereotyping "Polish editors"? --Elonka 19:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not spell out the thoughts that came to me when I saw this Piotrus' announcement and the listed "objections". Both the intentions and the reasons are all too obvious. Interesting to see whether this would be followed by vote-stacking. I must say I thought better than that. --Irpen 19:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy that you agree with my reasons and intentions which I elaborate on below, although as for vote-stacking, well, it has alraedy happened (as in 'by Russian editors'). Which is nothing particulary bad, as I am sure all of them are interested in the article, just as Polish editors would vote on Polish FAC, or Brazilian on a Brazil FAC. Still, perhaps you should take a deep breath, get some WP:TEA and consider how people can interpret some things you write.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Elonka. Saying that a group of people is of certain nationality is no crime. Saying that they are acting in a certain way would be may indeed be stereotyping and/or assuming bad faith. But I am not doing that. I am not saying, nor am I even suggesting (nor would I want anybody to interpret my post in such a way) that Russian editors are trying to sway a FAC vote. What I am saying is based entirely on verifiable data, which shows that 10 or more of the support voting editors (more then half of such votes, currently) are native Russian speakers. As such they may be just as oblivious to some POV issues as our little Polish community is when it comes to similar POV issues in Poland-related articles. Such assumption is entirely logical in light of WP:NPOV: nobody is completly NPOVed, and nationality is one of the factors affecting one's POV. Even so, I am not saying that that article is POVed, but that *I* think it is POVed, and as this particular article is somewhat related to Poland (Vasilevsky fought on Polish soils during PWS and IIWW), I think we can help to NPOV this article further. Now, Elonka, isn't suspecting my post of bad faith stereotyping? ;p --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poland is one of the considered places for next year's Wikimania: see meta:Wikimania 2007. At that point I have no idea who from the meta:Wikimedia Polska is involved in this, but I think it's nice to keep a hand on the pulse of things. Besides, support from people at Wikimedia Polska may be useful for Halibutt if you go talk about that article. While looking at their page, I saw info about an open letter against DRM in Poland: List otwarty przeciwko DRM. A case worth supporting, I think. Last but not least, is anybody going to Wikimania 2006? I will be there :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  16:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many articles from Polish Wikipedia are translated into English Wikipedia? How many articles from PSB are covered here? See User:Piotrus/Wikipedia interwiki and specialized knowledge test for the answers :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  18:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Polish Wikipedians,

Recently some members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles have undertaken efforts to create the best possible Polski Fiat 125p article, which was sorely missing in the English WP. We want to create a comprehensive, well-referenced entry, which would possibly be worthy of an FA nomination. As the article has to contain numerous links to related pages, including FSO itself and other vehicles made there, ąs well as other Fiat and Fiat-based (Zastava, Lada) models, we also strive to make every Wikilink worth of clicking (obviously trying to eliminate red links). So, as you can see, this became a rather large undertaking.

As the majority of original sources for the Polski Fiat article are obviously in Polish, some help from Polish-speaking Wikipedians at least a bit interested in the topic would be very valuable. You do not have to do much research actually, we have already found a pretty informative site (see the references section), it just needs going through, carving out the important facts and putting them into the article. Don't worry about English or editorial quality, we have good pretty good editors on board. If you've got some information on any of the topics, but can't find a references, please post in the relevant talk page, perhaps with a hint as to where to look for one. I of course encourage you to be bold and go the extra mile to dig out the reference - everybody has those strange books or magazines stuffed somewhere around the home, don't we?

Wouldn't it be great to have the Duży Fiat among the small, elite group of automotive FAs, or make FSO become the first manufacturer article on the FA list? If you share our enthusiasm, please join in!

Thanks in advance for your very valuable help!

Bravada, talk - 11:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This brings some memories :) I will see how can I help.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  14:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved despite 32:16 opposition. Gotta love rule interpretation... eh.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  15:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm ... I don't think so. There was a specified opposition column, and with that Jogaila got 16:5 in favour, compared Władysław II Jagiełło 10:10. But even if we followed your skewed logic, try working it the other way about: would that be 38:10 against for old Władysław II Jagiełło then? Haha. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any 'many on many' votes are easy to twist however one like them, this is why WP:RM (which was NOT followed in that move) is about 1 on 1 votes. I am not saying Władysław II Jagiełło is the most popular name, but it has proven to be more popular then other proposed variants, 1 on 1, before. The current many on many votes is a mess, with second and third choices, other variants being introduced late in the voting, and other issues, not the least of which being that Jogaila only got a third of the votes, which is certainly not a 'majority' or 'consensus' for move.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  16:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are easy to twist. That was my point. You must admit, "Moved despite 32:16 opposition" is gotta be the king of twists. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The move is a twist, indeed. I have learned recently that moving articles even with 2/3 support can be controversial, but never in my wildest dreams I thought I would see consensus delcared with 1/3 support.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  17:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, dear, the poll had ten options. The chances are, when a name is so controversial it inspires 10 options, chances of getting anythingover 20% are slim. Jogaila bombed that margin, though sadly for its supporters (hi all!), Władysław II Jagiełło did not. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calgacus, dear, I am not disputting that. There is however a difference between Jogaila being the most popular out of 10 options and Jogaila having a majority of support in a move from Władysław II Jagiełło. The latter should be determined by a proper WP:RM, which if succesfull would give you a nearly indisputable argument that the move is final and supported by a consensus, the current move is far from that.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  17:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, with 10 options, there could never be a majority for anything. And like I said, Władysław II Jagiełło was even further from a majority, so why should that be the title? Because you want it to be? The way the poll was done, you can have no issue with the result. If you have issue with how the poll was done, you should have complained earlier (you actually voted on the poll without complaining), instead of waiting until you got a result which you don't like. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened here can be compared to a single stage election in which 10 candidates compete, and the most extreme of them gets a small minority of the vote, yet ends up with all the power. Obviously any such election would be seriously flawed. The only fair way in situations like this is to have a multi-stage poll, where the number of options is gradually narrowed down. Hence, I propose to pick, say, 3 most popular options determined by the vote and hold a second stage of the poll. That would be the only fair and rational way to go. This would work just like a runoff election, commonly used in most democratic countries because of similar problems.

If not, then it will become a common tactic on Wikipedia for partisans of some extreme renaming options to create an excessive number of poll choices to split the "rational option" vote, so to speak. Balcer 18:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was an approval poll where it was possible to vote for several options, so there was no "split of the rational vote". The only possible problem are people like me who voted for both Jogaila and Władysław II Jagiełło (which should be removed in counting votes between these two options). I think this issue should just be left alone for a couple of months now: debating the format of a poll after it has taken place doesn't look very good. Kusma (討論) 08:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And other civil remarks about ethnicity and Poles by our dear friend, Ghirla, can be seen here. I wonder if our staunch defender of civility, Elonka, would like to comment on that?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  17:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: we have an open season for Poles, who are pretty tenacious (Calgacus) and fanatics (Ghirla). I wonder what we will see next...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  19:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually a quote from Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Hollanders, not Ghirla's expression. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I suppose that makes it all right. Can we now "quote" from List of ethnic slurs with impunity? Balcer 22:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to defend everyone here, Balcer, just pointing out that detail. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original quote was not malicious. But Ghirla took it out of context, and added his own stress to it 'Poles are so different', making it much more offensive.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  15:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I wrote to Ghirla several times to mention that incivility is not a way to conduct a dispute even with someone you disagree with, so I estimate I did what I should have done. However, as you pointed out not one hour ago, it takes two to tango. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grafikm, it takes two to engage in revert war, but one is perfectly enough to engage in civ/pa violations. morbid polonization and cabal accusations I can live with, but "The Poles treat other wikipedians as holes" this is something that I am really not sure we can tolerate.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  16:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by what I said before: I estimate I did what I should have done. Everything else is out of my hands now. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grafikm, I am not saying you should have done anything more, although perhaps you could warn Ghirla yet again. Maybe there is some treshold that needs to be crossed to reform him - although I admit that personally I have given up on reforming him, as he simply deletes my warnings with offensive edit summaries from his page :( Nonetheless note that if it is impossible to talk to him, the only remaining course of action is pretty obvious, and was already enforced once.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  17:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say let's ask one of non-involved admins to politely ask Ghirla to stop his behaviour. If he doesn't - how about starting some proper procedure? //Halibutt 19:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An uninvolved admin has already decided to block Ghirla for two days, however some are questioning his judgement, arguing that Ghirla did not in fact offend Poles by his remarks... see this thread.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we have normal geo-stubs mostly sorted and renamed per consensus, there is only one issue remaining which should be addressed. Do we need a new stub category for articles like Mścisław Voivodship (currently tagged with {{Poland-geo-stub}} and {{Poland-hist-stub}}? I.e. locations that were once part of some Polish state? Now, I don't want to open some can of worms and suggest this stub should be applied to cities and such, but just to articles listed in Category:Polish historical regions (so Mścisław should not be tagged with that -otherwise I can see some nationalistic sentiments on both sides leading to some stub war). PS. StubSensor shows 40 articles, that's above the treshold of 30 needed when a WikiProject exists (and we have two - Geography and History of Poland). Comments?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  18:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While in theory it might be a decent idea, I'm afraid it's implementation could be a tad problematic. The case of voivodships is quite clear, but it gets more complicated with other articles on towns and villages. Imagine constant Polish-Lithuanian wars on whether to add such a tag to a stub on some tiny village in what is now Lithuania. Same for other cross-border quarrels... //Halibutt 19:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is why for starters it would be only for regions, not towns/villages.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...by hearing Poles called fanatics, holes, other then normal people, and other such colorful names, feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ethnic_slur: there are editors who think that such terms are at best mild personal attacks, completly acceptable under WP:CIV, and that people complaining about them are 'perpatrators of nationalistic crap' themselves...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see this continues! Piotrus, people brought their complaints against you not to an admin board where the discussions were liable to result in blocks but to a side page, note that. That said, I congratulate you with achieving the block of your opponent and I will surely comment on that page. Sometimes, I just can't sit and do nothing, while in many case I try. Besides, the comment above is deceiving as well as the complaint at WP:ANI. That deceivement was resultive, a block is there. Congratulations again! --Irpen 01:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a side detail, it was not me who brought this issue to an admin page. The offending comments I clearly linked and I and many others found them offensive. Your accusation of my bad faith here is saddening, though.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As before, I call your actions for what I see them, Piotrus. When it was simply issues-related, I kept my peace as your RfC, sorry, "mediation", was hot enough without me bringing up what I see is going wrong with certain actions and patterns. I only overwhelmingly interract with you, Halibutt and other editors who disagree with me at the article's talk, rather than carrying this to Wikilawyering pages to get my opponents blocked. You miss no chance to pop up with examples of Ghirla doing this or that all over Wikipedia. I pointed that out to you and I see that this continues. Saddened, I made this comment. To your happiness, we may indeed lose him this time, while I will try my best for this not to happen.

Note, that I have been at "receiving end" of the offences of some here. I did not try to use that to have them blocked. In fact, I never brought up any wikilawyering complaint against any editor who I know enough for his valuable contributions as I always saw a way to resolve it through a normal process, or I just let it go. Very well, it is impossible to undo what's already done. --Irpen 03:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I think we can only agree to disagree here. I will try my best to see Ghirla stay on en-Wiki as a civil editor, barring that, I think he has caused enough grief and lost time in other editors that even his formidable content contributions do not give him immunity from WP:CIV.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on a script intended to create short articles on political parties on a variety of wikipedias simultaneously. However, in order for the technique to work I need help with translations to various languages. If you know any of the languages listed at User:Soman/Lang-Help , then please help by filling in the blanks. For example I need help with Polish. Thanks, --Soman 12:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. In the penultimate sentence, do you mean merge into=absorb? Jacek Kendysz 13:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Soman 14:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will be there. Will anybody else involved with this board (i.e. anybody reading this words classifies? :). PS. I invite you to my presentation!.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Szarza_Husarii.jpg was uploaded on www.en.wikipedia.org by the user Emax (inactive). Can somebody date this picture for me and tell perhaps the original title and painter. Thank you. Wandalstouring 23:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irealydo not know how to make it NPOV... Someone wrote it like Silesians were separate nation, mixing probably medieval Silesian tribe which had center of their culture in area of modern Wrocław and Mt. Ślęża with claims of part of inhabitants of modern Upper Silesia about Silesian dialect/language. Radomil talk 09:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does Polish have alternative words for Germans, as in slang? If so please add them, with a small explanation and perhaps translation at the following article: Alternative words for Germans. Thanks in advance, Rex 15:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why a special page for the Germans? And do we really want to end up with specialised articles dealing with the various alternative names for Poles or Dutch? There already exists a page common for all nationalities Offensive terms per nationality --Stor stark7 ^Talk 17:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polish editors are welcome to check Template:Ukrainian historical regions, which includes half of modern Poland under such headings as Podlachia, San River, Lemkivshchyna and Chełm --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly this discussion ties to some issues I raised above when discussing the {{Poland-hist-geo-stub}} few threads above.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pmanderson, aka Septentrionalis, is up for adminship, if anyone would like to participate in the poll... --Elonka 07:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx for this update. Is there any specific reason our community should pay special attention to this RfA?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No special attention, no. However, this individual has participated in discussions and edits on Poland-related articles (such as Jogaila), so there are probably those on this board who have interacted with the editor, and might have an opinion one way or the other on whether or not they'd make a good admin. I know that I'm always interested when someone I know has an RfA pending, but sometimes it's difficult to keep track since there's so much going on all the time. So this is just a courtesy note. --Elonka 19:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. I knew I have met him before, but I don't recall much detail, so as I do in such cases I will probably abstain - I usually vote only when the person is somebody I know fairly well.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA: Warsaw Uprising (1794) comment here!

PR: History of Solidarity comment here!

Please comment and help improve those articles!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the term "Metropolis Katowice" used in the English literature? Appleseed (Talk) 21:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're reffering to Metropolis Katowice and Category:Metropolis Katowice with subcats. Google search for "Metropolis Katowice" with 202 hits seems and 0 hits on Print indicates that not really, especially as most Google hits are Wiki and its mirros. Perhaps Katowice Metropolitan area would be a better name, as Metropolitan area seems to be a more appopriate term, but Google search for "Katowice Metropolitan area" gives only 81 hits. Now, Upper Silesian Metropolitan Area which redirects to Upper Silesian Industry Area but seems to be actually a more correct translation of Górnośląski Związek Metropolitaln (which is the name used on Polish wiki) gets 487 hits. Therefore I'd suggest a move to Upper Silesian Metropolitan Area. What do you think?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Górnośląski Związek Metropolitalny" (GZM) and perchance "Metropolia Katowice" is name city union. Administrative city union is not metropolitan area! Name "Katowice Metropolitan area" is totally wrong. Only translate text "Górnośląski Związek Metropolitalny" (to misunderstand via englishman) else translate in english "Metropolia Katowice" --> "Metropolis Katowice". Now there is 2 option, this option is the best. LUCPOL 20:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that LUCPOL wants to describe union that in fact does not exist for today. We've got this same problem with this article in pl:wiki. Radomil talk 21:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have misgivings about the name Metropolis Katowice, given no Google search engine presence of the term, save for Wikipedia's own articles and their mirrors. I also object to the current content of the article's definition in view of Radomil's comment above.

Wikipedia policy prohibits original research (Wikipedia:No original research); therefore, it seems to me to be highly questionable for Wikipedia editors to coin names for major municipal and geographical entities (see section "What is excluded?", specifically the point that "an edit counts as original research" if "it defines new terms" [4]),.

And it is not OK to describe entities as factual, when in point of fact they don't yet exist. I would grudgingly accept "Metropolis Katowice" as a temporary name for "Górnośląski Związek Metropolitalny", provided that the article also includes a fairly literal translation of it, say, as "Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union" or some such, and that steps are taken to inquire with the GMZ authorities as to what the English name should be, and that the article should claim (for now) that this is a proposed union of cities, not merely assert that it is a "city union" (whatever a "city union" is -- another neologism, I'm affraid).

Wikipedia is being confronted with a fait accompli on the score of a Wikipedian-invented "Metropolis Katowice", but instead of just accepting this invention as a fact, we owe it to ourselves and to the greater good of the project to find out what the underlying reality is, and to report it, not create it from whole cloth. --Mareklug ^talk 03:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What we can tell about GZM - soucers:

• pages of MSWiA
• Plans...
• ...and what exists

Shortly, it's proposition of new union of comunnies/poviats, but for now those are only plans. So in my opinion common description of this proposed union (that doesn't create new city!) is mistake... we can describe this conurbation but not as singular unit of the territorial division, but as a region like BosWash under more common names like Górnośląski Okręg Przemysłowy (which is also described...) Radomil talk 10:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look carefully, you will see that on the English Wikipedia, Górnośląski Okręg Przemysłowy redirects to Upper Silesian Industry Area, which happens to describe not GOP but GZW (Polish: Górnośląskie Zagłębie Węglowe). This is an example of carelessness and lack of precision involving this whole issue of translated Polish Wikipedia articles about Silesia. More to the point, for the life of me, I don't understand why on the Polish Wikipedia under pl:Górnośląski Związek Metropolitalny it says "planowany związek miast" ("proposed union of cities"), but on the English Wikipedia under its interwiki equivalent Metropolis Katowice it asserts: "a city union". Etc, etc.

I provided red links inside the article Upper Silesian Industry Area for the Katowice urban agglomeration (Polish: Górnośląski Okręg Przemysłowy/aglomeracja katowicka) and for the Rybnik Coal Region (Polish: Rybnicki Okręg Węglowy), but these were removed and changed to plain text by LUCPOL, instead of filled in with content, which, in the case of the Katowice urban agglomeration, should be where the redirect from Górnośląski Okręg Przemysłowy ultimately goes.

On the Polish Wikipedia, I commented out the interwiki links from pl:Górnośląski Okręg Przemysłowy, because they were pointing to Upper Silesian Industry Area (the article describing Górnośląskie Zagłębie Węglowe/aglomeracja śląska).

Finally, on the English Wikipedia's Wikipedia:WikiProject Upper Silesian Industry Area, I changed all mentions of this WikiProject from pertaining to GOP (Górnośląski Okręg Przemysłowy) to GZW (Górnośląskie Zagłębie Węglowe). Why GOP/GZW was confused in the first place is beyond me, since LUCPOL is the author of both the WikiProject and the term (and the article) Upper Silesian Industry Area on the English Wikipedia. If LUCPOL can't keep it straight (i.e., what is GOP and what is GZW) who can? :)

All this to say that we have to be more careful and exact in translating and editing Silesia-related articles... --Mareklug ^talk 12:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following the above discussion, I added Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union as an alternative name to Metropolis Katowice in article Metropolis Katowice, also changing the definition from a city union to a proposed union of cities.

I also translated the passage from the introduction in the interwiki-linked pl:Górnośląski Związek Metropolitalny that gives the details of the formal declaration of intent to form this union, and states that the union is now in the process of ratification by the participating City Councils.

I hope you agree that these changes make the article more factual. --Mareklug ^talk 17:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I supose that best solution would be new translation of new Polish version. Radomil talk 20:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the discussion on whether to delete or keep a separate category for the stubs about the Ukrainian history. --Irpen 01:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I merged Poglish and Pinglish articles into Mixing Polish and English (bad title, but the phenomenon doesn't have a real name), but the article really needs some work. Thanks from the mountain :-p Taw 17:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Category:Polish nobility" is getting to be quite large (about 600 articles). Since many of the folks in those categories come from the same family, I suggest we categorize nobility articles primarily by family (for example, Category:Czartoryski). Appleseed (Talk) 14:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No need for adding uber cat to family cat.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May be of interest to some, especially those who know Kpjas from pl wiki.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your vote Piotrus and this little ad. Recently I've been more active here so I am going to take part in editing articles on Polish subjects. Kpjas 20:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is {{prod}}ed. Could someone take a look whether the institution is notable or not? Pavel Vozenilek 16:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there would be people interesting in launching it, if only so we can have our own assesments. Any and all help is appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Count me in. Kpjas 20:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I was hoping to hear from you. Anybody else?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mikkalai has repeatedly inserted this passage [5] into the Vodka article, based on a single source, a 1982 book from the Soviet Union, which evidently explains that the wicked capitalists and Poles tried to take away the Soviet Union's right to use the name "vodka." It sounds like an urban legend to me, and even if there is some basis in truth to it, he is relying on a dubious source, uses polemical language, and has made no serious attempt to respond to my and other users' concerns on the talk page. Unfortunately, the previous time he added this text to the article, it remained there for two months. In the current edit, the language has been softened slightly, but my concerns (that the story is likely very far from what actually happened, it is irrelevant to the article, and relies on a single highly biased source) remain. This "information" does not seem to appear in any other version of Wikipedia, including .ru.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 11:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This "information" in searchable on web, see Talk:Vodka. And the irony about "wicked capitalists" is way out of place. They cut each other's throat every day. Patent/trademark litigations bring wealth to legions of lawyers, you know. `'mikka (t) 06:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can find other urban legends on the web, too; see Ich bin ein Berliner for a persistent example. All the sites you have referred to in the article have used the same dubious source. I own plenty of Soviet books, but would not use very many of them as the only reference in a controversial passage.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 07:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to bring an interesting case of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, perhaps asking on that page for comments maybe useful, too. I'd suggest keeping to this rule of thumb: if something is referenced, leave it unless you find a more reliable contradictory reference; if something is referenced by dubious sources, try to frame it in the text to show that only some sources support this theory (we have done this in Kiev offensive, see para that beings with 'Before their withdrawal' and Polish-Soviet_War#Controversies).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very close to FA. There are some recommendations from Peer Review: Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Solidarity/archive1, and some red links to stub (often just translate stub from pl wiki). I'd appreciate help with this - I think we can FA this quickly, if just one or two more people help with this.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mibelz claims he has evidence that Adam Mickiewicz is of Jewish descent and that he died organizing not Polish but Jewish legion. He has inserted text in the article that he believes supports this. Sounds weird, can someone refute it. Kpjas 20:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard anything about this, which of course means little. May I suggest using {{fact}} or {{dubious}}, plus talk pages, and removing controversial info if nobody can back it up with refs?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the list of stubs collected in Wikipedia:Shortpages/Mythology/Polish and verify them like, Dogoda. Was there really such a Polish god? If yoes, a reference would be handy. Four of them were deleted (I delisted them).--mikka (t) 06:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this topic has been brought up before (IIRC it was Ghirla in the good old times when we were all on speaking terms). Unfortunatly, then we had nobody who was interested enough in this (and knowledgable) to do much good, I ended up reviewing some articles, deleting a few, but it seems there are some persistent myth/mystic/whatever editors who try to develop their own version of Slavic mythology on Wikipedia. Perhaps there is now an editor who could take care of this, if not, I'd recommend a simple Google test and prod everything that fails it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a lenghty post on that issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lithuania#And_now_for_a_much_thornier_issue. I invite all to read it and comment, I hope we can burry the proverbial hatchet by talking about the problem, not about the symptoms (i.e. individual articles).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you guys might want to know that the invasion of Poland is classified as a "walk across the border" here under the pretense of a lop-sided NPOV. Please be wary of such instances of shameless newspeak throughout the project. Truthseeker 85.5 11:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I am very negativly suprised at how an experienced editor like Irpen could use such a phrasing.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as was pointed out during the move discussion of Polish September campaign, "invasion" is a POV term. "Walked" is awkward and could be replaced by "crossed" or something, but "invaded" is definitely out of question. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is "invasion" a "POV term"? I didn't even find a hint of this on the discussion page, and I'd be quite surprised if more people felt this way. Otherwise we might be compelled to rephrase our articles to say that in 1944, Allied troops "walked" onto the beaches of Normandy... According to Invasion, an invasion is "a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity". That's a neutral enough definition and even those who think that Stalin was fully justified to annex these areas should not have any problem with it. --Thorsten1 18:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it saddens me a whole lot that I find out about this discussion only accidentally. I would have replied earlier.

Now, to the issue, there is no doubt that despite one of the definitions above, the term "invasion" carries a lot of POV flavor. Many users who discussed the move of the Polish September Campaign agreed that this is indeed a strong term. There is more to it at talk:Kiev Offensive, talk:Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618) where users confirmed that the "invasion" is indeed a strong term. There is no coinsidence that an article of each and every Polish invasion of Russia dab is called differently, despite the "i"-term is well referenced, especially for the 17th century. Due to a strong drive to vote, one article was renamed and, for the same reason, other articles stay where they were created. There is no need to invasion unreleated article with the same debate which is to be discussed in its own article as well as the WWII one. My phrasing may indeed be non-optimal but I did not mean it to say that I would have supported the Stalin's action. --Irpen 19:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but we seem to be speaking different languages. "Invasion", as the definition quoted from the article should demonstrate, is in no way POV or even "strong". And even if it was, I don't see why a "weaker" wording should be required to describe the events at hand. The Soviet Union had its military enter the territory of another sovereign country and replaced whatever was left of its government. This is very much a textbook example of an invasion, quite irrespective of the terminology in other articles. In the unlikely event that anyone feels that the Soviet invasion (or whatever you prefer to call it) was in any way legitimate, "invasion" does not even delegitimise the operation, as the Normandy example implies. --Thorsten1 21:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it is not perceived as a strong term, check the talk pages I referenced above about my proposals to rename to "Polish invasions" the articles devoted already to those invasions. --Irpen 01:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If you think it is not perceived as a strong term, check the talk pages I referenced above about my proposals to rename to "Polish invasions" the articles devoted already to those invasions." Even if I had the leisure to do that, I probably wouldn't. Instead, I would bet any money that the concerns you mention came from non-native speakers of English. (Let me guess... Polish editors? ...Tell me about it. I once had a confrontation with someone who claimed that "reputation" was inherently negative...). Whatever, even if they had their way about the articles you are referring to and managed to eliminate the word "invasion" as POV, then a Polish and a Russian wrong don't make a right. On the overwhelming Talk:Invasion of Poland (1939), I did not find any tangible objections against the neutrality of "invasion". I did find this, however. Regarding Piotrus' below comment that "the issue at hand is not whether invasion is the best term or not", I beg to differ. That is the issue precisely. "Invasion" is so bang-on-target that any discussion about alternative terms is obsolete. --Thorsten1 15:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, the issue at hand is not whether invasion is the best term or not, but that 'walk over the border' is one of the worst possible.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, let's rephrase it. WHat happened was exactly an attempt to replace it by "invasion". We can discuss other variants. You don't need to be told about BB. --Irpen 02:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed the border is probably a better word than walked. Would you object if I transfer the discussion to the article talk? abakharev 02:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PSC (now IoP...) article uses the words agression and attack. I honestly don't see how they differ from invasion. As for crossing the border - yes, if you don't mind references to Germans crossing Soviet border in 1941...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I merely want to avoid the inflammation over an issue that's a side one for the article on a topic that's totally unrelated to these events. If you insist, however, in invasioning the phrasing there, I hope you won't mind invasioning the phrasing of the events that apply to 1918-19-20. Currently, it says pretty neutrally: "The 1921 Peace of Riga treaty that ended the PSW gave the significant areas of the ethnically Ukrainian (and Belarusian) territories to the reborn Polish state." How about changing that to: "In the aftermath of the Polish invasion into Ukrainian heartland following the earlier Polish invasion into Wesrtern Ukraine that crushed the nascent Ukrainian state the significant areas..."? Let's invasion an entire article. Being about Christianity, it would certainly benefit from POV-pushers of all sorts edit warring over Russo-Polish invasions of all times.

While I wrote some (maybe even much) of the article, "walked accross" was not my entry that I can remember. It was there for a while, and there came Ghirla's permastalker who "invasioned" with this friendly edit accompanied by a friendly edit summary. So, what are we changing this to? More invasions? --Irpen 06:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen: sure, just don't forget about Russian invasion and crushing from the other side...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really think that all those changes would make an article better? So, the article about Christianity would benefit from using "invasion" at least five times as well as "massacres". Note, that the article does not use "Talerhof massacre" term, which I can easily find used in refs. But seriously, what's the point of invasioning and massacring an article where those invasions and massacres are very side issued to the main topic. Editors were writing the article to consentrate on its main subject. Using inflammatory words would bring the edit wars about nothing instead of article's expansion. All the invasions and massacres issues are to be dealt with their narrow articles (which should be also titled without such term, if you ask me). Perhaps, sometimes the term is appropriate in a wide article where the topic is included but not to a side article where the issue is marginal for the article's main content. --Irpen 07:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, quite apart from the fact that your suggestions above imply a violation of WP:POINT, your examples don't hold water. By definition, "invasion" means entering a well-defined territory from outside with the intention to replace the established government of that territory. However, the events you refer to took place immediately after the sudden implosion of Czarist Russia, and there were neither well-defined geopolitical entities nor established governments. Large and by, Polish and Ukrainian forces were struggling to maintain the upper hand within a vast territory with overlapping ethnic settlement and political loyalties. That's why "offensive" is a better word for single military operations in that ethnic conflict, and "war" is a better word to describe the totality of the events. It's not about "invasion" being "stronger" or more "POV" than those, it's just it's a less concise word to describe what actually happened. This is what makes the situation in 1920/21 different from 1939. --Thorsten1 15:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thorsten, WP:Point would have been an insistence to use "invasion" for Polish actions once some demand using it in anti-Polish action. I propose just the opposite. To not use it in the article at all (see my entry above).

However, if the consensus is to harden articles with such words at all, deciding on when the word is allowed and when it is not isn't done by what you or I think what word best applies but what is the opinion of historians on that. References do use "invasion" for Pilsudski's attempt to install a puppet gov in Kiev as well as his earlier success to absorb entire Galicia and crush WUPR. And not just the Soviet refs, btw. References use invasion even more so for the intervention into the Russian affairs aimed at installing a puppet tzar during the worst time of the history of Russia. Same users who insist on calling the '39 an invasion, oppose its (referenced) usage in relation to those other times and this is the best proof that the term is perceived as POV no matter what is the definition in the dictionary. Not coindcidentally, those same people object to the usage of "liberation" for Kiev-43, even when dictionary defines it as "to free (as a country) from domination by a foreign power".

In summary, I agree with using the term in articles devoted to the events if the historians do that, I still dislike using them in titles but my opponents disagree and insist on selective usage in titles (of Poland - yes, of Russia or Ukraine - no). I see no need to use the term at all in the articles where the event is totally marginal for the article's main topic. If we are writing Polonization or Russification the flavor braught by the term is relevant. If the topic is remote, such as this article or article about every village of town in western UA, there is no need to. Oh, and besides, as far as the latter case is conserned (small towns) this attempts to retell the whole hisotry of Ukraine in one paragraph is unencyclopedic, unless the we talk of the events that concern the particular town. One thing is to say, that there was a Ghetto or a concentration camp or an NKVD execution cite in the town and quite another is to say something like "In 19xx after the Polish invasion the town became part of Poland, than after the Soviet invasion it became part of Ukraine, it then became occupied by germany, than again by Soviets and in 1991 became a part of independet Ukraine of which it remains now". Such unsophisticated history of Ukraine brings nothing but confusion and users interested will find all they need in the other articles. --Irpen 07:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any advice on how to deal with these kinds of user pages? Appleseed (Talk) 19:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if I may. Leave him to his own devices. Such messages speak not of the Poles but of the user himself and it's best to have others warned who they are dealing with. I find such messages very helpful. Some have userboxes calling for partitioning of Russia, some for partitioning Ukraine (or Georgia, or Moldova), some say they are here to protect the world from Poles. I can give examples for each and every statement along the above lines, and some are even at the talk page(s) of this board's active participant(s).

I think it's best to leave those fellows with their prejudices clearly explained to the onlookers. --Irpen 19:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just his user page--his edits also reflect that bias (take a look at his talk page). Oh well, I guess if he keeps this up he'll get blocked sooner or later. Appleseed (Talk) 19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. It's not the userpages but the edits of such users are a real problem. Seeing such userpages is helpful on deciding what the hell is going one with their owners' edits. So, I stopped interfering with users who make their userpages inflammatory a long time ago. I actually think, it's good that their pages resolve any doubts one might have had. As for the block, if he is a dick, he will get blocked sooner with such user page than without it. --Irpen 20:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Irpen; for the very same reason I objected the deletion of Witkacy's infamous "black book" some time ago. As for this particular case, there is some evidence that Nietecza is a Polish (!) user who enjoys making trouble for the pure sake of it; I had a conversation with him on my talk page during which he apparently forgot to log in and left a Polish IP in the history instead. He's best left alone. --Thorsten1 21:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC) PS: He only ever edited 27 June, so it's really not worth the trouble. --Thorsten1 21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, his user page is searchable in internet and it gives wrong idea about wikipedia, not just portrays him as a .... I cleaned it up. If he will persist, he will be blocked. `'mikka (t) 01:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the personal attack and gave him a final warning. Some jokes are simply not apropriate on Wiki abakharev 02:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But now you've made racist look like anti-racist. The whole sentence should have been blanked or not touched at all. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 05:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I would support a block, I still think that keeping that stuff in orignal form was a good idea. Cashing of Wiki on the net is not really a reason. There are plenty of sites with worse stuff. Since Alex and Mikka are up to moderating, would their (and others') opinion be on moderating other user pages from inflammatory statements? --Irpen 05:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it all seems to be a storm in a teapot: This guy created an account, trolled around a bit and then disappeared. He could and should have been blocked on the one day he was active, and he certainly remains eligible for a block - but because of the sum of his edits, not primarily because of his user page. Generally, I'd say that user pages should be censored as little as possible, perhaps not at all. It is true that having such content on user pages reflects badly on Wikipedia as a whole. However, the main problem is the article namespace - and if such outings in the user namespace help to identify POV pushers in the article namespace and to have them blocked, they are, paradoxically, good for Wikipedia as a whole.--Thorsten1 15:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read a claim on the Alien page that the polish word for Alien comes from the movie's title. Read it here. I can't find any reference on this. Can someone verify if this statement is true or not? - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 05:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph doesn't make much sense (especially the bit about "zaziemiec"). The established Polish word for "alien" (in terms of extraterrestrian) was and is kosmita. --Thorsten1 06:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and to add to it my quite an old dictionary has alien=obcy. They word was used in this meaning before the film was released here. We also have the word "alienacja" and alike.--SylwiaS | talk 06:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thanks for looking into it. I'm going to go ahead and delete that section. You were both very helpful. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 07:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Follow-up: Does it mention anything interesting about naming of the film on the Polish wikipedia page for Alien? - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 18:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the polish title itself can be interesting since, Obcy (Alien) in Polish is a very popular word for a stranger as in the popular advice for children "Nie rozmawiaj z obcymi" (do not talk to strangers), the full name of the Polish cinema version of the Alien movie is "Obcy - ósmy pasażer Nostromo" which means "Alien - eight passenger (of the) Nostromo" for marketing reasons. Also in Polish as in many other languages the word Alien Obcy is not gender free word as it suggests a male figure/creature, the descrition of a female figure/creature would be Obca, and a neutral e.g a small child would be Obce [or more precise Coś obce (Something alien) but it sounds just as strange in Polish as in English and is not a good movie title. Mieciu K 22:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double awesome. Thanks for the great information. I will definitely put this to use, although I'm not sure how. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 23:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could write a book about strange Polish titles. How about Szklana pułapka (glass trap) for Die Hard. Esp. worked funny with Die Hard 2. Anyway, it's quite complicated with the Alien. Filmweb - a Polish film portal gives the date of its Polish premiere as 2003. I don't know if they mean cinema or DVD. Generally it's possible that it was never shown in Polish cinemas earlier. Its world premiere was in 1979. It always took time for films to get to our cinemas. And we had the 1980s then - martial law, police hour etc. Not a good time for movies. I remember watching it subbed on video in early 1990s, and probably it was then when the film was seen by some substantial number of Poles. Hardly anyone had a video player here in the 1980s. However, some films such as ET, Close Encounters of the Third Kind or Star Wars were shown here somewhere in the mid-1980s. So the question is if we would use the word obcy in this context then or only kosmita. There was also a story by Stanisław Lem titled "Obcy" published in Tygodnik Powszechny in 1946. However, I don't know what the story was about, and it might be not as popular as the film. I think that the word kosmita was used more often once, and today it's rather replaced by obcy, but it would need a scholarly work to prove that there was indeed a change like that in the language, and that it was started by the film. BTW Obcy is also a plural form (aliens) which refers to a group where at least one man is present, so in this case it's gender free, while obce as plural refer only to women or children. So if someone hasn't seen the film and heard the title only, they wouldn't know if that means one male alien, or a group of aliens of male or male/female gender, or indeed strangers, not aliens.--SylwiaS | talk 08:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polish propagandists inflated tens of victims to thousands (talk). AK units together with Soviet units killed many civilian ethnic Lithuanians. During the war in Eastern Lithuania AK units also killed many Jews. Removal of information Krzyżanowski forbade reprisals against civilians. And other issues, attention need at Armia Krajowa article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone suggest a translation of "Sejm Krajowy"? Appleseed (Talk) 22:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Sejm or Country Sejm, I guess...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand mayby more realiable name wold be Province Sejm or just Sejm of Galicia? Radomil talk 08:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a new user interested in Poland-related issues :/ But considering that this user is calling the Holocaust 'a purely Zionist interpretation of the IIWW' and cites the Soviet Encyclopedia I don't see great future in front of him on this project...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you call him Polish?--SylwiaS | talk 02:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the title of this section, Piotrus was just quoting the user. Appleseed (Talk) 03:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I didn't notice the section title in the diff.--SylwiaS | talk 03:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An issue so minor that Lithuanian editors requested it is removed from talk of Lithuanian wikiproject, so it can now be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution. Comments appreciated, I, for one, find it strange that Lithuanian towns are exceptions as Polish, German, French, Czech, Belarusian, Russian, Latvian and others mention other language names in other languages... but Lithuanians don't.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to inform you that this dispute resolution attempt has failed. Not only was the question not answered, but most users who took part in this discussion seemed intent on seeing everything in 'white and black' colors and blaming everything one one user (or one nationality group, I will leave it up to you to guess who). I will not go into details, but it's sad to see such lack of good faith. Hopefully the situation will improve with time, as the new users get more accustomed with Wiki policies like WP:CON and others. For now, I suggest to everyone to be extra sensitive when dealing with Lithuanian topics - but please keep in mind we are here to build an encyclopedia, as well.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most unfair summary, an attempt to turn the tables and blame the other side for the lack of good faith. Those things just ain't gonna work but I do invite moderate Polish editors to take a look at this so called "dispute resolution attempt". Oh, and just in case, Piotrus, this here is not a personal attack but my honest perception of the situation. In the meanwhile, please someone add Варшава to the lead of Warsaw and see how it goes. --Irpen 01:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I should assume that your apparent display of ingorance of WP:NC(GN) is also done in 'good faith'?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help save this image from deletion: please find the source!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it will be of any help [6][7]. Generally it's hard to find Polish painters from those times. I mean usually they have no names. As they say in the National Museum in Warsaw - malarz nieokreślony.

I also found some other sites that might be of your interest [8][9]--SylwiaS | talk 00:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sylwia: mega-kudos. The second one is what we needed to have a source and to prevent the deletion. As for the rest of the information - it's nice, but not necessary for us in the 'delete or not' discussion. Mega-tnx!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the NPOV tag to the Leszno article. The article now is about German settlers who created the town of "Lissa" and nowhere mentions that Leszno was ever in Poland - which it was continuously since it has been first mentioned in the sources (1395) to the Third Partition of Poland 1795. Could someone help improving the article? I believe the Polish Wikipedia article is much better and can be used as a template. ProudPomeranian 06:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool-headed editors are need in that discussion. Oh, and I will leave this without comment.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention needed: some editors dislike any mention of Poland in that article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone take a look (the article is now on AfD - looks as being kept) and possibly expand it a bit? TIA Pavel Vozenilek 18:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with a great help from my mom! ;-) The stub should now be safe from deletion. Misza13 17:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled upon this article, expand it with a section on urban data and have collected some various information about historical demographics from other wiki articles, adding it there. It is still missing data on early period, and as lots of text I added has proven to be controversial in the past, it may be worth adding this to your watchlists.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed data for Poznań, according to more detail works of Jerzy Topolski and Lech Trzeciakowski. Radomil talk 20:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Could you in the future note the source in the references of the article?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a parent article to Territorial changes of Poland after World War II; something that would collect information of former Poland's geography and adminstrative division (i.e. aricles like Administrative division of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Voivodeships of Poland, describe how Poland's borders changed with various treaties, and such.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help to explain one user, that Polish words "wykorzystanie" and "używanie" include modification as well. A.J. 08:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the Polish-Soviet War up for a Featured Article Review. Errabee 22:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, we certainly can use more people contributing to the article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. This is long overdue. The day I woke up and saw that highly POVed page on the WP:Main for 24 hours will never be forgotten. That's how amazed I was. Now, to the issue at hand.

Months ago, perhaps days before the FA's exposure, the outcome was agreed to a neutral and peacefull "Result=Peace of Riga". Then yesterday, someone very familiar to all of us decides that time has come (again?) to prop up the glorification of Polish military and changes this to the "Polish victory". That someone was supproted by some others who resorted to one of the most annoying activities: sterile revert warring undoing hours of other people's work of adding, merging and sourcing through sloppy 10 seconds reverts. Honestly, I am sick and tired of this resumption of hostilities provoked by a sudden and uncalled for outcome change. I intend to withdraw from the article's editing but only after it is deFAed. One thing is to have a POV propaganda page for an article, even for such crucial event, quite another is when this has a FA stampt on top of it.

You may notice, that I also do not edit Pilsudski article as long as no new attemtps to FA it are made while it is in the current shape. It reminds me the books written in early 80s to glorify Brezhnev (admittedly different from writings on Stalin in the 30s but still, unacceptable for a FA). --Irpen 23:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, I will never forgot the day I saw the PSW on the front page and on that very day undergoing significant POV-pushing edits. Plus there was nevery any explicit consensus for inconclusive result; that some users didn't revert your removal of this result does not mean they did agree with it - it may as likely mean they did not notice it. I would have no issue with inconclusive if we had references for it, but as long as our references support the Soviet defeat / Polish victory I cannot but oppose other results. As for Piłsudski, the fact that you don't edit and improve the article is nothing to be proud of.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV-pushing on FA day? I would say a series of miniscule steps to bring it closer to normalcy. As for the result, there was no consensus ideed. Then Halibutt suddenly just crashed in to the article yesterday changing the outcome for his favored version instead of the stable one and did not leave even a comment at talk. Halibutt is not exactly known for his accomodating approach to the battles' outcome as most vididly demonstrated at Kiev Offensive where he fiercely refused to recognize the Polish defeat in this ill-concieved adveture. His failure to attempt to explain himself at talk following his edit was unhelpful at best.

I am not proud of non-editing Pilsudski either. I just find it too stressful and leave it to it's own devices. I care about this article primarily because of the combination of the Polish nationalist POV with the FA label that gives such a POV an undue weight and puts Wikipedia in disrepute. I also care for the Kiev Offensive as I care for most article about Ukraine in general and this city in particular. --Irpen 00:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did not edit the article on the Warsaw Uprising (1794) for a long time either. Does it mean you dropped your fancy "Polish mob slaughtering unarmed Russian soldiers in an Orthodox church" idea? Sorry, got carried away, but it seems bringing other articles up here is accepted. Anyway, as Piotrus noted there was never a consensus to name the result anything but what is written in the sources. Perhaps you could convince the wiki to drop the WP:VERIFY rule, but this is certainly not the place. There is a note explaining that some authors disagree, which IMO is more than enough to underline some non-mainline views. //Halibutt 10:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to what Julo said, this picuture was released to public domain by the author. Can anyone prove that? A.J. 13:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments appreciated. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought past were the days Ghirla and Irpen worked toghether, alas at that page you can see them removing information that Catherine the Great disliked Polish May Constitution and ordered the plunder of Załuski's Library to fund the Russian National Library. Comments likely needed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, pls avoid bad faith assumptions against your colleagues. I would have said that this is getting tiresome if this hasn't already got well past that. To the topic, Polish grievances against Russian rule are factual, true enough, but they don't belong to every possible article related to any possible Russian topic. Nothing prevents you from adding this stuff to the articles about History of Poland. This article is about cultural movement in Russia and as such, filling it with your pet topics about Poland is out of place. Not every Polish grievance belongs to all sorts of Russian articles. Molobizing of Tyutchev and Ded Moroz, persisting of adding Polish topics to the lead (!) of Catherine the Great and now this games with Russian Enlightenment are counterproductive. By all means, use the narrower articles to add the info you like to see spread all over Wikipedia. --Irpen 16:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, those are not police grieviances, those are important issues related to Catherine's view of Enlightenment; they are well sourced and mentioned in academic literature. Yours (and several others) approach of removing from articles anything that sheds bad light on some aspects of Russia is what is getting tiresome here. PS. Please stop insulting Molobo, unless you think that 'Irpenization' would not be offensive.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen is correct in pointing out that Russian Enlightenment is not a detached instance of the deplorable tendency of some Polish editors to add extensive statements of their national grievances to articles which have nothing to do with Poland. Technically speaking, this approach is called tendentious editing; it is considered quite disruptive. Although I would gladly add many Russia-related particulars to Polish Enlightenment, I don't, because once I did that to Polish Renaissance, there was a crowd of Polish editors complaining that I should leave the Polish history to the Poles. So why do you seek to force the Polish vision of Russian history upon Russian wikipedians? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 20:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:Russian Enlightenment.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Piotrus wrote "Please stop insulting Molobo, unless you think that 'Irpenization' would not be offensive". Just a quick note on this one, without wanting to take sides in this particular discussion. Molobo was blocked multiple times for his frequent POV edits and complete failure to play nice with anyone who doesn't happen to be Polish (and doesn't share his POV). He is currently serving a one-year-block. The same can't be said about Irpen, so I'm afraid you're comparing apples and oranges, Piotrus. No offence, --Thorsten1 08:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not suggesting Irpen's behaviour is similar to Molobo, I am simply pointing out that there is no excuse to abuse anybody's usernames. Being banned from Wikipedia doesn't mean others have the right to forgo civility when talking about you.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Piotrus, everyone understood the term, that is injecting the Polish stuff into a whole bucnh of unrelated article. No one did it more than Molobo. He was not the only user who did that but no one did it more than him, so people firmly associate this practice to his legacy. And please do not pop up the civility issue every time you face an unpleasant question. It has been pointed out to you before that this is annoying and counterproductive.--Irpen 17:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As much as I am disappointed by you finding civility annoying and counterproductive, I am afraid I will remain a stickler for WP:CIV.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Civility is not annoying. What is annoying is seeing your practice of throwing the incivility accusations every time you find yourself in a difficult situation as a means of avoidance. Should I assume that you deliberately misread my entry as if I said that civility is annoying or should I assume the good faith again? --Irpen 18:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry Piotrus, but Molobo has no one but himself to blame for the fact that his username has become the epitome of extreme political POV-pushing. No one would seriously reject the term chauvinism as incivil towards Nicolas Chauvin, either. As much as I appreciate your committment to civility, this may not be the best case to demonstrate it. --Thorsten1 09:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't have the time to reform everyone, but on average I think terms like kaczyzm are derogative and should be avoided, especially when they are not estabilished by created by editors of Wikipedia. Back OT, the censorship at RE article is really annoying. Perhaps you could voice your opionion to that more significant, content-affecting issue?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not censorship but resistance against addition of irrelevant content into the article. If you would have inserted things about... I dunno... Catherine viewing Polish culture as anti-Russian or something, that would be relevant... But stuff about Catherine hating Polish constitution belongs to article about Catherine, monarchy or something in that tune - not to an article dedicated to culture and fine arts. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly you are incorrect. Catherine didn't hate Polish constitution, she disliked Englightenment changes to the political system that threatened absolute monarchies, thus she supported actions against French Revolutions and directly participated in stomping out a similar occurence in her sphere of influence.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, you've done no time to "reform" any of your compatriots. If you dealt with Molobo firmly instead of encouraging him and using him as a battering ram to advance the PL nationalist POV he would have still not be banned. If you have moderated Halibutt more lately, instead of supporting him, there would have been at least three more Lithuanian editors still around. Back to OT, spamming of Russian articles with irrelevant Polish grievances is really annoying. --Irpen 19:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How nice of you to play the irrelevant blame game instead of discussing disputed content. Need I remind you that there are editors on your turf who are in need of moderation?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: "Perhaps you could voice your opionion to that more significant, content-affecting issue?" Thanks for asking, but, as I said, my ongoing concern is about Molobo (still alive and kicking) rather than this particular issue, and I choose not to get involved in it. If I did, I'm afraid I would quite probably end up agreeing with Grafikm_fr, so you better don't get me started... ;) --Thorsten1 13:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, you're absolutely right. If it wasn't for my campaign of hatred towards Lithuania and Lithuanians, as someone put it, there would be three more editors around. The only problem with such unsupported accusations is that they are... unsupported. Some people prefer to blame me for their own failures, that's all. No links, no diffs, no sense... just accusations. It's always better to blame a Pole, isn't it. That's what you're doing here BTW. No idea how to reach some common ground basing on facts and figures, so you're accusing uninvolved people (me) of fancy things instead of admitting you don't have a clue. Or am I wrong? //Halibutt 19:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported? Whoa that was funny... How about "And let me state it clear: the only reason I'm leaving is your constantly repeating and absolutely unprovoked ignorant insults towards my nation and my language by Halibutt", or I decided to simply f*** it (...) Hali, good luck on further destruction of Lithuanian community on WP (...) Every Lithuanian is destined to have a problem with Halibutt, because his mission here is not to let anything Lithuanian on WP". But that must be an evil plot but anti-Halibutt people, no doubt... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs: reasons of leaving stated by one editor, by another one. The third editor left at the same time, a coinsidence of course. --Irpen 21:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for quoting the accusations, that's precisely what I meant. Now could you quote at least one proof? One would do, really. The Lithuanian guys in question were unable to, but perhaps you could help them? At least one piece of evidence of my disputed behaviour? Please? At least one link to unprovoked ignorant insults towards Lithuanian nation and language? Nope. Casting accusations and accusing others for your own failures is easier. I wonder what would you feel if I went on a wiki break shouting here and there that, say, the only reason I leave is your threatening to kill me IRL, your shadowing and campaign of hatred towards me. Would that sound any more serious? //Halibutt 05:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

maybe this: Errr... judging from the latest edits I guess the page would soon be moved to Eustachiusasas Tyškievičiusasas, or some similar name... will do for the unprovoked ignorant insults towards Lithuanian nation and language, no? M.K. 22:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ghirla for providing the diff. That's right, 3 minutes is far too long before the self-moderating revert. On the other hand, I don't know Halibutt: can you imagine what I could think about him and this text totally out of context before the link was provided? It lasted about 3 hours... Beaumont 12:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite useful tactics, don’t you think? M.K. 15:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I dont 100% understand what you are suggesting. Anyway, I can not see any particular tactic in 3 min self-revert. Frankly, some vandalisms wait longer and, personally, I make relatively many 3-min-up-to-3-days different self corrections; sometimes I make mistakes and sometimes I choose to delete a wittier text not to excite unnecessary emotions. Still, good faith assumption works. But I'm afraid it's getting a little OT so, preferably, I stop here. Beaumont 16:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halibutt, this is not your RfC or ArbCom for me to post diffs to "unprovoked ignorant insults towards Lithuanian nation and language" that led to expulsion of Lithuanian editors (I can dig those links out if you insist). The matter at hand is that they left making it clear that the reason of their leave is your attitudes.

Piotrus said above that he can't spend time on "reforming" his friends. That's more than I asked. I asked him to moderate them. Instead, with his silent and not so silent encouragement Molobo caused so much grief that he fell under the one year block (he would have still be around if he would have been getting clear signals from Piotrus that pushing Polish nationalist propaganda and Russophobia into Wikipedia is unnaceptable. Instead, he was only subtly supported by you and Piotrus). Similarly, if Piotrus did not automatically take your side in every conflict with the Lithuanian editors, they might have still be around. I think that moderated Molobo might have been an asset rather than a liability. There is no doubt that Renata, Lokyz and EED were assets. Now everyone is gone and in the finest Molobo's tradition, Polonophilic stuff is being copy/pasted (now by Piotrus) to a whole bunch of articles. RE is just the latest example. --Irpen 19:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, how handy. From now on when I engage in a conflict over some facts with you and start lacking arguments, I will likewise throw accusations on someone who is not involved, and when pressed for facts to back the slander up, I shall claim that it's not a RfC, so I could say what I wanted. How handy indeed. //Halibutt 23:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No comment...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a problem with display of refs in that article, causing one user to revert addition of cite.php format. I'd appreciate it if other users could look at this revision and comment at talk if they find it corrupted or not.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently on VfD. Could someone take a look whether it has any value? TIA Pavel Vozenilek 20:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this would be worth translating into an English article: pl:Orędzie biskupów polskich do biskupów niemieckich. --Lysy^talk 21:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already done it few months ago :) Letter of Reconciliation of the Polish Bishops to the German Bishops :) Or to be specific, I wrote this article IIRC before there was a stub on pl wiki, so it may use translating and expantion.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am close to finishing inline referencing this article. I'd appreciate help with the last unverified facts, and translation of stubs from pl wikipedia (indicated in article with external links). Currently the most controversial and unverified citation is about Wałesa ("It was later revealed that SB had prepared fake documents accusing Wałęsa of various immoral and illegal activities -- these were given to the Nobel committee in an attempt to derail the Wałęsa nomination"), plus the section of post-1989 is the one most desperatly needing citations.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now nominated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Solidarity.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful if someone could upload some photographs for Wooden Churches of Southern Little Poland and the monastery in Kalwaria Zebrzydowska. Appleseed (Talk) 19:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check commons:Kalwaria Zebrzydowska.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and what about this one?; you may also dig here, "S" may be of some interest. Good luck! Beaumont 21:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, how can I get those photos onto the English WP? Appleseed (Talk) 19:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a specialist but will try to explain... If the image is in Commons repository then it is enough to insert a following typical entry in the article: [[Image:Kalwariazebrzydowska.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Your description]]; if the picture is not in Commons repository (this is often the case in plwiki), then you may download it on your computer and then upload it on your enwiki particular page. Just go to the page and click "upload file" link on the bottom box on the left (under "search"). You will have to deal with licensing issues; in general there is no problem when it comes from another wiki (GFDL applies).Then you insert the same entry as above. Good luck! --Beaumont 20:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also check commons:Category:Wooden churches of Poland. A.J. 10:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thank you all for your help. Appleseed (Talk) 14:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May be of interested to some.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A useful page to add to one's watchlist, I'd think.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was Khmelnytsky's campaign a genocide? Ethnic cleansing? Citation needed. Mieciu K 21:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wiśniowiecki's actions in response to the ones by Chmielnicki left pretty much of the Ukraine empty, but I doubt it should be called ethnic cleansing. If anything, it was cleansing the area of all people, not of any group in particular. Besides, when Chmielnicki started his unfortunate uprising he was setting aflame the villages belonging to the szlachta, but in most cases not really inhabitted by Poles. Same for Wiśniowiecki, who replied in kind, but did not focus on the leaders but rather on common folk. //Halibutt 01:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have acquired a habit of making a note when one of the 'Poland-related' users applies for admin, I thought I'd direct your attention to Elonka's request.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

213.199.198.238 (talk · contribs) Ktoś na siłę robi z Kaczyńskiego Żyda, a z Wachowskich Polaków, polecam uwadze. A.J. 16:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O, nasz wlasny troll, to zawsze mila odmiana :> Zaraz zablokuje :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about trying to bring Battle of Grunwald to FA status ? That could be a positive collaboration of Lithuanian and Polish editors. --Lysy^talk 08:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jogaila is closer, thanks to Halibutt, but we would have to solve the name first :( Or Barbara Radziwiłł, as suggested by EED before he joined the 'blame Halibutt and the life is simpler' club :( His behaviour does not invalidate the subject, however.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By Barbara Radziwill, I suppose you mean the same who was Queen of Poland. The same, that Polish Wiki tells us "probably" had cancer of the uterus, and "probably" had syphilis. What delightful theories and how thoughtful too! Would love to see the pathology reports and STD tests backing up these theories. Dr. Dan 03:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things I love about Wiki is how it brings together people with so diverse interests... :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some possibly related remarks.

1. some good articles start from plwiki stubs translated to English. They get developped here and eventually, the results are transmitted to the (still much younger) sister project (BTW, was it a sequel to Talk:Barbara Radziwiłł?).
2. maybe difficult to see, but the first "probably" was a poor translation of "najprawdopodobniej". Here, the latter is rather closer to "alleged" as in the following example: A number of famous historical personages, including Charles VIII and Ivan the Terrible, have been alleged to have had syphilis. Dr. Dan, "najprawdopodobniej" means also "istnieja silne poszlaki, niekoniecznie jednak dowody wprost" and, if you wish, in Polish it could be applied to the other theory ("syphilis"). But was not.
3. the second "probably" is invented by Dr Dan; the "syphilis assertion" is sourced and, yes, to my knowledge it seems to contradict the former unsourced "uterus cancer theory" which, therefore, should be deleted.

And Now For Something Completely Different. Enjoy the probabilistic nature of the following fragment of a FA on frwiki (google translation): "Nothing authorizes, however, to suppose that Hugo, in spite of his enthusiasm for a colonization carried out by idealistic pioneers, therefore would not have condemned the quite different colonialist order which would occur a few decades later." (OR, no source...). I'm not laughing at the French! To the contrary, it's just too delicate to translate it literally (or you have to deal with the present debate in France). --Beaumont (@) 08:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beaumont, thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions regarding the Polish Wiki article on Barbara Radziwill. A couple of after thoughts. You may know, that there is a concern that a "conflict" between some Polish and Lithuanian contributors has gotten out of hand lately. Hopefully this will be resolved amicably and soon. It has been suggested that to help assuage the "conflict", a greater sensitivity to certain articles and biographies be considered as well. But I'm digressing.

So I don't really think that I "invented" the second probably, since short of a VDRL test we are not able to determine whether Barbara had the "French Disease" (another inappropriate ethnic slur), "sourced" or not. In a rather short article, bordering on a stub, how relevant is this "theory" anyway. How appropriate is it? It seems a little lurid. Imagine if some moron wrote that in his final days, Marshal Pilsudski, dying of liver cancer acquired from his alcholic tendencies, became incontinent and continually shitted on himself. And challenged, this moron could claim and show, that this "information" was "sourced" and relevant. Hope I'm making my point. I had to laugh a little reading the Polish Wiki article on Antanas Smetona. Here the "beauty" (again in a very short article), was quoting bolshevik propaganda that he absconded money or some such blather. That's nice. In the Aleksandras Stulginskis article we have the Polish version of his name added to the article. Personally, it doesn't bother me. I bring it up mostly because there was an issue with Lithuanians, "lithuanianizing" Polish names recently. Btw, Stulginskis was not born in Poland or educated there. Any thoughts on these matters? Dr. Dan 15:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your post. I guess I can see the point. Partially, I can agree... but..

1. as for the relevance of "French Disease": personally I find it quite interesting (e.g. Barbara was 30); and it is not so personal to be interested in this kind of stuff, as we have (somewhere else) the following passage...treatment for syphilis, which it is speculated that Ivan had. Now, the Polish source for the Barbara case is quite reputable (and it states that her brothers were concious of her problem, not a bad test).
2. Well, yes, I had some problems to get the point 'cause I considered her Polish and from a Polish PoV (it was about plwiki); and I considered this PoV sympathetic. As far as I can understand, you suggest that one may consider her Lithuanian Calvinist (as she was) and take this little fact of illenss ofensive, the more as indicated by a Polish historian... Maybe I'm wrong here, but if not, all I can say... it's crazy. The problem is, that Barbara as a queen of Poland (PLC, whatever) would be eventually identified as a (romantic) compatriot by the Poles (and plwiki does seem to be coherent with what I state here). Anyway, I like Barbara and I see no reason to refrain from inserting a (very modest) remark about her illness. The problem of Pilsudski example is just a question of neutral language; no way to present anything like this, and, I guess, no one proposes this.
3. As for plwiki naming conventions. Did you try "Kartezjusz" (Rene Descartes) there? And this "Kartezjusz" is not a redirect, this is the name. For Aleksandras Stulginskis could be the same: maybe (probably..) in Polish sources he appears as Stulginski, so adding a Polish name is not a big mistake. As for Antanas Smetona, his Polish bio, quite well developped as for plwiki standards, looks like slightly biased and favorable to him, e.g. it does not qualify him a dictator as the English version does. Actually, the "beauty" citation makes also a part of the positive bias. The soviet propaganda qualification is _highly_ pejorative in Polish, so this does not suggest anything of negative connotation (one might guess that you laughed at the straightforward meaning and questioned the relevance of the fact). BTW, this is quite problematic to NPOV 'cause neutralisation of the language (e.g. "radzieckie zrodla") would change the meaning dramatically so that it would not fit to the text. Maybe the best would be to suppress it (unsourced). But, personally, I find it really interesting, it gives an insight into the propaganga language and mechanisms (and nothing to laugh at).

Best, --Beaumont (@) 18:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To add my few cents of worth, the pl wiki sources BR syphilis to Paweł Jasienica's book, and gives a page number - quite reliable and verifiable claim, I'd say. Although if this is controversial I'd certainly agree that we should present this as 'Polish historian Jasienica notes that...' instead of some general fact.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your imput. I won't disparage Jasienica's credentials as a historian anymore than I would disparage Suetonius', as they both make great bed-time reading for some people. In so far as the medical and microbiological understanding of syphilis are concerned, they are far removed from the time frame in question regarding BR. This "theoretical" information is neither encyclopedic nor necessary in the context of a short biographical sketch, IMHO. If this is the kind of stuff which is important in Polish Wiki regarding their Queen, so be it. I'm only making an observation. Nor do I intend to RV, edit, or make any other changes to it (did that last year to no avail, as I felt sorry that she was as such, "besmirched"). Besides, the Radziwills seem to always "take the heat" in Polish history. You know, better to blame someone else, rather than to blame one's own shortcomings. Best to you, likewise. Dr. Dan 23:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your POV. We are supposed to write informative articles, not whitewash anybody. While dying because of the STD is not something one is usually proud of, it is not emphasised (in lead), nor we should assume it demeans BR (she could have gotten it from her legitimate husband for all that we know). As for Radziwills taking the blame - again I don't exactly understand your point. That family produced both some of the greatest and worst figures in Polish history; due to Sienkiewicz we tend to remember some of the former, but I wouldn't really say they 'took the heat'; nor do I understand your attempt to draw the lines between Poles (of PLC) and Radziwiłłs...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "POV" is that it is 1. Impossible to determine if she had syphilis short of exhuming her today (something I doubt that the Lithuanian government would be inclined to do), and running elaborate tests on the corpse. 2. Impossible to prove that she died of the disease, in any case. 3. While it's not a good idea to "whitewash" information concerning personalities, the other extreme is to "theorize" about unverifiable information, leading to misleading impressions. You might want to investigate the recent waste of time that the exhumation of the 12th U.S. President Zachary Taylor led to (due to another "theorizing historian"). As to the unique position that the Radziwills hold in Polish history, my understanding of this has less to do with Sienkiewicz or Jerzy Hoffman, for that matter, than a general assessment by most scholarly historians. But Piotrus, that's way too OT to discuss here and now (maybe on their respective talk pages). So again, regarding BR, in a short article about her (not an in-depth biography), this "theory" struck me as lurid and unnecessary. It is my hope to keep some of the "trivia" out of WP, that borders on tabloid style journalism. If a young person comes to this encyclopedia who knows nothing about BR and may not ever pursue the subject any further, is it proper to expose them to an unprovable "theory"? One that later will enable them to say "Duh, I read somewhere she had VD...and died from it." That's where I'm coming from, that's my "POV". Dr. Dan 13:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ratunku? Dr. Dan 19:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Active polls relating to Poland-related articles: Jogaila - the RM saga, Part X (moved here from top). Balcer 15:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think that the box was quite handy. Sometimes it's difficult to find any information here among all the musings about Barbara Radziwiłł's syphilis or lack of thereof (What about Marysieńka btw? Or would it be too Francophobic?). However, I can see your point. Maybe something more informative and less controversial in form would do? I.e. "Ongoing Poland-related polls" without any warning signs?--SylwiaS | talk 17:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Droga Sylwia, don't you think your remarks belong in the preceeding discussion? And BTW, we are not talking about musings here. We are talking about Polish Wikipedia's entry about an unprovable, pejorative, "theory" about the Queen of Poland, wife of the last descendant of Jogaila. Of course things got a lot better after the Jagiellons were gone, didn't they. Dr. Dan 19:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My remarks were exactly where they should be, however the preceeding discussion should be rather at the article's talk page than here.--SylwiaS | talk 19:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, all. I have a question about a small Polish ingredient in an otherwise Poland-irrelevant page, Hiroh Kikai, which I've been working on for some time. Briefly, Kikai is a photographer who's well regarded and moderately well-known in Japan but almost unknown anywhere else, with the partial exception of Poland. Thus the article on him has plenty of references in Japanese, a couple of links in Polish — quote:

• (in Polish) O, ludzie! (Japonica Creativa) Essay.
• (in Polish) Hiro Kikai w Galerii PF Exhibition notice, with two photographs from the "Persona" series.

— and mention of his contributions to one issue of a Polish periodical (Literatura na świecie). Unfortunately I can't read Polish. If there were also good references in English, I'd skip the Polish links (and perhaps trim the Japanese ones too), but as it is I'm reluctant to limit the references to a single language that most potential readers of the article won't know. Yet my ignorance of what's written in the Polish materials gnaws at me. ("Essay" is just a guess. And if it is an essay, what's it about?) If somebody who can read Polish and is at least slightly interested in photography would take a look, I'd be grateful and the article could well benefit.

I'll be watching this page. -- Hoary 04:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While looking for stuff to expand I found this pitful stub. Would make a nice DYK, but what about the name? Leave it at the uncomprehensivle Polish, or translate - Main Marketplace? Main Square (Kraków)?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it should be renamed (misleading even in Polish, cf pl:Rynek krakowski). I'd prefer "Main square" to "marketplace", see [10]; google seems to support it as well. The question is whether to put "Krakow Main Square" or "Main Square (Kraków)". Not sure, but the first looks more specific to me (preferable).--Beaumont (@) 22:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think second is more popular on Wiki, or Main Square, Kraków. I have expanded the article so we can WP:DYK it shortly, feel free to contribute anything else :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok.--Beaumont (@) 22:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I found that "Kraków Market Square" / "Market Square in Kraków" is also in use (and as a whole phrase) and this seems to be more direct translation of "rynek". The two "Main Square, Kraków" and "Market Square, Kraków" look good for me. Bien à vous. --Beaumont (@) 10:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See User:W.marsh/list, search for Emax and Witkacy's contribs (eh...those guys will haunt us for years to come), among the affected articles are those about Wybicki and Zaleski....-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think both were acting in good faith, but without a clear grasp of what constitutes public domain material. A part of the problem is websites with very unclear copyright terms - like president.pl. They say that the material can be 'reused' except the "information about Poland" taken from a certain book. But they don't indicate clearly what that part is. And 'can be reused' is a bit vague. Haukur 23:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Grand_Duchy_of_Poznań#Requested_move Radomil talk 19:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do check User:MarkS/Extra edit buttons. It's a great tool that I don't know how I would do my wiki editing without :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, check Help_talk:Edit_toolbar#How_to_remove_buttons.3F.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the one you have in your .js :) Sadly, it works only occasionally. Any ideas why? //Halibutt 20:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it will not work on the monobook itself (and likely other *.js pages). Other than that, it works on all Wikipedia editable pages for me... perhaps you should ask Mark?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, worked on my monobook - once or twice, before I closed my browser... Anyway, is there a better alternative to the monobook? //Halibutt 21:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. Do you mean the skin? You need to refresh the browser's pages for *.js script on every computer for changes to work, I think.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtuti Militari will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 7, 2006. Feel free to improve the article even further before it's main page appearance.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Applied some refurbishing to the tables with names so that we could add more pics. I have a plethora of VM photos from our last visit to the MWP in Warsaw, let me know should you need some of them (I mean I have at least 20 different VM of various historical personalities). //Halibutt 21:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons gallery seems like the best option :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting reading about some aspects of Polish historiography ([11]).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments about reintroducing those examples?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of Wisla vodka. Can anyone verify this? Appleseed (Talk) 02:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably there is Wisla vodka... among thousands of other vodkas :) Speedy delete. A.J. 11:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article's subject is confusing to me; I have suggested changing its focus at Talk:Prussia (region)#Province?. Input or clarification would be appreciated. Olessi 19:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the nearest time (2 weeks?) I will have a lecture about pl.Wiki at ArtGaleryKafe. The "interessment" in the Polish community is great, but I am not the person who has real privilages to talk about it. My knowledge is poor, and I need some support from someone who knows Wiki better than me. Meeting is scheduled on Friday, November 17, at ArtGalleryKafe in WoodDale, IL. Please, help Belissarius 07:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Halibutt is known to many people taking part in discussions on this noticeboard, I believe some of you may be interested in reading and commenting on that page, as requested by the creator of this RfC, User:M.K.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In two weeks I shall have a lecture for Polish community of Chicagoland on Wikipedia. A lot of Polish speaking people is using the Wiki, but they have not knowledge of free encyclopedia. During the lecture at "Art Gallery Kafe" in Wooddale I would try to explain to them (I am expecting some 30-40 people of audience) how it works, and how important it is to all of us. I am looking for a little help from Polish speaking Wikipedists - personally or on line. Thank you! Belissarius 05:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Piotrus' online video presentation. Scroll down to ITmCast009. Appleseed (Talk) 05:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like with most things, the best way to learn about WP is to get your hards dirty. Find some articles you're interested in and expand them. The technical side is fairly easy, but it gets complicated when you start to get into all the rules and processes that have been created over the years. Appleseed (Talk) 05:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See meta:Presentations, it contains a presentations I used as well.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Polonism is in CFD again. The result of the previous CFD was keep, so is it ok to resubmit it again? Appleseed (Talk) 05:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the unwritten rule is 'not until a month has passed since the last voting', and excessive nomination would fall under WP:POINT, WP:TE or something along those lines.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I copyedited and streamlined Silesian and Silesian German, but both articles are still unreferenced and have potentially confusing text (and titles, IMO). Please correct if I made any errors while editing them. I also created Silesia (disambiguation) and Silesian (disambiguation). Olessi 02:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Silesian" is definitely confusing and needs something ("language" or "dialect") to follow it. The article discusses the problem of classifying it as one or the other. Interestingly, the de article title calls it a Polish dialect, and the pl article title calls it a language. Appleseed (Talk) 04:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposal to move all the categories in Category:Polish noble families from the "Category:Surname" format to "Category:Surname family" format. This may be a beneficial move, worth looking into. Appleseed (Talk) 04:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Międzymorze#Strengthen_Poland..._and_her_neighbors.3F. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1990 treaty between Germany and Poland confirming their border at the Oder-Neisse line. Appleseed (Talk) 03:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is (again) in need of attention and sourcing. Today User:Lance6968 added numerous citation needed tags. Maybe we should change the article to a generic title "Jewish communism" and ask other eastern european wikipedians for help. Anybody interested? Mieciu K 13:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Jewish communism or rather Jewish support for communism is certainly a notable topic we need to cover, but it is different from the Żydokomuna (notable) slur.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments appreciated at Laments (Treny) and Organizacja Bojowa PPS.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Main_Page#Polish_Day.3F... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umedard (talk · contribs) is a quite active editor from Poland, who has started many articles - unfortunatly his command of English is (as he admits on his userpage) intermediate at best. If anybody would like to go over his contributions and copyedit them (or simply slap {{copyedit}} or similar one), this would be appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [12]. As strong as ever - and affecting even relativly new editors :( I'd like to ask everyone to stop antagonizing our Lithuanian friends; if they so strongly feel about city names in other language in articles about cities in modern Lithuania - let them have their own way, at least for now. They will grow up eventually, or the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) will give us a clear rule; one way or another, please don't engage in any editing conflicts over this.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla feels very stong that the name is not appopriate. Comments appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're bored, check my current task, List of biographies from Internetowa encyklopedia PWN. The main goal is importing, verifying and completing entries from the list. Feel free to edit this namespace without my permission. Visor 18:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is a great task, and I will be happy to hel - have you added it to the lists and categories at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles? I'd like to also remidn about a smiliar initative I started some time ago: User:Piotrus/List of Poles for list of articles missing from Polski Słownik Biograficzny.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connection between Poles and Vandals -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And while we are at it, let's deal with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scandinavian connections to Mieszko I.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone like to accept the challenge of expanding four articles related to early Polish statehood? They have been stubs for a while, and I thought about nominating them for deletion; however, the presence of interwikis suggests that editors on other WPs think it's a worthwhile topic (even if the articles are mostly translations of en).

• Kingdom of Poland (1025–1138)
• Kingdom of Poland (1138–1320)
• Kingdom of Poland (1320–1385)
• Kingdom of Poland (1385–1569)

Appleseed (Talk) 19:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they are stubs today, each has the potential to be expanded into articles like Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and (to a lesser extent) articles about later reincarnation of the Polish state (Congress Kingdom, Second Polish Republic, People's Republic of Poland and such). We may however consider merging of some of the above articles.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. My message was an invitation to expand those articles. Appleseed (Talk) 20:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla insists he was a Czech painter and has other 'great' ideas how to improve this article. Comments appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing again? Sigh... --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirlandajo, could you explain your concerns? Regional notice boards are designed for collaborating on articles related to those regions, and soliciting comments is part of that process. In fact, you do the same thing on the Russian board. Appleseed (Talk) 16:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncertain about the title and content of Polabian Slavs. Clarification and/or feedback at Talk:Polabian Slavs would be appreciated. Olessi 01:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This important naming convention is near completion, with annoucements at NC, RfC/P and VP(P) - so if you have not read it, or want to make some comments, now is the time. Barring serious issues being raised, this will become an official guideline in the near future.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently a stub, but it has a lot of resources in Polish, English and French language. It would be nice if somebody could destub this article. And there is another problem, the name of article. Should it be:

• Artur Żmijewski (movie maker)
• Artur Żmijewski (filmmaker), or
• Artur Żmijewski (film director)? Visor 23:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think film director is the more proper term, but there are users with better 'feel' of the language than me. Logologist?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a valid question was raised (per title), Ghirla noted that the editors should concentrate on that topic instead of wasting time on 'nonesense' such as Soviet crimes. After I replied that Soviet crimes are notable as well, I was accussed (by other editors) of 'horrendous slur' and 'aggressive and revisionist behaviour'. Perhaps some of you would like to comment on the situtation? Especially since this discussion is being advertised as 'outrageous claim' in other places...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are Germany articles by quality, Lithuania articles by quality, Taiwan articles by quality...heck, there are Narnia articles by quality :D Who would be interesting in maintaining Poland articles by quality? See what needs to be done.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Antoni Dunin
• Rodryg Dunin

I'm posting about these here, since some of the sources used were in Polish, so it would be helpful to have Polish-speakers participate in the deletion discussions. --Elonka 20:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I think it is an important piece of info, but... we have articles about many smaller masts. What's wrong with this one?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Postdlf#Commons_revert and User_talk:Postdlf#Image:Ba.C5.82t.C3.B3w_Park_Jurajski_001.jpg. And the worst thing is that he seems to be right: commons:Commons:Derivative works... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiedy ktoś będzie miał czas to trzeba uzupełnić artykuł http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concert_halls o filharmonie w Polsce: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filharmonia. Chyba wszystkie inne kraje europejskie mają wypisane, tylko Polska nie. To samo z operami: trzeba je wpisać w http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_opera_houses ze spisu: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polskie_teatry_operowe. Pozdrawiam. LUCPOL 15:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested moves for four of the Wielkopolska Uprising articles plus the disambig. I had previously supported the current title but have now reversed my position. The voting for all articles will take place on the disambig talk page. Please share your thoughts. Appleseed (Talk) 22:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Interesting discussion centered around NPOV issues. Comments appreciated. For a more bizzare discussion, see Talk:History of Poland (1918–1939) - fortunatly that user refrains from editing articles (so far).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: increasingly ugly revert war and deteriorating discussion. Civil comments and cool heads needed to stabilize situation.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  09:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An important event, and some users who are running for office may be familiar to some of you. In the end, isn't voting in those elections as important as voting in our national ones? :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Copied from Talk:Poland per 'no response'.

Polish flag is white-red not grey-red. Look here for example [13] KRID

Well, not so clear, see Flag of Poland for more details. The question is - should we stick to the law or to the common usage, the president webside included? My preference is for the latter (i.e. "white"). That's less surprising. However, the Flag of Poland article, which discusses the matter in details, should present the correct ("grey") color (or both). Comments? --Beaumont (@) 09:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I find "grey" somehow surprising. Have you seen it anywhere? Nothing is explained. AFAIK, the surprise is not recommended, yet the color is justified by the law. If you express your preference to follow the above proposition I'll do it. Any other suggestions?--Beaumont (@) 19:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, unfortunately, we are not free to invent reality at Wikipedia, but instead have the duty to report it. When the Polish flag was legally defined in 1980, likely no one thought about how it should be displayed on a shining computer screen. Consequently, the law as it exists today, specifies a shade of white which, according to thoughtful people who have been discussing this matter on the Polish Wikipedia talk page pl:Dyskusja:Flaga Polski and updating the article pl:Flaga Polski (and the English interwiki equivalent at Flag of Poland) have reasonably arived at a calculation for the white of the flag, which, on a bright, luminescent computer screen -- which after all, is a source of light, and not a reflecting surface like an actual flag in real life -- does appear a bit gray. But that's only so because of contrast: If you viewed the page, instead, on a black/dark background, you would not have the sensation of seeing gray. It would look white.

As we know from comparing sheets of white paper, some white is whiter than other. Polish law, for better or worse, has carefully described the whiteness of the white of the flag, and this legal whiteness has in turn been calculated recently for display on the computer screen by Polish Wikipedians. If, in the future, Polish law says something else about the display of the flag on computer screens, then we will of course update the depiction of the flag once again. For now, however, I ask, what is more factual? Simplistically assuming the whitest white of the computer screen -- a lightbulb, really -- or present the shade of white (and the shade of crimson stipulated by the same law) faithfully, according to the letter of the law? I invite thouse who can, to follow the discussion on the Polish Wikipedia, where it has been going on for quite a while. There is no need to campaign for the pure white of the flag under every article that makes use of the flag. I suggest that on the English Wikipedia, the correct place for the English-language discussion is at Talk:Flag of Poland. The matter has also been raised at the Village pump at the Wikimedia Commons, since the repeated mutual reverts of the uploaded newly computed flag versions have led to the freezing the old flag versions as protected files, for now. But I suggest that the center of the sustained discussion and offered expertise is on the Polish Wikipedia talk page for pl:Flaga Polski, not on Talk:Poland or pl:Dyskusja:Polska, or even here. Let's keep the conversation focused and factual, as opposed to wage a campaign of agitation for one point of view or another wherever possible, repeating the same thing over and over, or as Polish Wikipedian Krid has admitted doing, replacing the link to the flag on other wikipedias' "Poland" article with a Polish-language message of protest... That's vandalism, surely, not a way to build consensus. --Mareklug ^talk 11:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! --Beaumont (@) 12:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-From a colorimetric point of view: "[people] have reasonably arived at a calculation for the white of the flag, which, on a bright, luminescent computer screen -- which after all, is a source of light, and not a reflecting surface like an actual flag in real life". This means that the people you are referring to translated from a light-absorbing surface colorplane to a light-emitting one. This means that they did the translation knowing the result wuould be, by a perceptive point-of-view, wrong.

-From a perception point of view: "If you viewed the page, instead, on a black/dark background, you would not have the sensation of seeing gray. It would look white." Wrong, have a look yourself:

-From a common sense point of view: If the flag is expected to be white, while it appears grey (and even on a black background it would never be white), then somebody, even in good faith, made a mistake, and should admit it, instead of keeping on supporting a blatantly wrong version.

-Furthermore, keeping the discussion on pl:Flaga Polski will cut out everybody who does not know Polish. As the result of the discussion will affect a lot of pages all around Wikipedia, an international talkpage should be chosen to settle this matter.

--RedMC 11:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on plwiki seems to converge to a consensus supporting my first proposition. The rationale is partially coherent with user:RedMC stance. The main expert, who actually created the "grey" flag supports it too. To avoid edit wars I refrain from quick changes here, but at the moment there is no strong support for the "grey" version (with one exception of the article where the flag is described in details and the "grey" color explained to the reader). --Beaumont (@) 11:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Polish friends, Sagan was a redirect to Żagań, because it is the only appelation of the duchy used in Western sources prior to 1945. Unsurprizingly, most articles linking to Sagan actually refer to Żagań. All the other Sagans were listed on Sagan (disambiguation), linked from Żagań through Template:Redirect. Today some guys destroyed the redirect and moved dab page to Sagan, which is now a collection of American surnames. I don't have time to dispute with such military ignorance of our policies and historical usage, but think that some of you may want to check this systemic bias on Talk:Sagan. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note for the record that per Wikipedia:Spam#Canvassing, this sort of an electioneering post is frowned upon. And, just FYI, Francoise Sagan appears to be French, not American. --Atlant 14:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If asking for an opinion about Polish towns on the Poland-related noticeboard qualifies as "spamming", then you should label WP:RFC as "spam". --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To most Americans, and thus to a large portion of users of Wikipedia, the name Sagan is strongly associated with Carl Sagan, while they never heard of Sagan the Duchy. In light of that, having Sagan as the disambiguation page makes sense. 99.9% of users will want to get to Carl Sagan when they type Sagan into the search box, and this option saves them a detour through Żagań. Still, that is just my personal opinion. Both solutions are essentially fine with me. Balcer 14:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Balcer. When I think of Sagan, I think of Carl, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do think about Françoise Sagan first, because she's more famous in France than Carl... :) But that's beside the point. Maybe this discussion should be moved to the related talk page? Personally, the current disambig page is more or less OK for me, but maybe other editors will have different opinions? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should encourage American ignorance, because it's not an American project in the first place. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPA, WP:CIV, and WP:AGF before you get in trouble. --Atlant 15:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You found a wrong guy to issue threats to. I am off to investigate how you moved Sagan (disambiguation) to Sagan. It seems admin tools were seriously abused in performing this move. Best, Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I indeed discovered that a redirect was deleted in the circumvention of WP:RM. My policy towards admin's abuse is strict. I suppose the illicit move should be overturned and a legitimate move should be requested through WP:RM. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no trouble because it's not a threat. The similar, yet more popular problem with Georgia (the country and the US state) was subject of quite countless debates, and was finally turned into a disambig while it pointed, IIRC, to the US state. So the subject is definitely worth looking into. And Ghirla is right in a way, because there is already enough systemic bias on WP, there is no point creating/encouraging more... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla and M.K. are asking for comments about my behaviour on Wikipedia. I am happy to indulge them by posting the link to their request on a page frequented by many editors who have edited with me in the past - although I am fully aware they may use it as yet another example of (quote from their request): "canvassing supporters on the Polish noticeboard" and "calling on a significant group of like-minded, fellow Poles, whom he recruits to his causes (Molobo, Halibutt, Space Cadet, Lysy, Appleseed, Balcer, etc)."-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROTFLOL+this: that's the first Request for Comment that apparently the requester wants to keep without comments :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]